Explanation: In Yevamos (105a), we establish this to be when it flows. If not, it is Tamei due to drops of saliva [mixed with the blood]!

Question: We already excluded above (32b) that red (i.e. blood) is not Metamei a man!

Answer: There, we taught that he does not become a Zav through seeing red;

However, if he already became a Zav, blood that comes from his Ever should be Tamei, just like his spit! Therefore, we need a verse here to exclude.

Explanation: We expound the Vov in v'Zos, just like we expound above Kicho v'Ni'o from the Vov in v'Chi Yarok;

However, "Zos" always comes to exclude. Also this Zos comes to exclude;

In Toras Kohanim, we require two exclusions, "Zos" and "Tamei Hu." One excludes sweat and pus, and one excludes blood that comes from the mouth or Ever.

Explanation: He expounds like this based on the inclusions "v'Chi Yarok ha'Zav ba'Tahor" and "v'Zos";

However, if not for these verses, we would exclude all of these - Kicho v'Ni'o and his urine - from "Tamei Hu", just like [we exclude] blood that comes from the Ever.

Question: Why do we need two verses, "v'Chi Yarok" for Kicho v'Ni'o, and "v'Zos" for his urine?

Answer: From "v'Chi Yarok" we would expound only Kicho v'Ni'o, which leave from the mouth, or also mucus according to R. Yochanan, for it is like spit;

From "v'Zos" we would include only urine, which leaves from the Ever, like Zov, for the verse of "v'Zos" is written regarding Zov, or because [urine] comes from a Tamei place.

Question: It connotes that we would have included a woman's milk from v'Zos if it were reabsorbed. What is the reason? Even Kicho v'Ni'o we would not include from v'Zos, if not for the inclusion "v'Chi Yarok"!

Answer: We must say that if not for the inclusion "v'Chi Yarok", we would have established v'Zos only for Kicho v'Ni'o, which are like spit;

However, now that it says "v'Chi Yarok", v'Zos is extra for everything that gathers and leaves, and can be reabsorbed.

Explanation: [We suggest this] if Zivah is not a Mayan. This was a question above (34b).

Implied question: From Bahem and Mehem we expound in Chagigah (11a) that the Shi'ur [for Tum'as Sheretz] is ka'Adashah (a lentil's worth)!

Answer: That is a mere Asmachta. Shi'urim are a tradition from Moshe from Sinai.

Question: Why didn't we teach together dry and burned, since we expound them from one verse?

Question: Shichvas Zera that does not shoot like an arrow cannot impregnate, yet it is Metamei!

Answer: We require a category that is proper to impregnate. Even if it does not shoot like an arrow, since it is moist, it is considered a kind of semen that can impregnate.

Implied question: It says in Pesachim (7a) that a cavity is not checked, regarding a box used for coins of Ma'aser Sheni!

Answer: That refers to a crevice covered with boards of the box. Such a cavity is not checked.

The text: The text does not say "they asked", for this refers to the question above about a Sheretz.

Explanation #1: They check after laundering. If they do not find a Kesem, the garment is Tahor, even if it surely had a Kesem before laundering, e.g. if they immersed it.

Implied question: It says below (61a) that a garment in which a Kesem was lost, we pass the seven ingredients over it to be Mevatel it! (Stam laundering does not suffice.)

Answer: The Kesem goes away also through Stam laundering.

Implied question: We conclude that there is no Chazakah [that the Kesem goes away] due to laundering!

Answer: That is when the Kesem is in the side or a corner.

Explanation #2: The Kesem does not go away also through Stam laundering. They check their garments before laundering. If she found a Kesem, she passes the seven ingredients over it, or does a total good laundering;

We find that through a good laundering, the Kesem goes away without the ingredients.

Implied question: It says in Pesachim (7a) and Bava Metzi'a (26a) that coins found in Yerushalayim other days of the year (not during the festival) are Chulin, because the markets of Yerushalayim are normally swept every day! (Here we conclude that there is no Chazakah that sweeping gets rid of Sheratzim.)

Answer #1: This is not because the Chazakah is that [any coins] would be swept up. Rather, at the time of sweeping, they normally look and search whether there are coins.

Answer #2: Alternatively, when they check the markets [for Tum'ah, i.e.] that there is not a bone the size of a barley seed, or ka'Adashah of a Sheretz, if there were coins there, they would be found.

Alternate text: R. Tam's text is "Rekes", because Yisre'elim lived in Rekem, like it says in Gitin (2a) "even one who brings a Get from Rekem or Cheger [must say 'it was written and signed in front of me'].

Rebuttal #1: [Our text Rekem] is not difficult at all. There were many cities named Rekem, like I explained there.

Rebuttal #2: Even though there were Yisre'elim in Rekem, it says here that their Kesamim are Tehorim, for Yisrael hide away their Kesamim. Rather, what are found are of Nochrim, and they are Tehorim;

R. Yehudah is Metamei, because they are converts, and they err to use (their stains. They do not hide them.)

Rebuttal #3: Alternatively, here we discuss when we know that the Kesamim are of Nochrim who live there. (Zera Yitzchak - R. Yehudah holds that they err to conduct like Nochrim. Aruch l'Ner suggests that above, the text should say "v'To'im Lehishtamed.")

Implied question: Above (34a), it says that blood of an Ovedes Kochavim is Metamei like her spit and urine!

Answer: Regarding Kesamim, which are mid'Rabanan, they did not decree about them.

Question: If so, in any case we can challenge R. Yochanan, who said that we do not accept converts from Tarmud! (Since their Kesamim are Tehorim, they are Nochrim.)

Implied question: How can we challenge him? The Stam Mishnayos in Kidushin (75b), Yevamos (68b) and several Tana'im hold that if a Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is a Mamzer! (This question assumes that those who say that the child is Kosher hold that he is a Nochri.)

Answer: In any case, we can challenge him from our Mishnah, which holds that Nochrim did not have Bi'ah with Benos Yisrael. Had they had Bi'ah, the Kesamim would be Tamei, for whether the child is a Mamzer or Kosher, he is a Yisrael!

Answer: R. Yochanan and the elders hold like Rami bar Yechezkeil's Beraisa in Yevamos (16a), that we do not accept converts from Karmiyin and Tarmudin;

It argues with our Mishnah here, which is Metaher Kesamim of all Nochrim.

Implied question: Why didn't we answer [that our Mishnah is Metaher Kesamim of all Nochrim] except for Tarmud, like we answer in Gitin (6a) "no, [one who brings a Get from Chutz la'Aretz must say 'Befanai Nechtav u'Befanai Nechtam',] except for [from] Bavel"?

Answer: Since we distinguish regarding Rekem, but not regarding other Nochrim, this implies that all [others] of them are Tehorim.

Question: How may they use [the rooms] when they are Tamei? They are careful about Tum'ah of Mesim and Nefalim!

[Our Mishnah] taught "they are believed to say 'we did not bury Nefalim there'", and the Gemara establishes this to be when a Kusi Kohen stands there.

Above (33a), we said that a married Kusi is Tamei due to Bo'el Nidah, but a single Kusi is not! (We are not concerned lest he is an Av ha'Tum'ah. If Kusim were not careful about Tum'as Mes and Nefalim, we should be concerned!)

Answer: They bury Nefalim there temporarily, and afterwards they remove them and bury them in a cemetery. We do not know when they remove them. (Therefore, we are stringent to consider the room to have Tum'as Ohel.)

Implied question: [Tum'ah of] Kesamim is only mid'Rabanan! (Kusim do not observe mid'Rabanan laws. Why are they trustworthy about this?)

Answer: They are concerned for this Tum'ah, for she thinks that it came from her body [and therefore it is Tamei].