Question: What do Chachamim learn from the Hekesh to Nidah?

Answer: Just like Tum'as Nidah does not apply to a limb, also the Tum'ah of idols.

Question: According to R. Akiva, why is it equated to Nidah - it could have been equated to Nevelah!

Answer: This is to teach that the Tum'ah of idols does not apply to a limb.

Question: R. Chama bar Gurya asked whether or not [the Tum'ah] of idols applies to limbs - he should learn from here all agree that it does not!

Answer: Rav Chama learns like Rabah and asks according to R. Akiva.

Question (Beraisa): Idolatry and Meshamsheha are [Metamei] like a Sheretz;

R. Akiva says, Idolatry is like a Nidah, Meshamsheha are like a Sheretz.

This is like R. Elazar, it is unlike Rabah!

Answer (on behalf of Rabah): Also a Mishnah seems to refute me - but just like I can explain the Mishnah, I can explain the Beraisa!

Question (Mishnah): The wood, stones and dirt of idols are Metamei like a Sheretz.

Answer (Rabah): This means that they are not Metamei b'Even Misma (but they have Tum'as Masa).

Also the Beraisa says that idols are Metamei like a Sheretz to teach that it is not Metamei b'Even Misma!

Question (Beraisa): A Nochri, Nochris, idols and Meshamsheha are Teme'im, but not Heseitan (what moves them, i.e. they lack Tum'as Masa);

R. Akiva says, they and Heseitan [are Teme'im].

This is like R. Elazar, it is unlike Rabah!

Counter-question (Rabah): Our text of the Beraisa is Metaher Nochrim from Tum'as Masa - this is wrong!

(Beraisa): "Dabru El Benei Yisrael... Ki Yihyeh Zav" - mid'Oraisa, Zivah (of a man or woman) only applies to Benei Yisrael, but Chachamim decreed that Nochrim are like Zavim (or Zavos) in all respects.

Answer #1 (Rabah): Rather, it should say, a Nochri and Nochris - they and Heseitan and their Even Misma (i.e. an Even Misma that they sat on) are Teme'im;

Idolatry and its Heset are Teme'im, their Even Misma is not;

R. Akiva says, idols and their Even Misma are Teme'im.

Answer #2 (R. Elazar): It should say, a Nochri and Nochris - they and Heseitan and their Even Misma are Teme'im;

Idolatry is Tamei, its Heset is not;

R. Akiva says, idols and their Heset are Teme'im.

Objection (Rav Ashi): If you say that 'Heseitan' means 'what move them', there would be no need to teach 'They and Heseitan...are Teme'im' - if Heseitan is Tamei, surely they are Teme'im!

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): It means, a Nochri and Nochris, [what] they [moved] and Heseitan (what moved them) are Teme'im;

What idols moved is Tahor, what moved idols is Tamei;

What Meshamsheha moved and what moved Meshamsheha are Tehorim.

R. Akiva says, a Nochri and Nochris and idols, what they moved and what moved them are Teme'im;

What Meshamsheha moved and what moved Meshamsheha are Tehorim.

Question: We understand 'What moved idols' - but what is 'What idols moved'?!

Answer (Rami brei d'Rav Yeiva - Mishnah): If a Zav was on a pan of a balance scale, and food and drink were on the other pan:

If the Zav outweighed them, they are Teme'im; if they outweighed the Zav, they are Tehorim. (Likewise, if idols outweighs something, it is as if it moves it.)

Question: Like which Tana is the following?

(Beraisa): If any Tum'ah moved an object, the object is Tahor - the only exception is a Zav, there is no other such Tum'ah.

Suggestion: It is unlike R. Akiva, for he is Metamei its Heset!

Answer: It is even like R. Akiva - it means, a Zav and all similar Tum'os.

Question (R. Chama bar Gurya): Does [the Tum'as] of idols apply to limbs? (Tosfos - he discusses an idol of big parts, it is not Batul (permitted) even if a commoner cannot reassemble it, the only question is about Tum'ah; R. Akiva Eiger - he discusses a Yisrael's idol, which is never Batul - we need not say that the parts are big [or that the size of the parts affects Bitul].)

Version #1: He need not ask about a case where a commoner can reassemble it -.surely, it is as if it is connected;

He asks about when only a craftsman can reassemble it:

Since a commoner cannot reassemble it, it is considered broken (it is Tahor);

Or, since it is not missing anything, it is Tamei!

Version #2: He need not ask about a case where a commoner cannot reassemble it -.surely, it is as if it is broken;

He asks about when a commoners can reassemble it:

Since a commoner can reassemble it, it is considered connected (it is Tamei);

Or, since it is now disconnected, it is Tahor!

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami): What is the law of idols less than a k'Zayis?

Question (Rav Yosef): What does he ask about?

Answer #1: He asks whether or not it is forbidden.

Rejection: Surely it is forbidden, like the fly of Ekron!

"Va'Yasimu Lahem Ba'al Bris Leilohim" - this is the fly of Ekron, this teaches that everyone made an image of his god and kept it in his pocket;

When he would think of it, he would take it out and hug and kiss it.

Answer #2: He asks whether or not it is Tamei:

Since idols are equated to Sheratzim, just like ka'Adashah (the size of a lentil) of a Sheretz is Tamei, also ka'Adashah of idols;

Or, since idols are equated to Mes, just like the Shi'ur for Tum'as Mes is k'Zayis, also for idols!

Answer (Rav Avya - Beraisa): Idolatry less than a k'Zayis has no Tum'ah at all - "Va'Yashlech Es Afarah Al Kever Benei ha'Am" - just like the Shi'ur Tum'ah of Mes is k'Zayis, also of idols.

Question: Why do Chachamim expound all the Hekeshim for leniencies?

They say that idols are equated to Sheratzim to teach that it is not Metamei b'Masa, it is equated to Nidah to Metaher limbs, it is equated to Mes to teach that ka'Adashah is not Metamei;

All of these could be expounded for stringencies! The Hekesh to Sheratzim could teach that ka'Adashah is Metamei, the Hekesh to Nidah could Metamei Even Misma, the Hekesh to Mes could teach Tum'as Ohel!

Answer: Since the Tum'ah of idols is mid'Rabanan, they expound to be lenient.

(Mishnah) Question: What is the source that a boat is Tahor?

Answer: It says "Derech Aniyah v'Lev Yam" (this will be explained).

(Gemara) Question: Obviously, a boat goes in the sea - what does the verse teach?

Answer: This equates a boat to the sea - just like the sea is Tahor, also a boat.

(Beraisa - Chananyah): We learn from Sak - just like Sak [is Mekabel Tum'ah only if it] can be moved when empty and full, the same applies to everything [of wood], but not a boat, it cannot be moved when full.

Question: What is the difference between the first answer and Chananyah's?

Answer #1: They argue about a boat of Cheres - if we learn from "Aniyah v'Lev Yam" it is Tahor, if we learn from [the Hekesh to] Sak it is Tamei (the Hekesh does not apply to Klei Cheres).

Answer #2: They argue about a [small] boat that goes on the Yarden - if we learn from "Aniyah v'Lev Yam" it is Tahor, if we learn from Sak it is Tamei (it can be moved when empty and full).

(R. Chanina ben Akiva): Sefinas ha'Yarden is Tamei because they load it on the dry land and take it to the water.

(Rav Yehudah): One should never be absent from the Beis Medrash, even for a moment - this Mishnah was learned for many years, but the reason was not known until R. Chanina ben Akiva explained it!

(R. Yonason): One should never abstain from the Beis Medrash and words of Torah, even at the time of death - "Zos ha'Torah Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel".

(Reish Lakish): "Zos ha'Torah Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel" - Divrei Torah last only in someone who kills himself [has nothing to do with the world, except] for Torah.