Text #1: This is the text of Rashi. The Gemara means that there is a question on the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili: What do they do with the Pasuk quoted by Rav Nachman?

Question #1: There is a difficulty with Rashi's explanation. Why did the Gemara wait until now to ask this question?

Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara should have also asked what the Rabbanan do with the Pasuk quoted by Rav Yitzchak!

Text #2: It therefore appears that the correct text is like that of the Sefarim who have the following text. This is understandable according to Rebbi Meir, but what is there to say according to the Rabbanan?

Text #2 (cont.): In other words, why is the rule of a kosher Beheimah being included in that of a kosher Chayah necessary? According to them, it cannot be to teach that their creation is akin to that of a person (see Rashi DH "Beheimah Tehorah").

Explanation #1: The case is where the head did not crown (start coming out) the size of a spindle (for how this size of a spindle is measured, see Bechoros 22a). However, if it did crown the size of a spindle she is impure even before the child came out as the womb is considered to have opened.

Explanation #1 (cont.): This is as the Mishnah states in Ohalos (7:4) as quoted by the Gemara in Bechoros (22a) that it is not considered that a Neifel has opened the womb until his head has crowned the size of a spindle.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is possible the Tana of our Mishnah holds like the Tana in the Tosefta in Ohalos (8:8) who says that a child does not become impure until he enters the air of the world.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara deduce this law from the Beraisa in Nidah (42b) that excludes Neveilah from making clothes impure when swallowed because the Pasuk only says regarding the Neveilah of a kosher bird "to make it impure with it," excluding any other kind of Neveilah (presumably because it is swallowed up)? Abaye indeed deduces there that the place where the Neveilah of the kosher bird is located is considered swallowed up.

Answer: Indeed, according to Abaye this could have been derived from the Beraisa in Nidah (42b). However, according to Rava there who holds the reason is because it is considered a hidden place, how can the Beraisa be understood? It must be where his friend inserted the Neveilah into his throat and then took it out, and his throat was wide enough that the piece was not on his throat at all. In that case the Pasuk excludes the Neveilah of a kosher animal.

Implied Question: However, we could explain that the case is even if he did not retract it. When Rava said this is considered hidden, this was in the beginning of it being swallowed. However, at the end he admits that it is considered swallowed. (Why isn't this correct?)

Answer: However, according to this the Gemara in Nidah (ibid.) should have deduced that even Rava holds that swallowed impurity does not cause impurity.

Question: How can there be a deduction from this Pasuk, "ha'Ochel mi'Nivlasah?" This Pasuk is teaching regarding the Neveilah of an animal that it does not cause impurity when swallowed. However, it is referring to impurity through touching not eating. The only reason eating is stated is to say that the amount is one of eating, namely a Kzayis, for touching and carrying as explained in Nidah (ibid.).

Question (cont.): If our Gemara requires this Pasuk for its teaching, how can we also derive from it that the amount of touching and carrying is one of food, namely a Kzayis?

Answer: It is possible to answer that it is not logical to establish the entire Pasuk as being for this teaching that swallowed impurity does not cause impurity.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara implies that it is discussing impurity, as the Pasuk says, "And the one who eats should wash his clothes etc." However, the Pasuk does not go away from its simple context which is saying that the food is pure if he immersed in a Mikvah and the sun set.

Question: This is difficult. In any event, the question is a good question. How can the impurity go through the Kli Cheres if it does not contract impurity from something that is on the back (or the cover) of the vessel?

Answer: A person also saves impurity by something being inside of him. Accordingly, one can make the following Kal v'Chomer. If a Kli Cheres that is covered by a tight cover can stop impurity from spreading from an impure object inside of it, but it can save something pure that is inside of it from becoming impure from what is outside of it, certainly the inside of a person that stops impurity that is inside of him from making anything impure should guard an object inside of him from becoming impure!

Question: Being that the fact that a person's body protects an object inside it from becoming impure is based on a Kal v'Chomer from Kli Cheres, we should invoke the principle of Dayo to say it should not protect this object from becoming impure if a Zav carries it. This is similar to the law regarding a Kli Cheres with a tight cover that a Zav carries. This is as stated in Gitin (61b), let us suspect that his wife who is a Nidah carried it!

Question (cont.): However, the Tosefta in Ohalos (ch. 15) explicitly states that a person saves pure items that are inside of him from becoming impure if they are carried by a Zav. Beis Hillel told them, "Don't you admit that if a person swallows a ring and goes into the tent of a dead person etc." Beis Shamai said, "No. If you say this by a ring that is pure if a Zav carries it etc."

Answer: A Kal v'Chomer is made from small containers that have a tight cover, as even if they do not have a tight cover they are pure. This is because the Zav does not end up touching them, as they do not end up being opened. Whatever is not going to be touched does not end up being carried, as stated later (124b). (Accordingly, both a person and a vessel that are not supposed to end up being opened protect from the impurity of being carried by a Zav, as opposed to containers that are supposed to be opened that do not, as is the case in Gitin 61b.)

Explanation: It is clear that when something is absorbed through the lower parts of one's body it is also considered pure, as is apparent from our Mishnah regarding a fetus. The law that the midwife is deemed impure is a Rabbinic law, as is apparent later.

Explanation (cont.): Additionally, the Gemara currently thinks that Rabah admits that if a person swallowed two rings (one pure and one impure) the pure one becomes impure. The case of a midwife becoming impure is like the case of two rings.

Explanation: A live animal does not become impure, as is apparent from the case of a dog who eats flesh of a dead person stated later (126a).

Question #1: Perhaps this even applies to vessels the animal wears (as opposed to the Gemara's understanding that it applies to clothing that it is carrying) that can be called "(animal) clothing," as we find in Shabbos (53a) that certain things are considered "(animal) clothing?"

Question #2: Additionally, Rabeinu Efraim asks that the Toras Kohanim excludes an animal and Nochri from needing to stay for a certain amount of time in a house with leprosy in order to make the clothing they are wearing impure.

Question #2 (cont.): This is derived from the Pasuk, "And he will wash his clothes." The Pasuk implies that only one who causes clothes to be impure saves them from becoming immediately impure in a house that has leprosy. Being that a Nochri and an animal do not cause clothing to become impure, they do not save clothing from a house with leprosy. This indicates that an animal can wear clothing, but the Torah excluded its clothing, similar to a Nochri who wears clothing.

Answer: Even the clothing that an animal is wearing are considered as if they are being carried by it, being that they do not become impure because of the animal which does not cause impurity.

Answer (cont.): Regarding a person in a similar situation, meaning where he is carrying the clothing, waiting is not required. However, clothing that he is wearing are considered part of his body, and they become impure because of him. It is a Torah derivation that they only become impure because of him if he stays in the house for a certain amount of time.

Answer (cont.): According to this explanation that the clothing a person wears becomes impure because the person makes them impure, if he is totally inside the house that has leprosy and his hand with the ring on his finger is outside the house, the ring is impure. If he is outside the house and his hand with the ring on it is inside the house the ring is pure, as it is nullified to the person who is pure because he is mostly outside of the house.

Question: This is difficult, as in Toras Kohanim and Negaim (ch. 13) it says that if the person was standing inside the house and he stuck his hand with the rings outside the house, and he stayed K'dei Achilas Peras in the house, the rings are impure. If he was standing outside the house and he stuck his hand with the rings inside the house, Rebbi Yehudah says they become impure immediately. The Chachamim say they become impure if he stays K'dei Achilas Peras. (According to the answer above, how can the second case be ruled impure?)

Answer: Perhaps the Toras Kohanim and Mishnah in Negaim is referring to a Rabbinic law as opposed to a Torah law. Rebbi Yehudah is stringent that the rings should be considered impure immediately because he understands the impurity comes from the rings themselves, not from the person wearing them.

Observation: Rava is not asking his question from absorbed impurity, as Rabah says (71a) "Just as etc." This indicates that Rabah also understood that it was obvious from the Mishnah that absorbed impurity does not cause anything to become impure.

Observation (cont.): Rather, the question is from an absorbed item that is pure. There is a Mishnah about this as well, just as there is a Mishnah regarding an impure item! If so, why is the law regarding the impure item more obvious than the law regarding the pure item?

Explanation: This is referring to someone who is impure from contact with a dead person. The Torah teaches that a sword is like a dead person. Were it not for the fact that absorbed impurity does not cause impurity, such a person could not become pure through immersing in a Mikvah. Even though contact from a hidden place does not cause impurity through touching, it does cause impurity through being carried (and therefore the person who is constantly carrying this inside of him would always be considered impure).

Question: Perhaps the case is regarding a ring that became impure by touching a dead Sheretz? (This could be why it does not cause impurity, not because it is absorbed impurity!)

Answer #1: It is stated after the case of the pure ring in Mikvaos (10:8 which is discussing impurity through a dead person).

Answer #2: If it is referring to the impurity of a Sheretz it would only be a Rishon. How could the Mishnah say it causes impurity to a person? A person or vessel does not become impure from anything less than an Av ha'Tumah! (It therefore must not have become impure from a Sheretz.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that if we would only know our Mishnah, one might think that the reason that the ring does not cause a person to become impure is not because it is absorbed, but rather because contact from a hidden place is not deemed contact regarding impurity, as stated in Nidah (42b).

Implied Question: One cannot say that the person would become impure through carrying the ring. (Why not?)

Answer: Carrying only applies to the person or item emitting the impurity such as a dead person, an animal that was not slaughtered properly, and the springs (i.e. source of impurity in the body) of a Zav.