Explanation: E.g. the eight Sheratzim - the Choled (weasel), mouse...

Example: E.g. a Sheretz and [another kind of] Sheretz, or a Neveilah and a Neveilah (have the same Tum'ah and Shi'ur);

The same Tum'ah and not the same Shi'ur, e.g. Ever Min ha'Chai and k'Zayis of a Mes, that the Tum'ah is the same - they are Metamei b'Ohel, but the Shi'ur is not the same. A k'Zayis of flesh is Metamei, and an Ever of any size);

The Tum'ah is not the same and the Shi'ur is not the same, e.g. a Sheretz and a Neveilah.

Explanation: This that it says in our Mishnah that blood of a Sheretz and its flesh join, this is only when the blood is still in the Sheretz, but if the blood separated from the flesh of the Sheretz, they do not join;

R. Yosi bar Chanina challenged this [from a Beraisa that expounds] "ha'Temei'im" - this teaches that they join, and even a Sheretz and a Sheretz, or a Sheretz and blood, whether from one Shem or from two Shemos;

Explanation: Two Shemos are two [species of] Sheratzim, e.g. a Choled and a mouse. Then the blood of the Sheretz joins with flesh of another Sheretz, and all the more so blood of the Sheretz and its flesh join, even if [the blood] separated.

Rav Yosef said, here it is all of it, and here it is part of it. I.e. what it says here in the Beraisa that blood of this Sheretz joins with flesh of another Sheretz, this is only in all of it, i.e. the blood separated from a whole Sheretz. Then it is significant to join;

And this that he said regarding our Mishnah that it joins only when [the blood] is still in it, this is part of it. The blood separated only from one limb or from one piece. Then it is not significant to join;

What is the source to distinguish between coming from a full Sheretz, and coming from a partial Sheretz? It is like a Beraisa teaches. If [blood] spilled, and the place was inclined - i.e. a Revi'is of blood of a Mes spilled on an incline, and it did not stay in one place, rather, here a little and here a little...

If one was Ma'ahil (towered) above some of it, he is Tahor, because he was not Ma'ahil over the entire Revi'is of blood. If he was Ma'ahil above everywhere that the blood spilled, e.g. his hand towered over it, he is Tamei, for then he was Ma'ahil over a Revi'is, for the blood in this place joins with the blood elsewhere.

Explanation #1: He stirs the blood with his hand or a stick. He is Tahor, because it is impossible that the stick did not absorb, and a Revi'is does not remain. Why is he Tahor? We say that if he was Ma'ahil above all of them it, he is Tamei, even though he was not Ma'ahil over the entire Revi'is in one place!

Rather, here all of it and here part of it - this that we say that if he was Ma'ahil over all, he is Tamei, this is in all of it, i.e. when it comes from a full Mes. R. Yochanan taught that he is Tahor when it comes from part of a Mes, and not from a full Mes.

Question #1: Since we establish it that the blood is in the flesh of the Sheretz, what joining do we need? We call the entire matter flesh of the Sheretz, since it never separated!

Question #2: Where do we find this distinction between all of it and part of it? Since there is a Revi'is, why do I care if it is from a full Mes, or from a deficient Mes?

Explanation #2: It seems like R. Nisim Gaon explained, that the text says "R. Chanin said in the name of R. Ze'iri... I.e. R. Ze'iri said in the name of R. Yochanan that the blood must be from the same Sheretz that the flesh separated from it

I.e. however, blood of this Sheretz does not join with flesh of another Sheretz.

Regarding this, it asks from the case of coming from two Shemos. It explicitly says that they join, even though they come from two Sheratzim.

It answers "here is all of it, and here is part of it." I.e. it says there that they join, even though they come from two Sheratzim, e.g. he touched all of it, the blood and meat. This that Ze'iri said only from one Sheretz, but not from two Sheratzim, is when he touched only part, the blood or the meat.

Therefore it says that when they come from one Sheretz they join, for it is as if the blood and meat are connected together. However, when they come from two Sheratzim, each one is a matter by itself.

Citation: What is the source that we can distinguish like this between touching all and touching part? It is like a Beraisa teaches. If [blood] spilled... if he was Ma'ahil over part, he is Tahor. This shows that there is a distinction between being Ma'ahil over all and Ma'ahil over part. Likewise, we can distinguish in touching (between touching all and touching part).

Question: If so, why do we bring further "but R. Yochanan said, a Revi'is of blood..."? (Matan b'Seser - in Tosfos' text, R. Yochanan taught "if one stirred a Revi'is of blood, he is Tahor", and not R. Chanina, and it is a support.)

Answer (ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): If not for R. Yochanan's teaching, one could have said that it says here that if he was Ma'ahil over part, he is Tahor, when there is not a Revi'is. Therefore it brings R. Yochanan to show that we discuss even a Revi'is. Even so, he is Tahor, because he touched only part of it.

Explanation: He expounds the unnecessary Vov in v'Zeh, or the Hei in ha'Tamei.

Explanation: I.e. he was clever to expound this himself. (Minchas Soles on Sefer ha'Chinuch, Mitzvah 159 - the Talmidim thought that this Drashah is only according to R. Shimon, who holds that one is lashed for eating any amount. Since it is not needed to teach about joining to a Shi'ur for lashes, he expounds it for Tum'ah. R. Masya refuted this, for also R. Elazar bar R. Yosi expounded so.)

Explanation: He did so to obscure his identity, lest they recognize that he is a Yisrael, for Yisraelim do not take such haircuts.

Explanation: The matter is proper and good to do, to annul the decree.

Explanation: [If my father were alive,] would you be able to say [to him] "give your son to be killed", like you say to me to send my son with R. Shimon ben Yochai, who is prone to anger, and I fear lest he punish him?!

R. Shimon thought that [R. Yosi] did not say so due to him (R. Shimon), rather, due to fear of the kingdom, lest he be endangered through the matter. Therefore, he said "if Yochai (my father) were alive..."?!

R. Yosi answered "I will go, lest R. Shimon punish my son. I am afraid, for he is a youth, and quick to answer, and R. Shimon is easily angered and adamant about a small matter, when they are going on the way..."

In any case R. Elazar b'Ribi Yosi went, like the Yerushalmi explains, that R. Shimon vowed not to punish him.

Explanation: He was quick to answer.

Reference: The Yerushalmi explains that he was stricken with croup, and when R. Shimon remembered that he stipulated to return him to his father, he prayed for him and he was healed.

Observation: This is what we call Matoch in La'az (old French). He was like a small boy, and he was frequently with women, to scoff with them.

Explanation: And through me will be the miracle.

Explanation: He said so about Hagar, like it says "Mal'ach" three times, to teach that she saw three angels. I (R. Shimon) did not see even once! I.e. I am not worthy that an angel come to me [even] once.

He said "let the miracle come in any way." I.e. the miracle will come through this commoner.

[Ben Tamalyon] went first to Kaiser's daughter, and entered her body. When R. Shimon and R. Elazar got there, they said "Ben Tamalyon, go!" gently. They said so quietly, so others would not understand, and they will think that it is through Tefilah.

Explanation: The household of the king said so.

Explanation: This is the scroll of the royal decree.

Explanation: He said so about the Paroches, and at that time he saw it [in the episode] here, he saw it, for we find that he was in Romi only now, that he was in the king's storehouse, and he saw it there.