THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF TAHARAH [line before last of previous Amud]
Answer to both questions (Rava): We must say that the verse gives laws of Terumah and Kodshim.
There are three verses about Terumah. All are needed:
"Until he will be Tahor" does not specify when this is, so we also need "At nightfall, he will be Tahor";
Had it written only these verses, we would think they apply to one who is not Mechusar Kipurim; but a Mechusar Kipurim cannot eat until he brings his Korban. Therefore we need "Until the completion of her days of Taharah".
Had it written only this last verse, we would think that Tevilah is not needed. Therefore, we also need "Until he will become Tahor".
A Tana argues with Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael (74a), and says that "Any man... who is a Metzora or Zav" discusses a Zav that saw three emissions and a Metzora Muchlat. "Until he becomes Tahor" means when he brings his Korban.
Question: Why does this Tana require two verses about Kodshim?
Answer: Had the Torah written only that a Yoledes must bring her Korban before eating Kodshim, one might have thought that this is because she is Teme'ah for a long time, but a Zav could eat before Kaparah;
Had the Torah written only that a Zav needs Kaparah before eating, one might have thought that this is because his Tum'ah is never totally permitted, but a Yoledes is Tehorah (to her husband and to Ma'aser) even while seeing Dam (Tohar), so she could eat before bringing her Korban.
Question: Why do we need "He will immerse and be Tamei until nightfall"?
Answer (R. Zeira): This teaches that he is Metamei Terumah if he touches it before nightfall:
(Beraisa) Suggestion: "V'Tamei" - perhaps he is Tamei for everything!
Suggestion: Perhaps "V'Taher" teaches that he is Tahor for everything!
Resolution: He is Tahor regarding (touching) Ma'aser, and Tamei regarding Terumah.
Question: Perhaps he is Tahor regarding Terumah and Tamei regarding Ma'aser!
Answer #1: Presumably, just like Terumah is more stringent than Ma'aser regarding eating, also regarding touching.
Answer #2: "She will not touch any Kodesh and will not come to the Mikdash" warns a Yoledes (within Yemei Taharah) not to eat (Terumah)."
Question: Perhaps this is a warning not to touch Terumah!
Answer: The verse discusses touching (Kodesh) and entering the Mikdash. Just like one is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei Shamayim) for Bi'as Makdish, also for touching. 'Touching' must mean eating, since there is no Misah for touching;
It calls eating "touching" to teach that touching Terumah is like eating it (whoever may not eat it may not touch it).
A PETZU'A DAKA [line 32]
(Mishnah): A Petzu'a Daka ... (if he did not have Bi'ah with his wife since he became a Petzu'a Dacha, she may eat Terumah).
Question: Who is our Tana, who permits a woman to eat Terumah even if she is forbidden to her husband mid'Oraisa?
Answer #1 (R. Elazar): Tana'im argue about this. Our Mishnah is like R. Elazar and R. Shimon (56b).
Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah is even like R. Meir. The case is, she already ate (before he became a Petzu'a Daka).
R. Elazar holds that the fact that she already ate does not change matters. If it did, a Bas Yisrael widowed from a Kohen would continue to eat!
R. Yochanan holds that there is different, since the Kohen's acquisition of her lapses when he dies.
(Beraisa) Question: What constitutes a Petzu'a Daka?
Answer: It is any man whose Beitzim were cut, even one of them, even if they were punctured, shriveled, or incomplete;
R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Berokah says, anyone who only has one Beitzah is a Seris Chamah (due to sickness) and is Kosher (may marry).
Objection: This cannot be (due to illness)!
Correction: Rather, he is like a Seris Chamah, and is Kosher.
Question: Is it really true that one whose Beitzim were punctured (is a Petzu'a Daka and he) cannot have children?!
A case occurred in which a man climbed a date tree and his Beitzim were punctured by a thorn. Semen came out like pus, yet he fathered children afterwards!
Answer: Shmuel declared that his children are Mamzerim (surely his wife become pregnant through another man).
(Rav Yehudah): A Petzu'a Daka b'Yedei Shamayim is Kosher.
(Rava): This is why it does not say 'ha'Petzu'a' (connoting from the beginning), rather, "Petzu'a".
(Beraisa): Right after "A Petzu'a Daka will not marry" it says "A Mamzer will not marry". Just like a Mamzer is due to man's actions, also a Petzu'a Daka.
(Rava): The Torah forbids if any of them (the Ever, Beitzim, or strings on which the Beitzim are suspended) is Petzu'a (bruised), Dach (crushed) or Krus (cut off).
Question: What is the source that Petzu'a Daka applies in that area? Perhaps it applies to the head!
Answer #1 (Rava): The Torah did not say how many generations are forbidden. This implies that it is in that area (that makes him sterile).
Objection: Perhaps it did not list generations because he is forbidden, but his offspring are permitted!
Answer #2 (Rava): Petzu'a Daka is written next to Krus Shofchah. This shows that it applies to the same area.
Question: How do we know that Krus Shofchah applies in that area? Perhaps it applies to the lips!
Answer: "Shofchah (dripping)", in the place of dripping.
Question: Perhaps this refers to the nose!
Answer: 'Shofach Krus' would connote that the place that (normally) drips was cut. Rather, "Krus Shofchah" teaches that due to the cut it drips, but if it were not cut, it would flow. The nose drips in either case.
Answer #3 (Beraisa): Right after "A Petzu'a Daka will not marry" it says "A Mamzer will not marry". Just like a Mamzer results from that area, also a Petzu'a Daka.
WHICH CUTS ARE A PROBLEM [line 31]
(R. Chiya bar Aba): If it is punctured below the crown, and the other side of the puncture is above the crown, the man is Kosher.
(R. Asi): R. Yehoshua ben Levi says, the entire crown must be intact.
(Mishnah): If there remains from the crown (a thread's width, he is Kosher).
Question (Ravina): Must the thread's width be on the entire crown, or just on the majority?
Answer (Rabah Tosfa'ah): It must be on the majority, and towards the body.
(Rav Huna): If the Ever is cut on a slant like a quill, he is Kosher. If it is grooved like a gutter pipe, he is forbidden.
In the latter case, it is cooled by the air (it cannot be heated enough to cook the semen to enable conception). In the former case, it is not.
(Rav Chisda): If it is like a gutter pipe, he is Kosher. If it is like a quill, he is forbidden.
In the former case, it rubs (against the uterus and gets excited). In the latter case, it does not.
(Rava): Presumably, Rav Huna is correct. We are concerned for air but not for rubbing, since further down it is wider, like a barrel tap.
Ravina (to Mereimar): Rav Papa ruled that he is Kosher whether it is like a quill or a gutter pipe;
However, he was unsure if this is above the crown (towards the body) or below.
Objection: Certainly, this must be above. Below, even if the Ever was cut off he is Kosher!
Answer: Indeed, Ravina was just testing Mereimar.
There was a man whose Ever was like a gutter pipe. Mar bar Rav Ashi cut flesh to make it like a quill, and declared that he is Kosher.