Implied question: Torah was not yet given at the time (until now, everyone had the law of Nochrim. They cannot become Tamei while alive!)

Answer: Even so, presumably, the Torah was adamant something that will be Tum'ah after Matan Torah.

Implied question: The Torah was not adamant about Zavim, Metzora'im and Bo'alei Nidos! (Why is one who emits semen different?)

Answer: The reason is like it says in Brachos (22a) that it says "v'Hodatem l'Vanecha veli'Vnei Vanecha", and it says "Yom Asher Amadta Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha b'Chorev" - just like there was with fear, awe, trembling and sweat...

From here they said that Zavim, Metzora'im and Bo'alei Nidos may read Torah and Nevi'im and learn Mishnah, Talmud, Halachos and Agados, and a Ba'al Keri (one who emitted semen) is forbidden. I.e. a Ba'al Keri is not with fear and awe, for it comes through lightheadedness.

Explanation: It is not an absolute proof, because the verse does not discuss drinking, rather, bathing, for it connotes water similar to oil. Just like oil is external, also water is external.

Question (Ri) Citation (Yoma 76a): What is the source that [not] bathing is called Inuy (affliction)? Rav Zutra said, it says "va'Tavo cha'Mayim b'Kirbo vecha'Shemen b'Atzmosav." Water is like oil. Just like oil is external, also water is external...

It asks that this Tana learns oppositely! The Mishnah says "what is the source that anointing..."

What was the question? The Tana of our Mishnah says that it is not a proof. It is merely a commemoration, because water is similar to oil, like I explained!

Answer (Ri): It asks as follows. If it is considered an absolute proof that bathing is like anointing, like [Rav Zutra] said, this (our) Tana should not even have made a mere commemoration from it.

Question (Rashba): Why does [the Tana] bring this verse which is only a commemoration? He should bring the verse "Lechem Chamudos Lo Achalti u'Vasar va'Yayin Lo Va El Pi v'Soch Lo Sachti", which is an absolute Drashah! From it we learn in Yoma (76a) that [not] anointing is called Inuy. (R. E.M. Horowitz - "v'Soch Lo Sachti" teaches only anointing for pleasure. Our version teaches even anointing not for pleasure. Sefas Emes - our verse teaches an Isur Torah even according to the opinion that the Torah forbids only eating and drinking on Yom Kipur.)

Explanation (Ri): He does not change the text [of the Mishnah] to teach "Tahor", in order to establish the entire [Mishnah] like R. Elazar. Rather, even without this (contradiction between the Reisha and R. Elazar's opinion), some teach "Tahor" and some teach "Tamei";

Therefore, the opinion that does not establish a Mishnah like different Tana'im, he prefers to teach like those whose text says Tahor. The opinion that establishes a Mishnah like different Tana'im is not adamant [not] to teach Temei'ah.

Question: Still, our Mishnah is like different Tana'im! R. Akiva taught the Reisha (82a), and the Seifa (our Mishnah) teaches that one who emits semen is Tehorah. This is unlike R. Akiva, who argues below with R. Elazar ben Azaryah!

Answer: [The opinion that does not establish a Mishnah like different Tana'im] is adamant only about two adjacent clauses, but the Mishnah at the beginning of our Perek (82a), which is far from the Mishnah of emitting semen, he is not adamant [if different Tana'im taught them].

Question: According to the opinion that teaches "Tahor", it would have been better for our Mishnah to bring the verse "v'Kidashtem ha'Yom u'Machar", which connotes like R. Elazar ben Azaryah!

Answer (Ri): He prefers to bring the verse "Heyu Nechonim li'Sheloshes Yamim." It is proven that the verse is adamant about emission of semen, for it says "Al Tigshu El Ishah."

Implied question: Also in R. Elazar ben Azaryah's opinion, the Tana could have taught like this! Sometimes they are two [Onos], sometimes they are three...

Answer: The reason he mentioned R. Yishmael is because he holds that they separated on the fourth, like R. Akiva, and [R. Yishmael] does not want to attribute [the period during which there is Tum'ah] to Onos, like R. Akiva attributes.

Explanation: He discusses according to R. Akiva.

Explanation: Even without [a command] they would separate [from Bi'ah during the day], for it was taught that "Bozeh Derachav Yamus" refers to one who has Bi'ah during the day.

Also, [Hash-m] called [Yisrael] Kedoshim - "v'Atem Tihyu Li Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh." (This shows that they were already separating from what is permitted, for the sake of modesty and Kedushah.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We challenge R. Akiva (why they did not receive the Torah on Shabbos night).

Explanation #2 (Ri): We challenge also R. Elazar ben Azaryah and R. Yishmael. We should learn from here that the Torah was adamant about Onos. If it was adamant about days, they should have received the Torah on Shabbos night!

Explanation: Surely, we challenge only R. Akiva, who holds that the Torah was adamant about Onos. We should say that perhaps we require six Onos! (This is why Moshe descended early to forbid Bi'ah during the day, to enable Shemirah of six Onos.)

[If you will say that if we require six,] if women would emit semen at the end of Shabbos night, when would they immerse? They would immerse Shabbos morning!

Implied suggestion: Perhaps we challenge also R. Elazar and R. Yishmael, to say that perhaps [Moshe descended early, because] the Torah was adamant about Onos!

Rejection: Sometimes [following Onos] is a leniency, e.g. if she had Bi'ah at the beginning of the night, for if we are adamant about Onos, once five Onos passed, she is Tehorah. However, now that [the Torah] is adamant about days, she is not Tehorah until day four. (Ohr Tzvi - "v'Kidashtam ha'Yom u'Machar" connotes that it depends on days. We should not explain differently if this leads to a leniency!)

Defense (of suggestion): However, we can say that we ask that perhaps the Torah was adamant about Onos and days, to be stringent for both of them! When she had Bi'ah at the beginning of the night, we follow the number of days, and when she had Bi'ah at the end of the day, we follow the number of Onos.

Question: If so, why did R. Yitzchak need the Drashah "Lo mi'Rosh b'Seser Dibarti"? (Hash-m did not give the Torah at night, lest some go to immerse while others go to receive Torah!)

Answer: It is needed. If not, they could have immersed at the beginning of Shabbos night, and after midnight they would receive Torah;

However, [now that Torah was given] during the day, if they would wait until all immersed, they would be Batel from Divrei Torah.

Question (R. Tam): A Mishnah (Nidah 54b) teaches this! Zivah, mucus (or phlegm), saliva and semen are Metamei when they are moist, but not when they are dry.

Answer #1: This is not so difficult. [If we had only the Mishnah,] we could say that they are Metamei when they are moist within three days. (Rav Chisda teaches "as long as they are moist", i.e. even after three days.)

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Here we discuss a male into whom another man ejaculated, similar to a woman [who had Bi'ah]. There it refers to a man who emitted [his own] semen. (According to this, why did Rav Chisda discuss Mishkav Zachar, for which one is Chayav Misah? Surely the law is the same as Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah, which is permitted!)

Question: In Pesachim (6b), it asks about this verse itself "what is the source that it was said on Rosh Chodesh?"!

Answer: Surely it was said on Rosh Chodesh, for it says in the Midrash (Mechilta) that Hash-m showed Moshe with a finger (how the moon must appear in order to be Mekadesh the month based on it);

It asks only because it wants to learn from [this verse] R. Shimon ben Gamliel's teaching that we expound laws of Pesach two weeks before Pesach, for on Rosh Chodesh the Navi commanded about Pesach. What is the source that [he commanded] on Rosh Chodesh?

Granted, Hash-m told Moshe on Rosh Chodesh. Perhaps Moshe told Yisrael on the fourth or fifth of the month!

It concludes that he learns "Midbar" from "Midbar". In the verse "b'Echad la'Chodesh ha'Sheni", Moshe spoke to Yisrael that same day, like it is written "b'Echad la'Chodesh ha'Sheni va'Yisyaldu Al Mishpechosam..." (they counted Bnei Yisrael that same day).

Question: Why doesn't it learn here "Midbar" from "Midbar", like it learns there? Also here, it says Midbar - "Ba'u Midbar Sinai"!

Answer: He prefers to learn from "ha'Zeh-ha'Zeh", and not "Midbar" from "ba'Midbar".

Explanation: All agree that making a border [around Har Sinai] preceded separation [from Bi'ah], for "He said" is written three times, and it is reasonable that each was said on its day;

Note: In Shemos chapter 19, Hash-m spoke to Moshe five times - verses 3-6 ("va'Yikra Elav Hash-m... Ko Somar...", verse 9 ("va'Yomer Hash-m... Hinei Anochi Ba Elecha..."), and verses 10-13 ("va'Yomer Hash-m... Lech El ha'Am v'Kidashtam..." Tosfos ignores the other two times (verses 21-22, and verse 24), for they were on the day of Matan Torah (verse 15 says "va'Yhi ba'Yom ha'Shelishi").

In the first it is written "v'Atem Tihyu Li...", in the last it is written the Mitzvah of separation, and in the middle it does not say any mission that Moshe must do to Yisrael;

We should attribute the Mitzvah of making a border to that (middle) Amirah, and not the Mitzvah of separation, for immediately after the last Amirah is written the Mitzvah of separation.