1)

(a)In the Beraisa that we cited earlier (which discusses the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi in connection with He'elam Tum'ah), Rebbi said "ve'Ne'elam", 'mi'Chelal she'Yada'. Initially, Rava based this inference on the fact that the Torah should otherwise have written - "ve'Hi Alumah".

(b)Abaye queried Rava from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Naso (in connection with a Sotah) "ve'Ne'elam me'Einei Iyshah" that - to make the same inference there would clash with the Beraisa which Darshens from the juxtaposition of "Ve'nikah ha'Ish me'Avon" to "ve'ha'Ishah ha'Hi Tisa es Avonah" that - if the man was initially aware of his wife's conduct and remained silent, the Mei Sotah will not take effect.

2. ... Iyov (in connection with Torah) "ve'Ne'elmah me'Einei Kol Chai u'me'Of ha'Shamayim Nistarah" - that to make the same inference there would clash with the Pasuk (also in Iyov) - "Lo Yada Enosh Erkah" (meaning that nobody can fathom its ultimate value).

(c)Abaye therefore explained Rebbi's interpretation of "ve'Ne'elmah" to mean (not that he knew that he was Tamei, but) that - he must have been aware of the Halachah of Tum'as Mikdash and that he touched the Tum'ah (without realizing the implications [see Gilyon ha'Shas]).

(d)Citing our Mishnah 'Ein bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ve'Yesh bah Yedi'ah be'Sof', Rav Papa asked Abaye how it is possible for a person never to have had any knowledge about Tum'ah, in answer to which - h established it by a case of a Tinok she'Nishba (a small child who was captured among the Nochrim, and who had therefore never heard of Tum'ah and Taharah.

2)

(a)Initially, we attribute the fact that the Mishnah in Shabbos refers to 'Yetzi'os Shabbos Shetayim she'Hein Arba bi'Fenim, u'Shetayim she'Hein Arba ba'Chutz' (whilst our Mishnah only refers to one set of 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba') to the fact that the major Sugya of Shabbos belongs in Maseches Shabbos, so the Tana goes into more detail there. The problem with this explanation is that - there are only two cases of Yetzi'os that are Chayav, and not four.

(b)Nor can we answer that some of the Yetzi'os are Chayav and some are Patur (Aval Asur [mi'de'Rabbanan], which would conform to the Tana in Shabbos) - because we assume that Shabbos follows the same pattern as Mar'os Nega'im, where all four cases are Chayav min ha'Torah (as we explained earlier).

(c)The objection we raise to Rav Papa's answer (to resolve the main problem), that (following the same reasoning) our Mishnah only deals with the Avos (but not with the Toldos) is that - here too, since the Tana is speaking about 'Yetzi'os', there are only two Avos and not four (like we asked a moment ago).

(d)Rav Ashi explains our answer that Hotza'ah incorporates extending Hachnasah.

3)

(a)Rav Ashi proves his point from the Mishnah in K'lal Gadol 'ha'Motzi me'Reshus li'Reshus' - clearly incorporating Hachnasah (otherwise, the Tana ought to have said 'ha'Motzi me'Reshus ha'Yachid li'Reshus ha'Rabim').

(b)The Tana's justification for doing this is that - it categorizes all cases of moving an object from one place to another as 'Hotza'ah'.

(c)Ravina proves Rav Ashi's answer from the Mishnah in Shabbos - where the Tana begins with the words 'Yetzi'os ha'Shabbos ... ', yet he goes on to present cases of Hachnasah too.

(d)Rava resolves the original problem by explaining that 'Reshuyos Katani', by which he means that - the Tana is speaking, not so much about cases of Hotza'ah (of which there are only two, as we explained), but about 'two Reshuyos' (R'shus ha'Yachid and R'shus ha'Rabim), of which there are four cases.

4)

(a)The Mishnah in Nega'im lists the four sightings of Nega'im. Baheres and Se'eis are the two Avos - 'Sapachas' refers to the respective Toldah of each Av.

(b)'Baheres' is a mark that is white like snow and 'Se'eis' one that is like the white wool of a new-born lamb; the Toldah of ...

1. ... Baheres is - a mark that is white like the lime of the Heichal (see Tif'eres Yisrael) and ...

2. ... Se'eis - one that is white like the membrane of an egg.

(c)The Tana in Nega'im does not describe the Toldah of Se'eis as white like the lime of the Heichal, which is the closest to it - because then what would white like the membrane of an egg be the Toldah of (since it is three levels of white away from Baheres [Rashi 6a DH 've'Ilu']).

5)

(a)'Se'eis' - means 'raised', and (based on the principle that the darker something is the higher it appears) it is so-called because it is not as bright as Baheres.

(b)They rank in their order of whiteness - white like snow (a Baheres), white like lamb's wool (a Se'eis), white like the lime of the Heichal (the Toldah of Baheres) and white like the membrane of an egg (the Toldah of Se'eis).

(c)A mark that is less white than the membrane of an egg - which is called a 'Bohak', is Tahor.

(d)The significance of the Av and its Toldah is - the fact that they combine to make up a ki'Geris (the Shi'ur of Tum'ah). Consequently, a Baheres combined with a mark that is like the lime of the Heichal will make up a ki'Geris, whereas a Baheres together with a mark that is white like the membrane of an egg will not.

6)

(a)Rava remarks that the author of 'Mar'os Ne'ga'im' cannot be Rebbi Akiva, who says 'Zu Lema'alah mi'Zu' which means that - an appearance of Tzara'as will only combine with one that is one level higher than itself (but not two).

(b)This would create a problem with an appearance that is like the lime of the Heichal - because there is nothing that it could combine with, since it can combine with neither white like lamb's wool (since it is not its Toldah), nor with white like snow, since two levels of whiteness divide them.

(c)The same problem will not apply to a mark that resembles the membrane of an egg (which is the Toldah of Se'eis, but is separated from it by two levels of whiteness) - because, by placing Sapachas after Se'eis ("ve'la'Se'eis, ve'la'Sapachas, ve'la'Behares"), the Torah might be indicating that the Sapachas of Se'eis combines with it, irrespective of how many levels separate them (whereas the Baheres has no Sapachas).

(d)This forces us to conclude - that the author of our Mishnah is not Rebbi Akiva.