1)

(a)The problem with the Tana's first ruling, declaring B'nos Kutim Nidos from birth is - how this differs from B'nos Yisrael, who are also Tamei if they see (and if they don't, then B'nos Kutim should not be Tamei either.)

(b)Rava b'rei de'Rav Acha bar Rav Huna Amar Rav Sheishes explained that - the Tana is speaking S'tam, and he goes after the minority of babies who do have sightings (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

(c)And the author of our Mishnah must then be - Rebbi Meir, who goes after the minority.

2)

(a)The Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, that a Katan is Patur from Chalitzah - since the Torah in Ki Seitzei writes (in connection with Chalitzah) "Ish".

(b)Rebbi Meir also exempts a Katan and Ketanah from Yibum - in case the Yavam turns out to be a Saris (a eunuch), or the Yevamah, an Aylonis (who cannot have children), both of whom are Patur from Yibum, in which case their intimacy will be subject to Kareis).

(c)The Rabbanan object to that - because the majority of Ketanim are not Serisim or Aylonos.

(d)We refute the Kashya that Rebbi Meir only follows a Miy'ut (minority) that is common, but not one that is not, such as a Ketanah having a sighting - by pointing out that it is indeed common for Ketanos to have sightings.

(e)The source for this answer lies in independent statements by Rebbi Yossi, Rebbi and Rav Yosef (with reference to babies in Ein Bul, Beis She'arim and Pumbedisa, respectively) - each of whom referred to a case where a newborn baby Toveled even before her mother.

3)

(a)The problem with Rav Yosef's statement (though those of Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi pose no problem) is - why a baby in Bavel would need to Tovel ...

(b)... seeing as Shmuel rules that - Tum'as Chutz la'Aretz only applies to an internal Tum'ah (such as Keri or Zav) ...

(c)... and is further restricted to eating, but does not apply to touching (and one assumes that a newborn baby was not going to be fed Terumah).

4)

(a)Mar Zutra answers with a Beraisa, based on the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with the prohibition of a Tamei Kohen eating Terumah) "ve'Lo Yechalelu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael asher Yarimu la'Hashem" from which the Tana learns that - both anointing and drinking are included in the prohibition of eating (and these are things that are certainly applicable to a newborn baby).

(b)The problem with the Tana learning anointing and drinking from that above Pasuk is that - we already have a principle that drinking is included in eating in such matters (in which case we do not require another Pasuk).

(c)We answer by amending the statement to - 'Lerabos es ha'Sach ke'Shoseh' (to include anointing like drinking).

(d)Alternatively, the Tana learns it from the Pasuk in Tehilim "va'Tavo ke'Mayim be'Kirbi, u'che'Shemen be'Atzmosai" - comparing anointing oneself with oil to drinking water.

5)

(a)The problem with Rav Sheishes' initial answer (establishing our Mishnah concerning B'nos Kutim like Rebbi Meir, who goes after the minority) is - why this should be restricted to B'nos Kutim, and not extend to B'nos Yisre'elim.

(b)We solve the problem, based on the extra 'Vav' (in the word "ve'Ishah", in the Pasuk in Metzora (in connection with Nidus) "ve'Ishah ki Sih'yeh Zavah") from which we learn that - a newborn baby is included in the Din of Nidus, a D'rashah with which the Kutim did not agree.

(c)We query the D'rashah of 'Tinokes bas Yom Echad' from another Beraisa, based on the Pasuk there "ve'Ishah asher Yishkav Ish osah ... ". There too, based on the extra 'Vav' in ve'Ishah, the Tana incorporates in the Din of Bo'el Nidah a little girl - but only from the age of three.

(d)Rava answers that one of them is really a Halachah le'Mosheh mi'Sinai (and not a Limud from the extra 'Vav'). We conclude that the Din of Bo'el Nidah is the one that is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (and not that of 'Tinokes bas Yom Echad le'Nidah') - since there is nothing in the Pasuk to indicate that it is talking about a girl from the age of three.

6)

(a)Even though the Din of Bo'el Nidah is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, the Tana quotes "ve'Ishah" - in the form of an Asmachta (in support of the Rabbinical ruling).

(b)And what we really learn from the 'Vav' of "ve'Ishah" is - to preclude a man who sees red (blood) from the Din of Zivus.

7)

(a)From the extra 'Hey' in the Pasuk (in connection with a Zavah]) "ve'Ishah ki Yazuv Zov Damah ... ", we learn that - a baby of ten days is subject to Zivus.

(b)The Tana mentions specifically ten days, as opposed to three or one - because there can be no Zivus before the seven days of Nidus and three days of sightings.

(c)We cannot learn the Din of Ketanah by Zavah from Nidah - because a Nidah is immediately Tamei for seven days, whereas a Zavah is initially Tamei for only one day.

(d)Once we know the Din of Zavah however, we will automatically know the Din of Zivus - because every Zavah must have first been a Nidah (as we just explained).

8)

(a)The Pasuk "ve'Ishah" by Zavah comes to preclude a man who sees 'red', from Tum'ah. We need two Pesukim for this, one by Zavah - to preclude a man from Tumah if he has a sighting of red Zera, and one by Nidah - to preclude him from Tum'ah if he has a sighting of blood.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa learns from the extra "Ish" (in the Pasuk "Ish Ish ki Yih'yeh Zav mi'Besaro") that - a Zachar too, is subject to Tum'as Zivus from the day he is born ('ve'Chein le'Inyan Zecharim').

(c)Rebbi Yishmael b'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah learns from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "la'Zachar" that - he is subject to Zivus irrespective of whether he is a Gadol or a Katan.

2. ... "ve'la'Nekeivah" that - she is subject to Nidus and Zivus irrespective of whether she is a Gedolah or a Ketanah.

(d)He learns nothing from "Ish Ish" - because of the principle Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon b'nei Adam.

9)

(a)Another Beraisa learns from the extra 'Vav' in the Pasuk "ve'Ish ki Seitzei mimenu Shichvas-Zera" that - a child of nine is subject to Tum'as Keri.

(b)We reconcile this with the above, which includes a child of one day in the Din of Zav - by again learning the one from the Pasuk, and the other, from Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(c)The Din including a Katan of nine in the Din of Keri must be Halachah ... ' - since (as we learned in connection with the Din of Zivus of a Nekeivah), there is nothing to indicate that the Pasuk is speaking about a boy of nine.

10)

(a)And from the Pasuk "ve'Ish ki Seitzei ... " - we learn that a woman who sees Zera is Tahor (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

(b)We need two Pesukim (to include both a Zachar and a Nekeivah of one day in the Din Zivus). We cannot learn ...

1. ... Nekeivah from Zachar - since a Zachar becomes Tamei even after three sightings in one day (which a Nekeivah does not).

2. ... Zachar from Nekeivah - because a Nekeivah is Tamei Zivus even be'Oneis, whereas a Zachar is not.

11)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Kutim are Metamei Mishkav Tachton ke'Elyon. This cannot mean that if he is lying on ten sheets, he renders the bottom one Tamei like the top one - because that is obvious, since Tum'as Mishkav is based on the fact that one lies on it (and has nothing to do with touching).

(b)What it must therefore mean is that the bottom sheet of a Bo'el Nidah (Tachton shel Bo'el Nidah [which we suspect him of being]) is Tamei like the top sheet of a Zav (Elyon shel Zav). The ...

1. ... bottom sheet of a Zav - is Metamei Adam (and the clothes he is wearing), whereas the ...

2. ... top sheet of a Zav (and the bottom sheet of a Bo'el Nidah and of a Kuti) - is Metamei food and drink, but not Adam.