Opinion#1: Rashi explains that according to Rebbi Akiva, plaster and eggshell are both Toldos of Si'eis. "Sapachas" (when stated in the Pasuk) is referring to a secondary category of Si'eis, not Baheres.

When the Gemara asks later for the source of a secondary color of Baheres, it is asking according to the Rabbanan. According to Rebbi Akiva, there is no secondary color of Baheres. This is explanation is also given by Rashi later.

Question#1: This is difficult, as Rashi himself explains that Rebbi Akiva holds that there are "two that are four." It is also apparent later in the Gemara, as it says, "Why did they say that Maros Nega'im are "two that are four?" "Two that are four" imply that from each Av there is one Toldah, just like the "two that are four" of Shabbos, Yedios, and Shevuos (in our Mishnah).

Question#2: Additionally, being that Sapachas is only referring to Si'eis, how do we know that Si'eis has two Toldos? We should only include plaster, and say that eggshell is pure!

Question#3: Additionally, the Gemara later (6b) says, "What is the Rabbanan's position comparable to? It is compared to two kings and two second-in-commands. The king of this one is higher than the king of that one." The Gemara asks, the parable should be that each is higher than the other! The parable is more like the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. This implies that according to Rebbi Akiva every Av has a Toldah.

Opinion#2: It therefore seems that Rebbi Akiva agrees that plaster is a Toldah of Baheres. Even so, it does not combine with it, being that it is two categories away. However, it does combine with Si'eis, as it is only one category away from Si'eis.

When it says (bottom 5b), "this is not its type" it means that if our Mishnah is according to Rebbi Akiva, eggshell should combine with Si'eis (wool) even though it is far removed (but not with plaster). This is because it says, "Sapachas" regarding Si'eis more than Baheres (as the Pasuk says, "uli'Si'eis uli'Sapachas uli'Baheres"). This is evident from the fact that the Pasuk did not say, "And to Si'eis, and to Baheres, and to their Sapachas."

Now we can understand that when the Gemara later asks for a source for a secondary Baheres, it is also asking according to Rebbi Akiva.

Explanation: The Gemara means to ask, why did they even bother saying their names?

Explanation: This means that they should explain that they combine with each other when they are one shade away. If they will not explain this, one would think that all shades combine with each other to form leprosy.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that I would not know the entire law of their combining, such as the law regarding eggshell combining with wool. This is not a problem. [Why not? Isn't this reason to explain the categories? What, then, is Yehoshua's question?]

Answer: Even now, when the Mishnah says, "two that are four" it is not explaining all of the laws of colors combining.

Explanation: This is when a Yisrael who is smart (i.e. who knows Maros Nega'im) is not with him. If a Yisrael who is smart is with him, even a Kohen who is a fool can be told by a (second) Yisrael to say, "impure" and he can say it (and it is valid). A Yisrael who is an expert refers to someone who explains to him and he understands, as stated in the beginning of Erchin (3a).

Question: Why do we need this other (second) Yisrael, being that there is another Yisrael who is explaining the laws to him?

Answer: It is possible to answer that the case is where the one explaining the laws has eyes that cannot see well, and he therefore cannot see the actual Nega. [See INSIGHTS for more explanations of this law.]

Implied Question: Rebbi Chanina did not double the amount of drops from the previous color (eight drops).

Answer: This is because a lot of drops already fell, and with a small addition of drops it is clear (that it is a different shade of white).

Question: This is difficult, as it clearly must say snow and plaster, as he is discussing the statement of the Tana Kama (Rebbi Yishmael)! Rebbi Yishmael said that the mixed color of snow is like diluted wine in snow. The mixed color of plaster is like diluted wine in milk. These are the words of Rebbi Yishmael. Rebbi Akiva says etc.

Answer#1: This is the answer that yes, it must say this, as the Beraisa states etc. In other words, it did not say plaster for a specific reason aside from discussing the case of the Tana Kama.

Answer#2: Alternatively, perhaps Rebbi Nasan edited Rebbi Yishmael's statement to read "Si'eis" instead of "Sid" -- "plaster." [The question would then be understandable.]

Implied Question: The Pasuk states, "The one who gives snow like wool" (Tehilim 147:16). [This implies that snow and wool are similarly white! How can our Gemara say that nothing is as white as Baheres, which is snow?]

Answer: It is normal for the Pasuk to explain something that is uncommon by giving the closest common example.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that newer things are whiter.

Implied Question: This is not possible, as in Nidah (17a) the Gemara implies that things that are older are whiter and are better for checking (for blood).

Opinion#2: Rather, it refers to importance (of kings), like the rest of the things stated earlier.

Answer(to b): However, in Nidah (17a) it is possible to say that they (old cloths) are better for checking as they are softer.

However, Rashi there explains that they are whiter.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the warning regarding Kodesh is from the Pasuk, "He should not eat until he becomes pure (Vayikra 22:4)."

Question: This is difficult, as in Makos (14b) the Gemara implies that both according to Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, the Pasuk is referring to a warning against eating Terumah. Rebbi Yochanan derives the warning not to eat Kodesh from a Gezeriah Shaveh of "Tumaso" from the Mikdash, and Reish Lakish derives this from, "From all Kodesh you should not touch." [How, then, can our Gemara say the source of the warning not to eat Kodesh is from this Pasuk?]

Answer: Rashi's explanation could be correct according to the Tana in Yevamos (75a) who says that the Pasuk is referring to a Zav who has seen emissions three times in a row and a Metzora Muchlat. According to this opinion, "until he becomes pure" refers to until he brings his Korban (that a Zav and Metzora must bring). [This Tana clearly holds that the Pasuk is talking about actual Kodshim, not Terumah.]

These Amoraim (Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish) in Makos (ibid.) hold according to Rebbi Yishmael, and say that the Pasuk is talking about Terumah. Rebbi Yochanan himself concludes in Yevamos (74a) in the name of Rebbi Yishmael, "what is a thing that is equal regarding all children of Aharon? It is Terumah."

Explanation: This means, perhaps also Terumah is included in the Pasuk. However, one cannot explain that perhaps only Terumah is being referred to by the Pasuk, but not going into the Mikdash or eating Kodesh when impure. The reason to say this would be that going into the Mikdash or eating Kodesh when impure makes one liable to receive Kares if he does so on purpose, and it should therefore not suffice to bring a Korban Olah v'Yored if one does so by accident.

This is because we see the Gemara later (7a) only asks this question (that going into the Mikdash when impure should be excluded) because there is a word ("Bah") implying exclusion (not solely because of the logic that it should not be enough to bring a Korban Olah v'Yored).

Implied Question: The Gemara could also ask that perhaps the Pasuk is discussing an impure Kohen who served in the Beis Hamikdash. It is possible to have a prohibition against an impure Kohen serving without having a prohibition against him being impure in the Mikdash. The case would be if he became impure in the Azarah, and he left as soon as he realized he became impure (thereby avoiding any prohibition of being in the Mikdash while impure). However, he turned over a limb of a Korban that was on the Mizbe'ach as he walked out, as stated later (17b). [Why didn't the Gemara ask how we know the Pasuk is not referring to such a case?]

Answer: Rather, it is because this prohibition itself is derived from the prohibition against eating Terumah when impure, as stated in Sanhedrin (83b). This is why the Gemara asks from Terumah (which includes this question to an extent).

Implied Question: The Gemara could not have asked that the Pasuk might have been discussing Kohanim becoming impure. [Why not?]

Answer: This is because they were only warned not to come in contact with the dead. This Pasuk is discussing coming in contact with a Sheretz or Neveilah.

Question: This is difficult, as here, too, we do not know of a similar sin that is punished with Kares when done on purpose, and obligates one who accidentally sins to offer a Korban Olah v'Yored!

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara likes its reason better.