1)

(a)The only two differences listed by our Mishnah between someone who is a Mudar Hana'ah and one who is Mudar only regarding food, are that the latter is permitted to enter the Madir's property, and that he may borrow from him vessels that are not used for food. Even the latter are forbidden however - if they are vessels that are normally hired (because whatever gains the user a Perutah, enables him to buy food with his gains).

(b)Rava establish our Mishnah which permits the latter to enter the Madir's property, as Rebbi Eliezer - because he is the Tana who forbids a Mudar Hana'ah even such minor benefits that people tend to forego.

(c)The Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer - would permit a Mudar Hana'ah to enter the Madir's property, since most people are not fussy about such trivial benefits.

2)

(a)The only difference between a Neder and a Nedavah, says our Mishnah, is that one is responsible for the former but not for the latter. The definition of ...

1. ... a Neder (in this context) - is, for example, when a person says 'Harei Alai' ('I am obligated to bring a Korban') following which, he designates a specific animal to fulfill his promise.

2. ... a Nedavah - is when he designates a specific animal as a Korban by declaring 'Harei Zu Hekdesh' ('This animal is Hekdesh').

(b)When the Tana says that one is not responsible for a Nedavah - he means that, should it die or get lost or stolen, he is not responsible to re-place it.

(c)Rebbi Shimon learns this distinction from the Pasuk "v'Nirtzah Lo l'Chaper Alav" - implying that he has taken the responsibility on his shoulders.

3)

(a)The Mishnah gives the distinction between a Zav who sees twice and one who sees three times as being that the latter must bring a Korban. Their Din is the same however - regarding 1. Tum'as Mishkav (lying on something that is made to lie on); 2. Tum'as Moshav (sitting on something that is made to sit on, both of which make an Av ha'Tum'ah), and 3. the need to count seven clean days.

(b)Rebbi Sima'i learns from the fact that the Torah declares Tamei a Zav who has two sightings Tamei, as well as one who has three - that even though he only needs to bring a Korban after the third sighting, he already becomes Tamei after two (as we explained).

(c)It would be illogical to say that the Torah mentions 'two' for Tum'ah (and not a Korban), and 'three' for a Korban (but not Tum'ah) - because, having become Tamei after the second sighting, how can the Tum'ah disappear after the third?!

4)

(a)We refute the suggestion that maybe two is for a Korban only, and three comes to add Tum'ah, due the Pasuk in Metzora "v'Chiper Alav ha'Kohen mi'Zovo" - which suggests that only in some cases does a Zav bring a Korban, and not always.

(b)We cannot learn from the Pasuk that someone who sees twice brings a Korban, but not someone who sees three times - because, like we said before, having become Chayav to bring a Korban after seeing twice, how can the obligation disappear after seeing a third time?!

(c)The Torah needs to write "mi'Zovo", in spite of Rebbi Sima'i (that the Torah declares Tamei both a Zav who had two sightings and one who had three), to dispense with the Kashya in a. And even though we have "mi'Zovo", we still need Rebbi Sima'i - because without his Derashah, we would not know how many sightings a Zav needs to have to become first Tamei, and then to bring a Korban.

5)

(a)Now that we Darshen the prefix 'Mi', we (initially) learn from the Pasuk in Metzora "v'Chi Yit'har Ish mi'Zovo" - "mi'Zovo" 'v'Lo mi'Zovo u'mi'Nega'o', meaning that a man who is both a Zav and a Metzora may count his seven clean days immediately, and then, as soon as he is cured from his Tzara'as, he may Tovel for both Tum'os simultaneously, without having to count another seven clean days.

(b)That Tevilah is effective as regards the Tum'os of a Zav (Mishkav, Moshav and Heset). It is not effective - with regard to a Metzora eating Kodshim (for which he must wait another seven days) or for the ceremony which will allow him to return to his wife, which still requires a second Tevilah.

(c)And we learn from the continuation of the Pasuk "mi'Zovo v'Safar" - to say that even a partial Zav (one who saw only twice) must also count seven clean days.

(d)We cannot learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the fact that he renders Tamei through Mishkav and Moshav - because we have a precedent to the contrary, in a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom (a woman who saw once or twice during the eleven days between Nidah and Nidah), who also renders Tamei through Mishkav and Moshav, yet she does not require seven clean days.

6)

(a)We just learned that "mi'Zovo v'Safar" comes to include a Zav who saw twice in the Din of seven clean days. Rav Papa queried this Derashah from the previous one ("v'Chi Yit'har ha'Zav mi'Zovo"), from which we learned to exclude ("mi'Zovo" 'v'Lo mi'Zovo umi'Nega'o'). Rava replied that - it is not possible to interpret this Pasuk to include; because to exclude a Zav who saw twice from the Din of seven clean days, does not require a Pasuk (seeing as, even the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mishkav and Moshav, which might have included him, is ineffective, in face of the Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, as we just explained).

(b)In fact, now that we need the word "mi'Zovo" for the latter Derashah, we can no longer use it for the former.

(c)We learn the Din of "mi'Zovo" 'v'Lo mi'Zovo umi'Nega'o', not from "mi'Zovo", but from the same Pasuk "v'Chi Yit'har ha'Zav mi'Zovo", which is also superfluous (since the Torah could have written "v'Chi Yit'har mi'Zovo".

7)

(a)The two distinctions cited by our Mishnah between ...

1. ... a Metzora Musgar and a Metzora Muchlat - are Peri'ah and Perimah (the prohibition of cutting the hair and tearing one's clothes for a close relative, respectively), which pertain to the latter, but not to the former.

2. ... a Metzora who becomes Tahor after being a Musgar and one who became Tahor after being a Muchlat - are Tiglachas v'Tziparim (shaving off all the hair and bringing a Korban consisting of two birds, respectively), which pertain to the latter but not to the former.

(b)A Metzora Musgar and a Metzora Muchlat the same - as regards being sent out of the camp (any walled town), and the stringent laws of Tum'ah that pertain to a Metzora.

(c)Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Huna that a Metzora Musgar is not subject to Peri'ah and Perimah from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "v'Chibes Begadav v'Taher" - implying that there is something from which he was already Tahor before (since the Torah did not write "v'Yit'har").

(d)Rava queries this Derashah from the same Pasuk which appears in Metzora with regard to a Zav - because if "v'Taher" implies what we just said it does, how will we explain it by a Zav (from what can he possibly be Tahor retroactively)?!

8)

(a)We learn from "v'Chibes Begadav v'Taher" (by Zav) - that, from the moment he Tovels on the seventh day, he is not Metamei b'Heset (to render Tamei earthenware vessels which he moved indirectly) from that moment until he sees again (even though, if he does have another sighting on the same day, he negates the seven clean days retroactively in every other regard but this one).

(b)Correspondingly, we will learn from the Pasuk "v'Chibes Begadav v'Taher" (by a Metzora Musgar) - that once he has Toveled, he will not render Tamei any vessels that are in the house that he enters between the Tevilah and the spreading of the Tzara'as (even though, if the Tzora'as does subsequently spread, it renders him Tamei retroactively).

(c)Rava ultimately learns that a Metzora Musgar is not subject to Peri'ah u'Perimah from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "veha'Tzaru'a Asher Bo ha'Nega" - implying that Peri'ah u'Perimah are confined to a Metzora Muchlat, whose Tzara'as depends upon his personal situation (as long as it is there, he is a Metzora; as long as it is not, he is not), but not to a Musgar, whose Tzara'as depends upon time.

(d)Nevertheless, a Metzora Musgar is sent out of the camp, despite the fact that the Torah specifically writes "Kol Yemei Asher ha'Nega Bo Yitma" - because, on the other hand, the Torah writes "Kol" to include him (as to why the Torah needs to write both "Bo" and "Kol", see Sefas Emes).

9)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Metzora "v'Yatza el mi'Chutz la'Machanah v'Hinei Nirpa Nega ha'Tzara'as min ha'Tzaru'a" - that it is only a Metzora Muchlat (whose Tzara'as depends upon whether he is cured or not) who has to shave off all his hair and bring two birds, but not a Musgar (whose Tzara'as depends upon time).

(b)These the only two differences between the Taharah of a Metzora Muchlat and that of a Musgar - on the day that he becomes cured. On the eighth day, a Muchlat also has to bring an Asham and a Log of oil (which a Musgar does not), but our Sugya is not concerned with this.

10)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, the only difference between the writing of Sefarim (Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim) and that of Tefilin and Mezuzos - is that Sefarim may be written in any language, whereas Tefilin and Mezuzos must be written in Lashon ha'Kodesh.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that also Sefarim may only be written in ancient Greek.

(c)Sefarim on the one hand, and Tefilin and Mezuzos on the other, share the same Din - with regard to stitching them together with sinews and to rendering the hands Tamei.

(d)We extrapolate this from the Lashon 'Ein Bein ...' used by the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, implying that in all other regards, the three are the same.