1)

(a)Resh Lakish rules that if ...

1. ... a Tahor moves a Zav (a classical case of Masa, which is synonymous with Heset) with the cane that he is holding under his armpit - the former becomes Tamei.

2. ... a Zav moves a Tahor with the cane that he is holding under his armpit - the latter does not become Tamei.

(b)The Pasuk "ve'Chol asher Yiga bo ha'Zav, ve'Yadav Lo Shataf ba'Mayim" cannot be referring to touching - since we already know that from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Noge'a bi'Vesar ha'Zav ... ".

(c)In fact, it is referring to - a Zav who moves or carries a Tahor without actually touching him.

(d)And from the fact that the Pasuk mentions the Zav's hands - we learn that he only renders him Tamei if he moves him with part of his body which, like his arms, is revealed, but not with a part which is hidden (such as under his armpit).

2)

(a)Alternatively, the Tahor is Tamei in the second case of Resh Lakish ('Kanah be'Komto shel Tahor' [not because of Heset, but]) because the cane becomes Tamei when it touches the Zav on an open part of his body, and the Tahor then becomes Tamei for touching the cane; and the reason that he is Tahor in the first case (Kanah be'Komto shel Tamei) is - because the Zav is holding the cane in a Makom Beis ha'Setarim.

(b)The problem with the cane becoming Tamei is that - it is a P'shutei K'li Eitz (a straight wooden vessel that is not a receptacle), which is not subject to Tum'ah.

(c)Nor will it not help to establish it by a hollow cane (which is a receptacle and) which is subject to Tum'ah - because the only time that a K'li renders a person Tamei is when it has touched a Meis.

(d)And the problem with ...

1. ... the Tahor becoming Tamei through his contact with the cane is - that Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is Tahor.

2. ... establishing the case by Tum'as Negi'ah is that - the word 'Hisit' means moving and not touching.

3. ... the source of 'Hisit Tahor es ha'Zav' ("ve'Chol asher Yiga bo ha'Zav ... )" is that - the Pasuk implies that it is the Zav who touched him, and not vice-versa.

3)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Ki Yih'yeh Zav mi'Besaro" that - a Zav only becomes Tamei once the Zivus leaves his body, and from ...

2. ... "ve'Ish ki Seitzei mimenu Shichvas-Zera" that - the same applies to a Ba'al-Keri.

(b)Our Mishnah requires a Kohen who is eating Terumah when he feels his flesh begin to quiver, to hold his Amah. The problem with that however is based on a Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer rules that someone who holds his Amah whilst urinating - is akin to having brought a flood to the world ...

(c)... because it causes his body to heat up, causing him to have an emission. This in turn, was the sin that was rampant in the generation of the Flood with which Hash-m punished them.

4)

(a)Abaye answers that our Mishnah permits holding his Amah only via a thick cloth - whereas Rava permits even a thin one, because once the Zera has emptied out, there is nothing left to emit.

(b)Abaye disagrees - because the heat may result in additional Zera (whilst Rava maintains that this is most unusual).

(c)We query Rava from a Beraisa, which compares a person who masturbates - to someone who places his finger in his eye ... the longer he holds it there, the more tears stream out of his eye.

(d)And we reconcile Rava with that - by differentiating between masturbation and our case, where he felt his body quivering without touching the Amah (in which case it empties by itself).

5)

(a)Shmuel says that an emission that the entire body does not feel - is not Metamei (because the Pasuk in Metzora refers to it as 'Shichvas-Zera', implying that it must be fit to conceive).

(b)Rav Huna reconciles this with the Beraisa which rules that someone who falls asleep with impure thoughts and wakes up to find his Amah hot, is Tamei - by establishing it where he had dreamt that he was being intimate, in which his body is bound to have felt it.

(c)In the second Lashon, Shmuel gives the criterion as - Shichvas Zera that shoots like an arrow.

(d)The ramifications of the two Leshonos are - there where he felt the Zera move inside his body, but not when it actually emerged (in which case he will remain Tahor according to the second Lashon).

6)

(a)What was obvious to Shmuel was not so obvious to Rava - who asked what the Din will be if one feels the Zera move inside his body, but not when it actually emerged.

(b)We try to resolve Rava's She'eilah from a Beraisa, where the Tana states that a Ba'al-Keri who Tovels without first urinating - becomes Tamei when he urinates (because we assume that some drops of Keri will emerge together with the urine) ...

(c)... even though he did not feel the Keri emerging from his body.

(d)We refute the proof from there however - since the majority of the Keri he did feel emerging.

7)

(a)In the third Lashon, Shmuel rules that Shichvas-Zera that does not shoot like an arrow cannot conceive - implying that it is Tamei.

(b)And he supports this from the word "Mikreh" (in the Pasuk in ki Seitzei "ki Yih'yeh b'cha Ish asher Lo Yih'yeh Tahor Mikreh Laylah ... ") - which implies that in whatever form the Zera emerges, he is Tamei.

(c)Rava asked whether a Nochri who has an impure thought and then Tovels (in order to convert [but did not feel the Zera emerging]) - we go after the beginning (like by a Yisrael, only by a Yisrael, he is Tamei, whereas the Nochri is Tahor, since a Nochri is not subject to Tum'as Keri, as we already learned).

(d)Perhaps we might not go after the initial thought in this case (even if we do in the case of a Yisrael) - because we only go after the beginning le'Chumra, and not le'Kula.

8)

(a)Rava also asked what the Din will be if a Zavah feels her urine move inside her body before Toveling from her Zivus. We might not go after the initial movement - which she is able to hold back, even if we do in the case of a Ba'al-Keri - who is not.

(b)Rava then asks the same She'eilah regarding a Zavah Nochris who Tovels after feeling her urine move inside her body. We might not go after the initial movement (to declare her Tamei), even if we do by a Yisre'elis - since the Tum'ah of the former is only mi'de'Rabanan.

(c)The outcome of the three last She'eilos is - Teiku.

9)

(a)Shmuel learns from the Pasuk in Metzora "O Hechtim Besaro be'Zovo" that - the Shi'ur of Tum'as Zivus is the amount that fills the opening of the Amah.

(b)The problem with this is that - our Mishnah gives the Shi'ur as a Kol-Shehu.

(c)We therefore establish Shmuel like Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa in the name of Rebbi Yishmael, which concludes - 've'Lo Hodu lo Chachamim'.

(d)The latter explain the Pasuk there "O Hechtim Besaro" to mean that - it is only Metamei if it is wet (because that is when it is able to fill the opening of the Amah); otherwise it would just fall on the ground).

10)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael learns that it must be wet from "Rar Besaro"; whereas the Chachamim learn from "be'Zovo, Rar, es Zovo" - that it is only after three sightings that a Zav brings a Korban.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael learns like Rebbi Sima'i in a Beraisa, where he comments on the two Pesukim "Ish Ish ki Yih'yeh Zav mi'Besaro ... Zovo Tamei" and "Zos Tih'yeh (Tum'aso be'Zovo) ... Rar Besaro es Zovo ... O Hechtim Besaro mi'Zovo" that - whereas a Zav is Tamei after two sightings, he only brings a Korban after three.

(c)And the Chachamim learn from ...

1. ... "Ish Ish ki Yih'yeh Zav mi'Besaro" - that he is only Tamei once the Zivus leaves his body.

2. ... "Zovo Tamei" that - the Zivus itself is Tamei as well.

11)

(a)Rav Chanila'i in the name of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon gives the Shi'ur of sighting of Shichvas-Zera as a Kol Shehu, and the Shi'ur for touching - as k'Adashah ...

(b)... which he learns - from Sheretz (as we will see shortly).

(c)And he explains the Shi'ur Kol-Shehu in our Mishnah with reference to - sighting.

12)

(a)We query Rav Chanila'i's ruling from a Beraisa, which discusses the Chumros of Shichvas-Zera and Sheretz over each other. The Chumra of ...

1. ... Sheretz over Shichvas-Zera is that - the Torah draws no distinction between a large Sheretz and a small one ('she'Ein Chalukah Tum'aso'), whereas only the Zera of a Gadol is Metamei, but not that of a Katan.

2. ... Shichvas -Zera over Sheretz is that - whereas the Shi'ur Tum'ah of the former is Kol-Shehu, the Shi'ur Tum'ah of the latter is a k'Adashah.

(b)The problem with Rav Chanila'i now is that - based on the assumption that Sheretz and Shichvas-Zera are speaking in the same case, it means that the Shi'ur of Kol-Shehu of Zera pertains to touching and not to seeing (which is non-existent by Sheretz).

(c)Rav Ada bar Ahavah solves the problem - by equating Sheretz and Shichvas-Zera, in spite of the fact that one is speaking about touching and the other, about seeing.

13)

(a)We query the minimum Shi'ur of a k'Adashah of a Sheretz from a Beraisa, which states that a limb that is less than a k'Zayis of Basar of a a Meis or of a Neveilah, or less than a k'Adashah of a Sheretz - is nevertheless Tamei.

(b)And we solve the problem - by confining the Beraisa to a complete limb, which, due to its importance, has the same Din as a k'Adashah.

(c)And we substantiate the answer - by pointing out that if a bit of the limb is missing, it is not Tamei.

(d)We already explained that 'de'Chalukah Tum'aso' refers to the distinction between a Katan and a Gadol, which does not exist by a Sheretz. It cannot refer to the distinction between a Yisrael (who is Metamei) and a Nochri (who is not) - because by the same token, we could distinguish between a land-mouse (which is Metamei by Sheratzim) and a sea-mouse (which is not).

14)

(a)Rav Papa establishes Rav Chanila'i's ruling as a Machlokes Tana'im. The Beraisa learns from the words "O Ish" (in the Pasuk in Emor "O Ish asher Teitzei mimenu Shichvas-Zera") that - someone who touches Shichvas-Zera is Tamei.

(b)Elsewhere, Tana'im argue over whether to say 'Don Minah u'Minah' - or 'Don Minah' ve'Uki be'Asra'.

(c)'Don Minah' teaches us that someone who touches Shichvas-Zera is Tamei. The Shi'ur, according to those who hold 'Don Minah ...

1. ... u'Minah' will be - k'Adashah (like a Sheretz [like the opinion of Rav Chanila'i]).

2. ... ve'Uki be'Asra' will be - a Kol Shehu (like the sighting of Shichvas-Zera).

15)

(a)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua disagrees with Rav Papa. According to him, the Tana is referring to "O Ish" in the Pasuk (also in Emor) "O Ish asher Teitzei mimenu Shichvas-Zera".

(b)In that case, there is no room for Machlokes - since the entire Limud is from Shichvas Zera, and there is no way to apply Uki be'Asra.

(c)Consequently, even the Tana who normally holds Don Minah ve'Uki be'Asra - will hold here Don Minah u'Minah and the Shi'ur for touching Zera is a Kol Shehu (just like that of a sighting).

(d)When they asked the Beraisa experts who was right, Rav Papa or Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - some said Rav Papa, others Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua.

16)

(a)Our Mishnah declares a newborn baby girl of one day, subject to Nidus, to Zivus with regard ...

1. ... a girl - ten days (seven days of Nidus, followed by three consecutive days of sightings.

2. ... a boy - one day.

(b)He is also subject to Tum'as Nega'im and Tum'as Meis. When the Tana continues ...

1. ... 've'Zokek le'Yibum', he means that - if he was born before his brother died, he becomes obligated to perform either Yibum or Chalitzah when he comes of age.

2. ... 'u'Poter min ha'Yibum', he means that - if he was born to his father before the latter died, his uncles are Patur from Yibum.

3. ... 'u'Ma'achil bi'Terumah' he means that - if a Kohen dies leaving behind a pregnant widow who is a Yisre'elis, from the moment the baby is born, his mother is permitted to eat Terumah (but not before).

4. ... 'u'Posel min ha'Terumah', he means that - in the reverse case (where a Yisrael dies leaving behind a pregnant widow who is a Kohen - she is forbidden to eat Terumah (though we will discuss this further in the Sugya).