Explanation: It says regarding Sheratzim "Asher Yipol Mehem El Tocho", and elsewhere it says "Asher Yiga Bahem b'Mosam." How do we resolve these two verses?...

Chachamim estimated ka'Adashah (a lentil's worth) is called "Mehem", since this is part of one Sheretz, and it is called "Bahem", because the initial creation of a Chomet (snail or chameleon) is ka'Adashah.

Inference: There is a tradition for a Shi'ur, since we require ka'Adashah, for a Chomet initial creation is ka'Adashah, i.e. with its legs and horns...

And in any case, if one cut a little from it, it is diminished from ka'Adashah, and even so it lives, and even so, we require ka'Adashah, truly like its initial creation. We infer that there is a tradition for a Shi'ur.

Explanation (cont.): We reject this. Rav Sham'ayah taught that we require the Shi'ur of ka'Adashah when a Neshamah was not put in it, e.g. a Chomet [in its initial creation];

If it was diminished a little initially, then surely we should not consider it a creation with less, since a living Neshamah is never put in it with less than this;

However, when a Neshamah was put in it, e.g. a living ant, it is considered a creation, even if he cut off its legs or anything from it that it can still live much, that its life does not depend on the matter cut off.

Observation: Elsewhere, we say "how much must the spine be missing... that it will not be Metamei?", and Shmuel said in Chulin (42b) that the same [Shi'ur] applies to Tereifah.

Assertion (R. Yitzchak): It seems that also here, we equate these. If most of the ribs were broken, it is Tereifah, like it says in Chulin (52a) that if most [of the ribs] were broken on both sides, it is Tereifah. If they were uprooted, even the majority on one side [makes it Tereifah].

Explanation: [They brought a box of bones to the Beis ha'Keneses of] copper smelters. (Presumably, they had their own Beis ha'Keneses because their odor bothers others - see Kesuvos 77a.) They left it exposed, where there is no roof over it, lest people who enter become Tamei through Ohel;

Tudus the doctor entered, and all the doctors with him. They said "there is no spine here from one Mes."

Citation: I found in Perush Mishnayos that so it says in the Sifri. They said "since some here are Metaher, and some are Metamei, let us vote";

I.e. R. Akiva and Chachamim, who argue about a spine and skull from two Mesim [argued about this]. Below, the Gemara brings [their argument].

Also in Ohalos (2:6) their argument is taught. They began [the vote] with R. Akiva, and he was Metaher;

They said to him "since you, who used to be Metamei, are Metaher, they should be Tehorim."

Explanation: [There was not a spine] from one Mes. This implies that if there was a spine and skull from one Mes, a Nazir shaves for it, and that the Mishnah teaches a spine or skull.

We reject this. He said even more. Not only there is not a spine and skull from one Mes...

Question: Why did they need to show the doctors whether or not the spine is from one Mes? Presumably it was fractured and broken. We said above that even from one Mes, it is Tahor! (Orach Mishur asks that this is only if the majority was broken!)

Answer (R. Yitzchak): The case is, a person towered above those bones while they were in the grave. We said above that the grave joins them.

Observation: Here it does not mention a quarter Kav of bones from two Mesim, like in the Mishnah in Ohalos (2:6) regarding the argument of R. Akiva and Rabanan.

Inference: This shows that here we discuss [what obligates] a Nazir to shave. He does not shave for less than half a Kav;

Therefore it mentions half a Kav, for regarding a quarter Kav, even from one Mes, he does not shave, like our Mishnah taught;

There (Ohalos 2:6) it teaches about mere Tum'as Ohel.

Distinction: If it came from one Mes, according to R. Akiva he would shave, like our Mishnah (56b) taught according to R. Akiva, and Rabanan argue with him;

Here, the Mishnah teaches that R. Akiva retracted.

Implied question: The Mishnah should have taught according to Rabanan [that he does not shave] for half a Log of blood from two Mesim!

Answer (R. Peretz): Since R. Akiva holds that he shaves even for a Revi'is [from one Mes, after he retracted], it taught so [about a Revi'is from two Mesim].

Explanation: Do not count among these six matters Ever Min ha'Chai.

[We answer that] alternatively, we taught only matters that a Nazir shaves for their Tum'as Ohel. This excludes a bone the size of a barley seed. He shaves only for touching or moving it.

Alternatively, we taught only matters about which R. Akiva retracted, like it taught above that R. Akiva retracted. This excludes a Revi'is of blood from two Mesim, about which he did not retract.

It lists the six matters he retracted from. Really, a spine and skull count like two;

Rebbi told his Talmid Bar Kapara "do not teach a Revi'is of blood among matters about which R. Akiva retracted, for this teaching is [still] in his mouth, that a Nazir shaves for a Revi'is of blood from two Mesim. Further, the verse supports him."

[Rebbi] comes to contradict the one who says that R. Akiva retracted [about this].

R. Shimon comes to say like Rebbi, that R. Akiva did not retract, just [R. Shimon] said in a mocking way about R. Akiva, "if he retracted after his death, I do not know."

Explanation: [Beis Shamai say that] a quarter Kav of bones from two or three limbs have Tum'as Ohel;

Beis Hillel say, from the Geviyah, i.e. from the primary part of the body, from the majority of the stature or the majority of the number;

There are 248 bones in a person, like was taught in Ohalos (1:8), and 125 are the majority of the number;

If one took 125 bones, and took a little from each, until he took a quarter Kav, they have Tum'as Ohel.

Explanation: [Through two shins and one thigh, or two thighs and one shin], this is the majority of the stature, i.e. of the height.

A Mishnah in Ohalos (1:8) counts the 248 bones, and counts from below to above. [It counts] in the foot...

It counts two in the Shok, five in the knee, and one in the Yerech. The Mishnah there connotes that Shok is below the knee, and the Yerech is above [it];

Explanation (cont.): From two shins and one thigh, or two thighs and one shin [is Metamei], since this is the majority of a person's build, i.e. of his height.

Implied question: Why do Beis Shamai say "from two or three"?

Answer #1: This is not precise. Rather, it is a quarter Kav of bones that comes from the majority of the stature. The majority of the stature refers to the height of a person; a thigh on top of two shins [is the majority].

Answer #2: Some explain that two shins and one thigh are called two, because the shins are very thin, and they are like one, and with one thigh, they are considered like two bones;

Two thighs and one shin, these are three, because the thighs are thick and big, so they are considered two, and with one shin, there are three.

Explanation: [Beis Hillel are Metamei] since there is in them the majority of the number, e.g. from the joints of the fingers and toes;

Beis Shamai discuss a quarter Kav from the majority of the stature, and Beis Hillel discuss a quarter Kav from the majority of the number. Each said one matter; they do not disagree.

From the joints of the fingers and toes we find the majority of the number without the majority of the stature, like it explains in Ohalos (1:8);

In the feet there are six bones in every toe, and in the hand there are six bones in every finger. This is 120 bones in the hands and feet. (Orach Mishur - there are other bones in the arm that are not part of the majority of the stature, to get to 125. Perhaps words are missing from Tosfos.)

Explanation: [The spine and skull] taught in our Mishnah, for which a Nazir shaves...

We are thinking that there is no spine and skull without a quarter Kav of bones, and if there is not within them a quarter Kav of bones, he does not shave.

Therefore, we ask, if you think that a quarter Kav of bones that come from a spine and skull is more stringent, the Mishnah should teach a quarter Kav of bones that comes from the spine or skull!

Why does it teach in our Mishnah the spine and skull, which connotes only when they are complete? Even if they are broken and separated, you want to say that if there is a Rova, a Nazir shaves for them!