Objection (Abaye): If so, we should say that it should only have said Zav and Tamei la'Nefesh, but not Metzora - we would know that if a Zav is sent, all the more so a Metzora (we will explain why he is more stringent)!

This should teach that there is a time when a Metzora is sent from the Machaneh, but a Zav or Tamei Mes is not, i.e. Pesach brought b'Tum'ah!

Suggestion: Perhaps this is true!

Rejection (Mishnah): When Pesach is brought b'Tum'ah, the following may not eat it - a Zav, Zavah, Nidah, or Yoledes (see note 44 in Appendix); if one of them ate, he is exempt [from Kares].

Defense of Answer #1 (Abaye): Really, we learn like R. Yochanan - it could have said just "Ish Ish Ki Yihyeh Tamei" - la'Nefesh is extra [to exclude Zav and Metzora, for these Tum'os are more stringent, i.e. they are not permitted b'Tzibur, but Tum'as Mes is].

Suggestion: Perhaps "La'Nefesh" rather teaches that only a Tamei Mes brings Pesach Sheni, but not other Temei'im (they do not bring either Pesach)!

Rejection (Beraisa) Question: We know that one who was Tamei Mes or b'Derech Rechokah (far from the Mikdash) brings Pesach Sheni - what is the source for a Zav or Metzora [or Bo'el (one who had relations with a) Nidah - Tosfos deletes this from the text]?

Answer: We learn from "Ish Ish."

Question: What do we learn from "La'Nefesh"?

Answer: This limits the above law, that an Ish is detained to Pesach Sheni but a Tzibur brings Pesach Rishon b'Tum'ah, to Tum'as Mes;

Other Temei'im may not offer it [even if they are the majority of the Tzibur].

(Rav Chisda): If a Metzora entered where he is not allowed, he is exempt - it says "Badad Yeshev" - he must dwell alone; "Mi'Chutz la'Machaneh Moshavo" - this is Menatek the Lav to an Ase (Rashi - it exempts from lashes by giving a correction for the Lav; Tosfos - it reveals that it is not a Lav, rather, it is only an Ase).

Question (Beraisa #1): If a Metzora, Zav or Zavah entered where he is not allowed, he receives 40 lashes;

A Tamei Mes may enter Machaneh Levi - even a Mes itself may be brought there!

"Va'Yikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef Imo" - with him in his place. (This verse precedes the organization onto Machanos, but surely it teaches that Moshe continued to guard Yosef's bones even after he lived in Machaneh Levi - if not, what would we learn from "Imo"?!)

Answer: Tana'im argue about this:

(Beraisa #2 - R. Yehudah): "Badad Yeshev" - a Metzora dwells alone; "Yeshev" - other Teme'im may not be with him.

Suggestion: Perhaps a Zav and a Tamei Mes are expelled from the same Machanos!

Rejection: "V'Lo Yetam'u Es Machaneihem" - they are expelled from different camps.

R. Shimon says, we need not learn from there - it says "Vi'Shalchu Min ha'Machaneh Kol Tzaru'a v'Chol Zav v'Chol Tamei la'Nefesh":

Question: It should have said only Tamei la'Nefesh - we would know that all the more so, a Zav must be sent!

Answer: This teaches that they are expelled from different camps.

Question: It should have said only [Tamei la'Nefesh and] Zav - we would know that all the more so, a Metzora must be expelled [at least as far as a Zav]!

Answer: It says also Metzora to teach that he is sent to a third camp.

"Badad Yeshev" is Menatek the Lav to an Ase. (Rav Chisda hold like R. Shimon; Beraisa #1 is like R. Yehudah, who has no source to Menatek the Lav.)

Question: [We said above that] Zav is more stringent than a Tamei Mes - surely, this is because the Tum'ah emanates from his body - rather, we should say that a Tamei Mes is more stringent, for his Taharah requires Haza'ah on days three and seven [with Mei Chatas]!

Answer: "V'Chol Tamei [la'Nefesh]" includes one who touched a Sheretz (his Tum'ah came from the outside, like a Tamei Mes, also he must leave the camp) - Zav is more stringent than Tamei Sheretz (therefore, the Torah did not need to mention Zav).

Question: Surely, Zav is more stringent than a Tamei Sheretz because the Tum'ah emanates from his body - rather, we should say that Tamei Sheretz is more stringent, for it is even b'Ones [whereas one does not become a Zav if something else caused his emissions]!

Answer: Even b'Ones, he is Tamei [like a Ba'al Keri - see note in Appendix]:

(Rav Huna): The first emission of a Zav is Metamei even if it was b'Ones.

Question: [We said above that] Metzora is more stringent than Zav - surely, this is because he must let his hair grow, tear his clothes, and is forbidden to have relations - rather, we should say that Zav is more stringent, for he can make a Mishkav or Moshav (a Keli made to sit or lie on) an Av ha'Tum'ah), and he is Metamei Klei Cheres by moving them!

Answer: Metzora is more stringent than a Ba'al Keri, which is included from "V'Chol Zav" [and is similar to a Zav - therefore, we already knew that a Metzora must leave].

Question: Surely, Metzora is more stringent than Ba'al Keri like we said (the same reasons why he is more stringent than a Zav (e)) - rather, we should say that a Ba'al Keri is more stringent, for any amount [of semen] is Metamei [but Tzara'as must be the size of a bean]!

Answer: He holds like R. Noson:

(Beraisa - R. Noson): Zov is not Metamei unless there is Chatimas (enough to fill the opening of) ha'Ever;

Chachamim disagree.

A Ba'al Keri is equated to a Zav ("Zos Toras ha'Zav va'Asher Tetzei Mimenu Shichvas Zera," so R. Noson surely requires the same Shi'ur for semen).

Question: What do we learn from "Kol Tzaru'a"?

Answer: This is for parallel structure with "v'Chol Zav" - it does not include anything.

Question: How can R. Yehudah answer R. Shimon's objection [in Beraisa #2 above]?

Answer: He expounds like R. Eliezer:

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "Vi'Shalchu...Kol Tzaru'a v'Chol Zav v'Chol Tamei la'Nefesh" - there is an Isur [Kares] for a Metzora or Zav to be in the Mikdash only when a Tamei Mes is forbidden [but not when Pesach is brought b'Tum'ah].

(Beraisa): We include a Ba'al Keri from "V'Chol Zav."

This supports [the first of the following two teachings of] R. Yochanan:

(R. Yochanan): (A Mishnah teaches that if a Kohen became a Ba'al Keri in the Mikdash he goes through tunnels to a Mikveh in the Mikdash.) The tunnels have no Kedushah;

A Ba'al Keri must leave two Machanos (Machaneh Shechinah and Machaneh Levi).

Question (against the second teaching - Mishnah): A Ba'al Keri is like one who touched a Sheretz.

Suggestion: This refers to which Machanos he must leave (i.e. only one)!

Answer: No, it refers to his Tum'ah (he is Tamei Erev, i.e. he can immerse immediately and become totally Tahor at night - he need not wait seven days).

Objection: The Torah explicitly says that each of them is Tamei Erev [the Mishnah need not teach this]!

Suggestion: We must say that the Mishnah teaches about which Machanos they must leave!

Answer: No, it indeed refers to his Tum'ah - just like touching a Sheretz b'Ones is Tamei, also a seminal emission b'Ones is Metamei.