Question: What is the source for the Tum'ah of urine of a Zav?

Answer (Beraisa): "Zovo Tamei (Hu); v'Zos" teaches that his urine is Tamei.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this! Spit comes from a Tahor place, yet a Zav's spit is Tamei. Urine comes from a Tamei place (the source of Zov). All the more so it should be Tamei!

Rejection: Blood that leaves through the Ever disproves this. It comes from a Tamei place, yet it is Tahor. Perhaps the same applies to urine!

Therefore, it says "... v'Zos" to include urine.

Question: What is the source to be Metaher blood that leaves through the Ever?

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps blood that leaves through a Zav's mouth or Ever is Tamei!

Rejection: "Zovo Tamei Hu" teaches that his Zov is Tamei, but not blood from his mouth or Ever.

Question: (These verses do not specify what to be Metaher or Metamei.) Perhaps we should be Metaher urine and be Metamei blood, and not vice-versa!

Answer (R. Yochanan): Presumably, we are Metamei something like spit (which the Torah explicitly is Metamei), which accumulates before leaving;

This excludes blood, which leaves right away.

Objection: Milk accumulates before leaving, yet it has only Tum'as Mashkim. It is not an Av ha'Tum'ah!

Correction: Rather, R. Yochanan said that we are Metamei something like spit, which accumulates before leaving and can be reabsorbed;

This excludes blood, which leaves right away. It excludes milk, for even though it accumulates before leaving, it cannot be reabsorbed.

Question: Why don't we learn from Zov? It does not accumulate before leaving!

Answer (Rava): We cannot learn from Zov, for it causes Tum'ah to others (the Zav).

(Mishnah): A Sheretz (is Tamei if it is moist).

(Reish Lakish): If a Sheretz dried up and its Sheled (form) is intact, it is Tamei.

Question (Mishnah): These are Tamei if they are moist, not if they are dry... (a Sheretz... )

Answer (R. Zeira): A partial Sheretz is Tamei only if it is moist. A full Sheretz is Tamei even if it is dry.

(Beraisa - R. Yitzchak b'Rebbi Bisna) Suggestion: Perhaps "Bahem" teaches that only a full Sheretz is Tamei!

Rejection: "Mehem" (is Metamei even a partial Sheretz).

Suggestion: Perhaps this teaches that even a partial Sheretz is Tamei!

Rejection: "Bahem" (teaches that only a full Sheretz is Tamei).

Resolution: A partial Sheretz is Tamei only if it is moist. A full Sheretz is Tamei even if it is dry.

- (Rava): A toad of Mechoza is Metamei if its form is intact.

(Reish Lakish): If a Sheretz was burned but its form is intact, it is Metamei.

Question (Beraisa): A burned Sheretz or a worn out cloth is Tahor

Resolution (R. Zeira): It is Tamei only when it is whole.

(Beraisa - R. Yitzchak b'Rebbi Bisna) Suggestion: Perhaps "Bahem" teaches that only a full Sheretz is Tamei!

Rejection: "Mehem" (is Metamei even a partial Sheretz).

Suggestion: Perhaps this teaches that even a partial Sheretz is Tamei!

Rejection: "Bahem" (teaches that only a full Sheretz is Tamei).

Resolution: A full Sheretz is Tamei even if it is burned. A partial Sheretz is Tamei only if it is not burned.

(Mishnah): These are Tamei only if they are moist.

We learn about Zov (that it is Tamei only if it is moist) from "Rar Besaro." (This is like Rir (saliva), which is moist.)

Kicho, Ni'o and spit are Tamei only if they are moist. (We learn Kicho and Ni'o from spit, regarding which) It says "v'Chi Yarok ha'Zav." it must be moist, like when he spit.

A Sheretz is Tamei only if it is moist. We learn from "b'Mosam". It must be like the time of death.

Shichvas Zera (semen) is Tamei only if it is moist. It must be fit to be MaZRi'A (impregnate).

A Nevelah is Tamei only if it is moist. We learn from "v'Chi Yamus." It must be like the time of death.

(Mishnah): If they can become moist again through soaking (for 24 hours in lukewarm water, they are Metamei).

Question (R. Yirmeyah): Must the water be lukewarm the entire time, or does it suffice if it was lukewarm at the beginning?

Answer (Beraisa) Question: How long do we soak them in lukewarm water to test them?

Answer #1 (Yehudah ben Nekusa): They soak for 24 hours. The water must be lukewarm at the beginning. It need not be at the end;

Answer #2 (R. Shimon ben Gamliel): They must soak in water that is lukewarm for 24 hours.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): If dry flesh of a Mes cannot return (to be moist, it is Tahor).

(Shmuel): A k'Zayis of it is Tahor, but Malei Tarvad (a spoonful) of it is Tamei due to Rekev (decayed flesh).

Support (Beraisa - R. Yosi): If dry flesh of a Mes cannot return to be moist, a k'Zayis of it is not Tamei, but Tum'as Rekev applies to it.

(Mishnah): If a Sheretz was found in a Mavoy (alleyway), all Taharos that were there are retroactively Teme'im, up to the last time it was checked for Sheratzim or swept;

Similarly, if a Kesem was found on Leah's garment, she and it are retroactively Teme'im, up to the last time she checked it or washed it.

The Tum'ah applies from this time whether the Sheretz or Kesem is dry or moist;

R. Shimon says, the Tum'ah applies from this time if they are dry;

If they are moist, it applies retroactively as long as it would be possible for them to still be moist.

(Gemara) Question: Why isn't the Mavoy retroactively Tamei from before the last sweeping? Is it because we assume that the sweeper checked for Sheratzim, or because we assume that they would have been swept up?

Question: What difference does it make?

Answer #1: The sweeper says that he did not check;

If we (normally) assume that the sweeper checked, here we know that he did not;

If we assume that Sheratzim would have been swept up, this still applies.

Answer #2: A Sheretz was found in a crevice;

If we assume that the sweeper checked, he would check even in crevices;

If we assume that Sheratzim would have been swept up, this does not apply inside crevices. (The Gemara asks a related question, and then answers both questions.)

(Mishnah): Similarly, if a Kesem...

Question #2: Why isn't it Tamei from before the last laundering? Do we assume that she checked for Kesamim when she laundered it, or do we assume that the laundering would have removed them?

Question: What difference does it make?

Answer #1: She says that she did not check when she laundered it;

If we (normally) assume that she checked, here we know that she did not;

If we assume that laundering removes Kesamim, this still applies.

Answer #2: A Kesem was found in a hem;

If we assume that she checked, she would check even hems;

If we assume that laundering removes Kesamim, this does not apply inside hems.

(Answer to both questions - Beraisa - R. Meir): The reason why when a Sheretz is found in a Mavoy, Taharos are retroactively Teme'im (only) up to the last time it was checked for Sheratzim or swept, is because of the Chazakah that Bnei Yisrael check for Sheratzim when sweeping;

If they did not check, they lose. (Taharos are Teme'im from even before it was swept.)

If a Kesem was found on Leah's garment, the Tum'ah is retroactive up to the last time she checked it or washed it. This is due to the Chazakah that Benos Yisrael check for Kesamim when laundering;

If she did not check, she loses.

R. Acha says, she should launder it again;

If the Kesem gets washed away, this shows that it came after the previous laundering;

If it is not washed away, perhaps it was from before the previous laundering.

Rebbi says, a Kesem looks different before and after laundering. Beforehand it is on the surface, afterwards it is inside the fabric.

Summation of answers: The Tum'os are limited due to the Chazakah that Yisraelim check when sweeping and laundering.

(Mishnah): Whether the Sheretz or Kesem is dry or moist... (R. Shimon says, if they are moist, we are Metamei retroactively as long as it would be possible for them to still be moist.)

(R. Elazar): R. Shimon discusses only Sheratzim. He does not limit retroactive Tum'ah of a moist Kesem. Perhaps it dried up and water came on it!

Question: Similarly, he should be concerned lest a moist Sheretz had dried up, and water came on it!

Answer: If this happened, the Sheretz would have fallen apart.

(Mishnah): (Garments with) Kesamim that come from Rekem (a city) are Tehorim;

R. Yehudah is Metamei, because they are converts and they err.

Kesamim that come from Nochrim are Tehorim. (Mid'Oraisa, Nochrim are Tehorim. Chachamim decreed to consider a Nochris a Nidah, but they did not decree about her Kesamim.)

R. Meir is Metamei Kesamim that come from Yisraelim and from Kusim. (Kusim are Nochrim whom Sancheriv settled in place of the ten exiled Shevatim. Lions were eating them, so they converted. They do not follow enactments or teachings of Chachamim. They follow Mitzvos mentioned in the Torah, according to their literal understanding. Once, they were found serving their old idolatry. Some say that this shows that their conversion was invalid.)

Chachamim are Metaher, for they are not suspected about their Kesamim.

(Gemara) Inference: The Mishnah is Metaher all Kesamim that come from Nochrim, even from Tarmud (a city)!

(R. Yochanan): This teaches that we accept converts from Tarmud (and they may marry Yisraelim. We are not concerned lest they are Mamzerim descended from women from the ten Shevatim who conceived from Nochrim.)

Contradiction: R. Yochanan and elders taught that we do not accept converts from Tarmud!

Suggestion: R. Yochanan teaches that our Mishnah holds that we accept. He himself argues.

Question: R. Yochanan says that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah!

Answer: Amoraim argue about the opinion of R. Yochanan. (Those who say that he does not accept converts from Tarmud hold that he never said that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah.)

(Mishnah): (Chachamim are Metaher) Kesamim that come from Yisraelim and from Kusim.

Question: If Chachamim are Metaher Kesamim of Yisraelim, whose Kesamim are Teme'im?!

Answer #1: The Mishnah is abbreviated, it means as follows:

Kesamim of Yisraelim are Teme'im;

R. Meir is Metamei Kesamim of Kusim, for their conversion was valid;

Chachamim are Metaher Kesamim of Kusim, for their conversion was due to the lions. (It was invalid.)

Rejection: The Mishnah does not give this reason. Rather, it says that Chachamim are Metaher because Kusim are not suspected about their Kesamim!

Answer #2: Rather, (the Mishnah is abbreviated;) it means as follows:

Kesamim that come from (cities of) Yisraelim and Kusim are Teme'im, for (perhaps they are of Kusim, and) their conversion was valid;

Kesamim that come from cities of Yisraelim are Tehorim, for Yisraelim are not suspected about their Kesamim. They hide away all Tamei Kesamim.

R. Meir is Metamei Kesamim of Kusim, for they are suspected about their Kesamim;

Chachamim are Metaher, for Kusim are not suspected about their Kesamim.

(Mishnah): Kesamim found in all places are Tehorim, except for those found in rooms (presumably, they were put there because they are Teme'im) or near Beis ha'Teme'os (where women stay when they are Nidah).

Beis ha'Teme'os of Kusim have Tum'as Ohel, for they (Tosfos - temporarily) bury Nefalim there;

R. Yehudah says, (it does not have Tum'as Ohel for they do not bury Nefalim. Rather,) they cast them where animals take them.

A Kusi is believed to say whether or not a Nefel was buried in a certain place, and whether or not an animal already gave birth (if it did, its next offspring is not a Bechor), and about Tziyon Kevaros (lines above a grave demarcating where there is Tum'as Ohel);

He is not believed about Sechachos, Pera'os or Beis ha'Peras. (These will be explained);

The general rule is, they are not believed about anything that they are suspected about (transgressing).