Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Since the Torah writes "All the days (Kol Y'mei) that the plague is on him" - implying that 'Kol Y'mei asher ha'Nega bo" turns "Kol Yamav Badad Yeishev" in to an Asei that is Menatek the La'av.

Precedent: Like the Pasuk "Lo Yuchal Leshal'chah Kol Yamav".

Question #1: In that case, the Gemara ought to have cited the beginning of the Pasuk(i.e. "Kol Y'mei ...")?

Question #2: Furthermore, asks the Riva, they (the two Pesukim) are not comparable, seeing as "LoYuchal Leshalchah Kol Yamav" actually implies that there is no La'av unless he (therapist) sends her away permanently, whereas there is no such implication here?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that 'Nitak la'Asei' here is not like 'Nitak la'Asei on other places, where the Asei follows immediately after the La'av, thereby implying that it comes to rectify the La'av ...

Examples: Such as "Lo Sosiru mimenu - ve'ha'Nosar ... " (Sh'mos 12), and "Lo Sikach ha'Eim al ha'Banim - Shalei'ach Teshalach" (Devarim 22).

Explanation #2 (cont.): The explanation 'The Torah was Menatek to an Asei' therefore is - that since all the Teme'im were included in "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machneihem", and the Torah then mentions Metzora independently, the Asei comes to remove it from the other Teme'im, to take it away from the La'av, to turn it exclusively into an Asei.

Explanation #2 (concl.): But there where the La'av pertains only to one thing, it does not turn the La'av into an Asei, but remains a La'av and an Asei.

Question: By the same token, a Ba'al-Keri should also not be subject to Malkos in the event that he entered to within his boundary, since by him too, the Torah was Menatek the La'av into an Asei, as is written "And he shall go outside the camp"?

Answer: Here (is different, because) the two Asei - "Badad Yesishev" and "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh Moshavo" are written in the same Pasuk.

Clarification: This Nituk Asei, it seems, is only e effective with regard to the third camp (Machaneh Yisrael), since is not worse than a Zav, seeing as it is possible to establish it by the third camp.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas in Machaneh Shechinah he remains Chayav Kareis, since he is not worse than a Mechusar Kipurim.

Proof: And this is also implied in Perek Kol ha'Pesulim (Zevachim, Daf 32:) where the Gemara says 'And if a partial entry is considered an entry, how can he (the Metzora [even]) place his hands inside (the Azarah) for (the blood and the oil to be placed on) his thumbs, seeing as both of them (Metzora and Ba'al-Keri) are Chayav Kareis?

Proof (cont.): And he answered 'from the burden that you placed on me (Metzora), I will answer you: Since the Torah permits it for his Tzara'as (in the form of a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv), so too, does it permit it for his Keri!'

Refutation: One can however, refute it, in that the Sugya there goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, who later on, does not consider it 'Nituk to an Asei.

Text: The Riva does not have in his text 'Bo'alei Nidos' together with Zavin ...

Reason: Since the Gemara will say later (on Daf 68.) that a Bo'el Nidah has the same Din as a Tamei Meis regarding camps.

Support: Indeed, it is not in the Tosefta either.

Implied Question: Likewise, the Gemara could have said that 'He is Metamei Mishkav and Moshav, as well as K'lei Cheres with Heset'.

Answer: Only it prefers to mention Chumros which it cannot mention shortly, in connection with 'Chomer be'Zav mi'bi'Metzora'.

Question: The Rashba asks that Sheretz is nevertheless more stringent inasmuch as it renders Tamei via the Shi'ur of a lentil, which a Zav does not ...

Reason: Seeing as we establish it like Rebbi Nasan, who requires enough to stop-up the entrance of the Amah, as will be evident shortly?

Answer #1: The Ri answers that, if one were to spread out the lentil volume, it would turn out to be more than both enough to stop-up the entrance of the Amah and than a ki'Geris'

Refutation: This is a Dochek, however.

Answer #2: Alternatively, one could counter by citing Tamei Meis, which requires a k'Zayis.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks shortly 'To the contrary, a Ba'al-Keri is stricter, since it is Metamei with the Shi'ur of a Mashehu ...

Answer #2: It cannot counter with Tamei Meis ...

Reason: Since he (the Tamei Meis) is only sent out of one camp, and the Gemara there wants to prove that a Metzora is sent out of two camps, like a Ba'al-Keri.

Question: The Ri asks why the Gemara does not say ' ... because he renders Tamei whoever enters the Ohel'?

Clarification: Like the opinion which holds in the first Perek of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 7:) that a Metzora Muchlot is prohibited from being intimate.

Clarification: Rashi explains that the Beraisa in Toras Kohanim which says that a Metzora makes Mishkav and Moshav, it is not to render Tamei Adam and Begadim, but only food and drink.

Refuted Alternative: One cannot however, say that our Tana is talking about a Metzora in the days of his counting, who does not make a Mishkav and Moshav, as we specifically learned in the Toras Kohanim ...

Refutation #1: Since the Gemara says here that he is sent out of all three camps; and we learned in the Mishnah in Nega'im (14:2) that during his days of counting he is like a Tamei Sheretz.

Refutation #1 (cont.): So we see that he is not even sent out of the Machaneh Leviyah (let alone the Machaneh Yisrael)?

Refutation #1 (cont.): And when the Tana there says 'Nichnas Lif'nim min ha'Chomah', it is 'La'v Davka 'Lif'nim min ha'Chomah'.

. Refutation #2: Furthermore, the Gemara concludes here 'Because it requires P'rimah and P'rimah, which applies to a Muchlat (exclusively).

Question: Rav Moshe from Putaisha cites a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim "ve'Im Shachov Shachav Ish osah" - 'to preclude a Metzora'as'.

Question (cont.): Now if a Metzora is not Metamei Mishkav and Moshav, then why is it necessary to preclude it? Why would we even think that she renders Tamei a man who is intimate with her? We cannot learn it from Nidah, who is Metamei Mishkav and Moshav.

Question (concl.): Clearly then, a Metzora'as is Metamei Mishkav and Moshav, and that is why we need to preclude it?

Answer: It (the D'rashah of the Toras Kohanim) is merely an Asmachta.

Question: Furthermore he asks from the Gemara (in Nidah Daf 35.) "le'Zachar", 'to include the Ma'yanos of a Metzora. Since the Torah compares him to a Zav ... Just as the sighting of a Zav is Metamei be'Masa ... '.

Question (cont.): And now that they are compared, we will apply the principle 'Ein Hekesh le'Mechtzah' (A Hekesh applies across the board), in which case they are also compared with regard Mishkav and Moshav, and the Gemara's Kashya Is not a Kashya at all?

Answer: This is not a Kashya, because if it was, let them also be compared with regard to the camps, in which case what does the Gemara ask in our Sugya (See Maharsha)?

Question: And what the Mishnah says in the last Perek of Maseches Zavin (5:6) 'Someone who touches a Zav, a Zavah or a Metzora ... irrespective of whether he touches, moves, carries or is carried by him/her ... '.

Question (cont.): Implying that a Metzora is Metamei be'Heset ...

Question (concl.): Whilst our Sugya implies that he is not?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that 'Nisa' that the Tana stated is Metamei be'Heset pertains to the others (Zav and Zavah), but not to Metzora.

Clarification: This implies that a Ba'al-Keri is also Tamei because of sighting.

Second Opinion: The Ri points out that this Sugya argues with the Sugya at the beginning of 'ha'Mapeles' (Nidah Daf 22.) which cites Rabah, who asked Rav Huna what the Din will be if someone has a sighting of Keri on a chip of wood.

Second Opinion (cont.): To which he replied 'that the Keri itself is only Metamei when it fills the opening of the Amah.

Second Opinion (cont.): This implies, says the Gemara, that he is Chayav because of touching (and not because of sighting) - seeing as it requires sufficient to fill the opening of the Amah ...

Second Opinion (concl.): So we see that one is Tamei because of touching exclusively.

Third Opinion: And in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah Daf 42.) which says that 'Shichvas Zera is Metamei the on who has a sighting with a Mashehu and someone who touches if it is the Shi'ur of a lentil', argues with both our Sugya and the Sugya in ha'Mapeles.

Question: The Gemara asks in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 24.) 'What the Din will be if a stone is uprooted and remains where it is'?

Question (cont.): And the Gemara concludes there 'It is obvious that when David sanctified the floor, he sanctified it right down to the floor of the depth?

Answer: The Gemara in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (later, Daf 86.), concludes that Rebbi Yochanan (the author of the current statement) is speaking where they (the tunnels open out to an area which is Chulin, but if they open out to an area which is Kodesh, they too, are Kodesh.

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have answered, like it answers in the first Perek of Yoma (Daf 6:) - that it is talking about Tum'as Shiv'ah, and we it to teach us the Seifa - 'Only Bo'el Nidah is stricter than it (Tamei Meis) inasmuch as it is Metamei Mishkav and Moshav, which in turn, is Metamei food and drink'.