Implied question: They (converts and freed slaves) may touch Terumah! (The question was how we can include them regarding eating.)

Answer: "Lo Siga" refers to eating, like it says below that Lo Siga warns against eating [when the person is Tamei].

Question: Why do we need a verse? We learn a Lav for Terumah from "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon"!

Answer: We can say that we need a verse also regarding Yoledes, because she was totally permitted [regarding Dam Tohar], like it said above.

Question: This Drashah is unlike Reish Lakish, and unlike R. Yochanan!

In Zevachim (33b), Reish Lakish expounds "Lo Siga" for a Lav for a Tamei who ate Kodesh. Since the Torah said it in an expression of touching, he derives an Isur [even] to touch Kodesh. "B'Chol" includes a Lav against eating before Zerikah;

He does not establish it for a Lav against eating Terumah at all. Rather, he learns this from "Ish Ish."

R. Yochanan establishes Lo Siga to forbid touching Terumah. He does not establish it for eating.

Answer (R. Efrayim): Here we establish it to discuss a Lav for eating Terumah, i.e. according to the opinion that establishes "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon" to discuss a Zav who had three emissions. "Ad Asher Yithar" means until he brings Kaparah; it is for Kodesh, like we say below;

If so, we derive a Lav for Terumah only from here (Lo Siga).

Implied question: Here we ask against the opinion that establishes that verse (Ad Asher Yithar) to discuss a Zav who had two emissions!

Answer: It is a proper question, for there is an opinion that establishes it to discuss Terumah, even though a convert and [freed] Shifchah cannot eat Terumah. (If so, Ad Asher Yithar cannot mean until he brings Kaparah!)

Implied question: He requires two verses for Kodshim - one for a Zav, and one for a Yoledes! (He should need two also for Terumah!)

Answer #1: Regarding Terumah he does not need [two], since we find that for eating Kodesh, Zav and Yoledes are the same.

Answer #2: Terumah does not depend on Kaparah, therefore he does not need separate verses for a Zav and Yoledes. He needs them only for Kodesh, for which one must wait until Kaparah.

Explanation: We would not know whether "Yithar" is through Tevilah alone, or with ha'Arev Shemesh. [Therefore] the Torah wrote "u'Va ha'Shemesh" after "Ki Im Rachatz Besaro ba'Mayim", to teach that Ad Asher Yithar above is with Tevilah and ha'Arev Shemesh.

Had the Torah written [only] "Ad Melos", which is also ha'Arev Shemesh, one might have thought that this is without Tevilah, for Tevilah is not written in the entire Parshah [until below];

[Therefore] the Torah wrote "Ad Asher Yithar", which connotes Tevilah, like the verses afterwards explain.

Had the Torah written "u'Va ha'Shemesh" but not "Ad Melos", one might have thought that this is only for one who does not need Kaparah.

Suggestion: The Torah could have written [only] u'Va ha'Shemesh and Ad Melos!

Rejection: We need Ad Asher Yithar for a Lav for a Tevul Yom who does not need Kaparah;

Had the Torah written Ad Asher Yithar and Ad Melos, but not u'Va ha'Shemesh, one might have thought that Ad Asher Yithar is through Tevilah alone for a Tum'ah that does not need Kaparah, and ha'Arev Shemesh is for one that needs Kaparah;

Therefore, the Torah wrote [also] u'Va ha'Shemesh.

Alternatively, we need u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher to teach that the day finished, like it says in Berachos (2a). (Maharam - i.e. sunset is not enough. He must wait until Tzeis ha'Kochavim.)

Question #1 (Ri): Since we learn from here, we can ask like initially, why do we need "b'Mayim Yuva v'Tamei Ad ha'Arev v'Taher"?

Question #2: In Makos (14b), it connotes that this Beraisa, which we establish here for touching Terumah, discusses Kodesh;

It brings from it a support for Reish Lakish, who establishes "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" to discuss eating Kodesh and touching it!

Answer (Ri): Also now, we establish it to discuss Kodshim. We come to answer why we do not say oppositely (that he is Tahor for Terumah and Tamei for Ma'aser. We do not say so,) because just like regarding Kodesh, we are as stringent about touching as eating, the same applies to Terumah.

Question (Ri): Why does it mention Petzi'ah (bruising) regarding the Beitzim (testicles) and cutting regarding the Ever (penis)? The Gemara says that [the law is the same] if any of them (the Ever, Beitzim, or strings on which the Beitzim are suspended) is Petzu'a, Dacha (crushed) or Krus (cut off)!

Answer (Ri): Through cutting, [the contents of] the Ever pours. Without cutting, it drips. Therefore, we adopt the expression of Krus Shafchah regarding the Ever.

Explanation: The same applies if even one of them [was punctured].

Question: We said that if the Beitzim were bruised, and even one of them (he is forbidden)!

Suggestion: Here we discuss when it happened b'Yedei Shamayim.

Rejection #1: If so, even if both [were bruised, he is Kosher], like we say below that Petzu'a b'Yedei Shamayim is Kosher. Presumably, the same applies to cutting.

Rejection #2: We see many men from whom they cut one Beitzah, and they father children. It is unreasonable to say "go look where their [wives'] children came from" (i.e. they are Mamzerim, from other men)!

Answer (R. Tam): We can distinguish between when the Beitzah was removed, from when it is bruised. When it is totally removed, he can father;

We find like this regarding the spleen. If it was removed, an animal is Kosher (Chulin 55a), but if it is punctured where it is thick (at the top), it is Terefah.

Implied question: It says below that whether the Beitzim were cut, or the strings on which the Beitzim are suspended (he is forbidden, even though it is totally removed)!

Answer #1: [He is forbidden] only when both [were cut], but if only one Beitzah was cut, he is Kosher.

Answer #2: Even if you will say that R. Yishmael comes to argue with the first Tana (the first Tana disqualifies when one Beitzah was cut), the Halachah follows him (R. Yishmael), since he heard from Chachamim in Kerem b'Yavneh, who are authoritative;

This is like it says above (42b) "he retracted due to the Beraisa of Kerem b'Yavneh."

Support: Also the Yerushalmi connotes that the Halachah is that he is Kosher. However, it connotes that he cannot father;

R. Zeira said "I heard that the Halachah follows R. Yishmael", and also Shmuel said "if someone with one Beitzah comes in front of me, I will be Machshir him." R. Yudan bar Chanina said, Shleimin (whole) are required.

Explanation (Ri): There are two ways to explain this.

Explanation #1: It is only if one was removed, and one is whole, he is Kosher. However, if it was bruised, even one of them, this is worse, like I explained.

Explanation #2: The Ri prefers to explain that these are two words. It must be Shel Yamin (the right Beitzah).

This is a big stringency. It is good to warn doctors to cut the left one if possible [when they need to cut one of them].

Citation (Yerushalmi, in the conclusion): A case occurred in front of R. Ami. He said "you are not a Krus Shafchah." He permitted him. However, he informed him that he cannot father.

Inference: All hold that the Halachah follows R. Yishmael, who is Machshir. The conclusion connotes that we discuss b'Yedei Adam.

Explanation (Ri): On the back of the Ever, the crown gets wider, and at the bottom of the Ever it gets narrower towards the end of the Ever;

It says that it was punctured below the crown on the top of the Ever, and the hole is Mefulash (goes all the way through). On bottom of the Ever it is above the crown, because it gets narrower there.

Explanation: R. Chiya thought to say that he is Kosher, since from one side, i.e. the top, it is below the crown;

We conclude that any amount of the crown is Me'akev. He is Pasul, since on one side (below) it is above the crown.

Assertion: It seems that the hole must be Mefulash.

Suggestion: Perhaps even if it is punctured only until the interior of the Ever, and even below the crown is Pasul, since if it went all the way through, on one side it would be above the crown!

Rejection: Below, we are Machshir [when the Ever is cut] like a quill or gutter-pipe. Since even if it is totally cut he is Kosher, all the more so if it is punctured! (Tosfos ha'Rosh points out that when one side of the puncture is above the crown he is Pasul, for the semen leaves from the hole, and he cannot father.)