1)

(a)Abaye queries Rav Yosef (who asked whether the first sighting of a Metzora is Metamei be'Masa or not), from the fact that a little earlier, he learned from ...

1. ... "Zos Toras ha'Zav" that a Katan is subject to Zivus. Consequently, he ought to learn from "la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" (written in the Parshah of Zav) that - the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora and of a Metzora'as respectively are Tamei, and from ...

2. ... the Hekesh of Metzora to Zav that - the first sighting of a Metzora is Metamei be'Masa just like a Zav (thereby negating his She'eilah).

(b)Rav Yosef's She'eilah would have been justifiable, Abaye explains - had he Darshened "la'Zachar" to teach us Zav Katan, and he would then would have had to learn the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora from a Metzora'as (like Beis Hillel earlier) ...

(c)... seeing as by a Metzora'as, there is no Din of Keri by a Nekeivah to learn from a Zav (to which she is compared).

2)

(a)We learn from the word "mi'Besaro" (in the Pasuk in Shemini "Ish Ish ki Yih'yeh Zav mi'Besaro") that - a Zav is only Metamei after sighting naturally, but not after an Oneis (such as after having eaten, drunk or jumped ... ).

(b)Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk there "Zos Toras ha"Zav va'asher Teitzei mimenu Shichvas Zera" that - just as Keri is Metamei be'Oneis, so too, is the first sighting of Zivus (whereas "mi'Besaro" is written in connection with the second sighting).

(c)We query Rav Huna from the Beraisa 'Ra'ah Re'iyah Rishonah Bodkin oso', which we initially interpret to mean that - we examine him with regard to Tum'ah (whether it is considered the first sighting of a Zav or merely of a Ba'al Keri).

(d)We reject the Kashya however - by establishing the examination with regard to ascertaining whether he brings a Korban, though he will be a Zav anyway (like Rav Huna).

3)

(a)The Beraisa continues 'bi'Sheniyah Bodkin oso'. The Tana cannot be referring only to a Korban, but not to Tum'ah - since it is in connection with the second sighting that the Torah writes "mi'Besaro' (from which we preclude Oneis from Zivus).

(b)We refute the proof from here that the Reisha too, must be speaking about Tum'ah (posing a Kashya on Rav Huna) - on the basis of 'Ha ke'de'Isa, ve'Ha ke'de'Isa' (there is nothing wrong with establishing the Seifa with regard to Tum'ah, and the Reisha, with regard to a Korban).

(c)We try once more to disprove Rav Huna from the continuation of the Beraisa, which cites Rebbi Eliezer 'Ta'ah ba'Shelishi, Bodkin oso Mipnei ha'Korban', and if Rebbi Eliezer is speaking about a Korban, then the Chachamim must be speaking about Tum'ah (posing a Kashya on Rav Huna).

4)

(a)The Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim is based on the Pasuk "ve'ha'Zov es Zovo la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah", from which both Tana'im Darshen that - the last sighting of a Zav (hinted in the word "la'Zachar"), which is compared here to that of a Zavah, is Metamei even be'Oneis like her.

(b)And the basis of their Machlokes is - whether we Darshen from "es" to include another sighting (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Rabbanan).

(c)Rebbi Eliezer holds that "ve'ha'Zov" refers to the first sighting, "es" to the second, "Zovo" to the third and "la'Zachar" to the fourth. The Rabbanan learn three sightings, since they do not count the word "es". Consequently, the Rabbanan compare the third sighting to a Nekeivah, and Rebbi Eliezer, the fourth.

(d)As a matter of fact, the Zav is already Tamei after two sightings, and brings a Korban after three (according to both opinions). And the significance of the third and fourth sightings be'Oneis over which they are arguing is - regarding the sighting during the seven clean days which will negate them (even if it came as the result of an Oneis).

5)

(a)We query Rav Huna yet again from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yitzchak incorporates a Zav in the realm of Ba'al-Keri, and the Torah nevertheless mentions him independently, to be lenient on him on the one hand, and to be stringent, on the other. A Zav is more ...

1. ... lenient than a Ba'al-Keri inasmuch as - he is not Metamei be'Oneis.

2. ... stringent than him - in that he is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav.

(b)The problem with establishing Rebbi Yitzchak by the second sighting is that - at that stage how can one incorporate him in the realm of a Ba'al-Keri?

(c)In that case, we have a proof that - the first sighting of a Zav is not Metamei be'Oneis (a Kashya on Rav Huna).

(d)We counter the Kashya however - by querying the alternative, in that, if Rebbi Yitzchak is referring to the first sighting of a Zav, then he would not be Metamei Mishkav and Moshav.

(e)We conclude that when Rebbi Yitzchak ...

1. ... incorporates a Zav in the realm of a Ba'al-Keri, he is referring to the first sighting.

2. ... relates to the Kula and the Chumra of a Zav, he is referring to the second sighting.

6)

(a)Rav Huna draws four distinctions between Zivus, which comes from an Eiver Meis, and Keri, which comes from an Eiver Chai. Zivus resembles - the water that remains from a barley-dough.

(b)The other basic distinction that he draws between the two is that - whereas Zivus is runny, Keri is thick.

(c)In addition, both resemble the white of an egg - Zivus of an egg that is not fit to fertilize, Keri of one that is.

7)

(a)When Beis Hillel, in an attempt to prove that a Yoledes on the eighth day after giving birth to a boy should be Tamei if she has not yet Toveled, cited the case of ...

1. ... a Nidah who has a sighting on the eighth day before she has Toveled (who is Tamei), to which Beis Shamai replied that - this case is different (see Tosfos DH 'I Atem Modim'), because a sighting would render her Tamei even if she had Toveled (in the form of the first sighting of Zivus).

2. ... Yoledes be'Zov who has a sighting after seven clean days before she has Toveled (who is Tamei), Beis Shamai replied that - they disagree there too, and consider her Tahor for the same reason.

(b)We reconcile Beis Shamai's answer with our Mishnah, which states that they concede that a Yoledes be'Zov is Tamei - by establishing the latter before she counted seven clean days, and the former, afterwards.

(c)And we support this answer with a Beraisa, which specifically states that in the case of a Yoledes be'Zov who has a sighting after counting seven clean days before having Toveled, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel follow their own reasoning. The difference whether she counted seven clean days or not is that - if she did, her blood is only Metamei when it is wet (as we learned in our Mishnah), whereas if she did not, she is also Metamei when it is dry.

8)

(a)According to Rav, the blood that a Yoledes sees during the days of Tum'ah and the blood that she sees during the days of Taharah come from the same source. Nevertheless - the Torah declared one Tamei and the other, Tahor (a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv').

(b)Levi maintains that - they come from two different sources.

(c)We establish the ramifications of the Machlokes in a case where a Yoledes sees one long sighting from the days of Tum'ah into the days of Taharah or from the days of Taharah into the days that follow. If the sighting begins in the days of ...

1. ... Tum'ah and extends into the days of Taharah - then she will be Tahor according to Rav (due to the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'), but Tamei, according to Levi (since the source is Tamei).

2. ... Taharah and extends into the days that follow - she will be Tamei according to Rav, and Tahor according to Levi.

9)

(a)Beis Hillel in our Mishnah, rule that the blood of a Yoledes who has not yet Toveled, is Metamei wet and dry - a Kashya on Levi, according to whom, any blood that she sees during the days of Taharah, ought to be Tahor, since it comes from a source of Taharah.

(b)And we answer that - our Mishnah is speaking where she had a long sighting that began when she was Tamei, in which case she will be Tamei even according to Levi(as we just explained).

(c)Levi concedes that, according to Beis Shamai, who rule ke'Rokah u'che'Meimei Raglehah (because she is Tahor min ha'Torah) - they come from the same source.

(d)The Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, according to ...

1. ... Levi is - whether the two bloods come from one source [Beis Shamai], or from two sources [Beis Hillel]).

2. ... Rav (who establishes the Machlokes by two separate sightings) - whether, in differentiating between the days of Tum'ah and the days of Taharah, the Torah goes after the days alone (Beis Shamai), or whether it requires Tevilah as well (Beis Hillel). Both hold that the two bloods come from the same source.

10)

(a)We query Levi again from the Seifa of our Mishnah by Yoledes be'Zov, where Beis Shamai concede that she is Metamei both wet and dry min ha'Torah). Assuming once again that the Tana is speaking by two separate sightings (see Ritva [and bearing in mind that we established it in a case where the days of Tum'ah have passed, but she did not yet count the seven clean days]) this poses the same Kashya on Levi as we asked from the Reisha.

(b)And we answer - like we answered in the Reisha (that the Tana is speaking about a woman who had one long sighting).

(c)And the Mishnah is coming to teach us that - when Beis Shamai hold that the two bloods come from the same source, this does not incorporate the blood of Zivus, which always comes from a source of Tum'ah (though the answer to the next Kashya seems to contradict this statement).

11)

(a)The Beraisa discusses the Pasuk in Tazri'a (in connection with a woman who gave birth to a boy) "ve'Tam'ah Shiv'as Yamim ki'Yemei Nidas Devosah Titma". The last two words are superfluous, since the Torah could have written simply - " ... ki'Yemei Nidah".

(b)Besides learning from there that the Bo'el is Tamei for seven days (like the Nidah herself), the Tana also learns that she is Tamei for seven nights as well as seven days - despite the fact that the Torah writes "Shiv'as Yamim" (from which we would otherwise have precluded the nights).

(c)And we also learn from there that a Yoledes be'Zov needs to count seven clean days - a problem for Levi, since once the days of Taharah begin and the blood comes from a source of Taharah, what difference will it make whether the seven days of waiting are clean or not?

(d)To solve the problem, we amend the Beraisa to read - 've'Tzarich she'Tifsok Mashehu she'Ya'alu lah le'Shiv'ah Nekiyim' (after the days of Tum'ah, she needs to have a short break without a sighting, and then to wait seven days, irrespective of whether she sees blood or not).