1)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan, querying Resh Lakish, who assumes that a Meis that disintegrates is Tahor, cites Rebbi Shabsai Amar Rebbi Yitzchak Magdela'a (or Rebbi Yitzchak Magdela'a Amar Rebbi Shabsai) - who declared Tamei, a Meis that remains intact after being burned.

(b)He also cited an episode where the Chachamim declared all the large doorways (of four Tefachim wide or more) in the house, Tamei ...

(c)... because the corpse is likely to be carried out through any one of them, on its way to be buried.

(d)And they declared all the small doorways Tahor - because we know for sure that the Meis will not be carried out through any of them.

(e)The Shi'ur of an opening to transmit Tum'ah from one side to the other would otherwise be - the opening of one Tefach.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ...

1. ... initially extrapolated from there - that the large doorways are only Metamei because the corpse is intact. Otherwise, even they would all be Tahor (the source of Resh Lakish's ruling).

2. ... actually extrapolated from there - that it is only because the corpse is intact that the small doorways remain Tahor. Otherwise, they too would be Tamei, since the corpse might now be carried out through any one of them, limb by limb (which proves the opposite [that a corpse that has disintegrated remains Tamei]).

(b)Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Eliezer, who says in the Mishnah in Ohalos - that a quarter of a Kav of burnt ashes of a Meis is Metamei be'Ohel.

3)

(a)To explain how a burned corpse can remain intact (without falling apart), Abaye explains that it was burned on a Katabla - a well-boiled piece of skin.

(b)Rava establishes it where it was burned on a marble slab (both of which are not inflammable), and which remain intact - we when they are made in the form of a receptacle, so that they hold the Meis together, to prevent it from falling apart.

(c)Ravina establishes it - by a corpse that was scorched, but not completely burnt (irrespective of what it was burned on).

4)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa that a woman who miscarries a severed hand or foot is Tamei Leidah. We might otherwise have thought - that they come from a Guf Atum (a fetus whose body was not properly formed).

(b)Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna both hold that she must observe the days of Tum'ah, but not of Taharah - because we do not know when the rest of the body emerged (in which case, she would not know when to begin and when to end them).

(c)Rav Yosef cites a Mishnah (later in the Perek) which discusses a woman who does not now what she miscarried, where the Tana obligates her to observe the days of a Zachar and of a Nekeivah. According to Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna, he maintains, the Tana ought to have added 'u'le'Nidah' - in connection with the days following those of Tum'ah (as proof that she does not have the days of Taharah).

(d)Abaye answers that 'u'le'Nidah' would also have implied that - it is because it is a Safek Leidah, in which case her Korban would not be eaten (which is in fact not the case).

5)

(a)Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk in va'Yeishev (in connection with the birth of Tamar's twins, Peretz and Zerach) "Vay'hi be'Lidtah Vayiten Yad" that - if a fetus stretches out its hand and then withdraws it, his mother is Tamei Leidah.

(b)Rav Yehudah queries this with a Beraisa which specifically declares the woman Tahor in such a case. Rav Nachman himself relates how Rav Huna explained to him that - he was only Machmir regarding the days of Tum'ah, but did not give her the days of Taharah (which is what the Beraisa means to say [though it is not clear how at this stage, that can be]).

(c)Abaye reconciles Rav Nachman's answer with the Lashon of the Beraisa 'Ein Imo Chosheshes le'Chol Davar', implying that she does not even need to observe the days of Tum'ah - by establishing the Beraisa min ha'Torah, and Rav Huna mi'de'Rabbanan ...

(d)... and the reason that Rav Huna cites a Pasuk is - only in the form of an Asmachta (a Torah-based hint).

6)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses a woman who miscarries a Tumtum - whose sexual organs are covered (so that one does not know whether it is a man or a woman), or an Androginus - which has both male and female organs.

(b)When he rules that she sits for a Zachar and a Nekeivah - he means the days of Tohar of a Zachar and the days of Tum'ah of a Nekeivah.

(c)In a case where she miscarries a Tumtum and ...

1. ... a Zachar, or an Androginus and a Zachar, he rules that - she sits for a Zachar and a Nekeivah.

2. ... a Nekeivah, or an Androginus and a Nekeivah - that she sits for a Nekeivah only.

(d)And the Tana rules in a case where the V'lad came out ...

1. ... cut up or Mesuras (feet first) - that it is considered born only when most of it has emerged.

2. ... normally (head first) that - it is considered born as soon as most of its head (the forehead) is born.

7)

(a)A woman who gives birth to a Tumtum or an Androginus on its own - is obligated to sit for a male and a female (as we just explained).

(b)The Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to present the case of a Tumtum and a Zachar and an Androginus and a Zachar - because, based on Rebbi Yitzchak, who says that if the woman seeds first, then the baby will be a boy, and vice-versa, we would have thought that seeing as the woman 'seeded' first, and the first baby was a boy, the second one must be a boy too.

(c)And the reason that one baby is a boy, and the other perhaps, a girl is - because both parents seeded simultaneously.

8)

(a)Rav Nachman Amar Rav rules that if a Tumtum or Androginus sees red (blood) or white (Zera) - he is not Chayav for then entering the Beis-Hamikdash, nor does any Terumah that he touches (which is Tamei mi'Safek) be burned (because neither a man who sees red nor a woman who sees white, is Tamei).

(b)If he sees both red and white, then Terumah that he touches must be burned, though he himself is not Chayav for Bi'as Mikdash - since the Pasuk writes "mi'Zachar ve'ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu" (which is superfluous, and) - which therefore comes to teach us that only a Vaday Zachar and a Vaday Nekeivah are subject to Bi'as Mikdash (but not a Safek).

9)

(a)The Beraisa that repeats all the Halachos of Tumtum and Androginus presented by Rav Nachman does not also serve as a proof for his reason (as to why he is not Chayav for Bi'as Mikdash after seeing red and white) - because the author may well be Rebbi Eliezer ...

(b)... who requires the Tamei to know his exact source of Tum'ah, and who therefore extrapolates from the Pasuk in Vayikra " ... O be'Nivlas Sheretz, ve'Ne'elam" that - a Tamei is only Chayav a Korban for Bi'as Mikdash if he forgot the source of his Tum'ah when entering the Mikdash, but not if he forgot the Isur of Mikdash.

(c)Rebbi Akiva Darshens the Pasuk 'al He'elam Tum'ah hu Chayav, ve'Eino Chayav al He'elam Mikdash' - which means that he must have known before entering the Mikdash, that he was Tamei (but no more).

(d)According to Rebbi Eliezer - he must also have known exactly which kind of Tamei he was (Sheretz or Neveilah).

10)

(a)We now establish the Beraisa of Loven ve'Odem like Rebbi Eliezer, who, by the same token - requires the Tamei person to know whether he saw Loven or Odem in order to be Chayav for Bi'as Mikdash.

(b)Whereas according to Rebbi Akiva - it will suffice to know that he is Tamei (which both a Tumtum and an Androginus do).

11)

(a)As we already explained, Rav holds Zachar Vaday, Nekeivah Vada'is, from the Pasuk "mi'Zachar ve'ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu". We query him from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo, la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" - which implies that a Tumtum and Androginus are not subject to Zivus (so why does Rav say 'Aval Sorfin aleihen es ha'Terumah')?

(b)And we answer that "la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" is needed for Rebbi Yitzchak, who learns from it that - the Ma'ayanos (the spit and the urine) of a Metzora and a Metzora'as are Metamei like those of a Zav and a Zavah.

(c)We counter that our Pasuk ("mi'Zachar ve'ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu" is also needed for the D'rashah of Rebbi Yossi - who precludes K'lei Cheres (earthenware vessels) from the Din of Bi'as Mikdash from there - since (unlike a Zachar and a Nekeivah) they are not subject to Taharah in a Mikvah.

(d)We refute that however, by pointing out that - for this, the Pasuk could have written "Adam" (instead of "mi'Zachar ve'ad Nekeivah"), leaving us to Darshen 'Zachar Vaday ... '.

12)

(a)We ask that perhaps ...

1. ... the entire Pasuk ("mi'Zachar ve'ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu") is needed for Rav's D'rashah. So how do we know to preclude K'lei Cheres from Bi'as Mikdash as well?. We answer that - for Rav's D'rashah alone it would have sufficed to write 'Zachar ad Nekeivah', and the Torah adds the extra "mi" and "ve'ad" to preclude K'lei Cheres from the Din of Bi'as Mikdash.

2. ... maybe the Miy'ut 'Zachar Vaday ve'Lo Tumtum ve'Androginus' extends to other Tum'os, in which case - a Tumtum or Androginus who was a Tamei Meis or Sheretz will also not be subject to Bi'as Mikdash.

(b)We refute this latter suggestion however, based on the "mi" in ("mi'Zachar ... ") - which indicates that it only pertains to Tum'os that come from his body, but not to external ones.

13)

(a)The Tana in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with Erchin) "ha'Zachar ... ve'Im Nekeivah" that - a Safek is precluded from the Erech of both a Zachar and a Nekeivah.

(b)If the Pasuk had written 'mi'Zachar ad Nekeivah' (like it writes by Zav) - then we would have precluded him from the Erech of a Zachar, but not from that of a Nekeivah (like the regular Din by a Safek).

(c)The reason that we need the extra 'Hey' and the word 'Ad' more by Erchin than by Zav is - because the basic Pasuk 'mi'Zachar ad Nekeivah' is needed to distinguish between the Erech of a Zachar and the Erech of a Nekeivah (whereas the basic Pasuk by Zav is already superfluous, as we explained).