Question: This is difficult, as Rebbi Yishmael writes that the Torah is derived using thirteen methods of derivation. There are clearly more, such as this method of two general rules near each other which are derived using the "inclusive exclusive" method!

Implied Question: There are times when one does not have to say this. Such is the case in Chulin (85b) regarding Rebbi Chiya who had a worm fall into his linen. Rebbi said to him, "Go out and rip it open." The Gemara asks, why didn't he say to him to go out and make it a Treifah (as he held)? [Why didn't the Gemara similarly answer that he said it but does not hold that way?]

Answer: Rebbi saw Rebbi Shimon's words in Chulin and taught them in the terms used by the Chachamim, that a Shechitah that is invalid is not called a Shechitah. The Gemara there does not want to have to say that he taught it like this, but did not hold this way.

Explanation: Some explain that this is referring to (his) knowing she became impure (i.e. had an affair), as this is the implication of the Pasuk, "And a man will lay with her a laying of seed, and it will be forgotten/hidden etc."

Question: This explanation has a difficulty. What is the case? If he remembered that she became impure when she was being given the Sotah water to drink, why does he give her to drink? [The Sotah water is only for a doubt, not when he knows she is impure!] If he does not remember, why does he give her to drink at all? We require a prior knowledge, and he understands that he has no prior knowledge!

Answer: It is possible to answer that he does not remember, and he anyway gives her to drink as through her drinking it will become clear if he originally knew.

According to the opinions that "And it will be forgotten/hidden etc." refers to her being hidden away with this man, it is understandable that at the time she is drinking it is remembered that she was secluded with this man.

Question: It is still difficult. Why isn't he (the husband) considered clean from sin if he did not have relations with her from when she was secluded?

Answer: Being that he forgot, it is clear that he simply didn't care (whether or not she was forbidden to him) and is therefore not clean of sin. Even if one does not protest the sin of his sons or daughters the water does not check his wife, as stated in Sotah (47b). The Gemara there also says that if you are careful about yourself (not to have forbidden relations), the water will check your wives.

Explanation: This is called knowing, even though this information was never hidden from him, as he knows it now as well. It is coming to exclude a child who was captured (who never knew this was forbidden). The same applies to Sotah, meaning that he knows that if she becomes impure (has an affair) she becomes forbidden to him. The same applies to Torah, as even when it is unknown to him (certain aspects of the Torah), he knows it exists.

Observation: Rav Papa could also have asked on the teaching from "v'Ne'elam" that knowing the law beforehand from one's teacher is required. He could have asked, "Is there anyone that does not have this knowledge?"

Opinion#1: Rashi explains here that "inside" means carrying into the house, and "outside" means carrying out of the house.

Implied Question: This does not seem correct, as the Gemara later needs to say that the Mishnah explains cases of "Hachnasos" immediately. It should therefore have explained from "two that are four inside" that the entire Mishnah is referring to Hachnasah (and not Hotza'ah).

Opinion#2: It appears that the correct explanation is that of Rashi in Shabbos (2a) that "two" refers to the Hotza'ah and Hachnasah obligations of the house owner "inside." "That are four" refers to the type of Hotza'ah and Hachnasah that are forbidden according to Rabbinic law. "Outside" means (the same as above, with two Torah prohibitions and two Rabbinic prohibitions) that deal with a poor person standing outside the house.

Opinion#3: The Riva explains that the two of Hotza'ah refers to a case of Hotza'ah where he is liable and a case where he is exempt, while "that are four" refers to a case of Hachnasah where he is liable and a case where he is exempt. This is regarding the house owner who is standing "inside," and the same (type of cases) is true regarding the poor person who is standing outside.

Our Mishnah was also explained earlier in this fashion. The two acts of taking out are referring to the poor person and the homeowner, while "that are four" refers to the bringing in by the poor person and by the homeowner.

Observation: The Yerushalmi has a question whether to interpret the Mishnah according to the explanation of Rashi or the Riva. There is no reason to (currently) have a lengthy discussion about this.

Implied Question: One should not ask that according to the Riva that the Mishnah in Shabbos goes on to explain the Mishnah according to Rashi's order of Hachnasah and Hotza'ah of the poor person, as opposed to the Riva's order of two Hotza'os and two Hachnasos. [Why isn't this proof to Rashi's opinion?]

Answer: It is better to state the cases this way, in order to shorten the Mishnah by saying that the poor person stuck out his hand inside or took etc. If the Mishnah would have had to say each "taking out," it would have had to be much more verbose.

Opinion#4: It is also possible that "two that are four inside" means that for these he is liable to bring a Korban inside the Azarah. These are divided into two Hotza'os and two Hachnasos. "Two that are four outside" refers to the cases where one is exempt from bringing a Korban.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that here the Mishnah could not have stated two different categories because it had to give a listing similar to the listing of leprosy, where one is liable (i.e. a leper) in all of the cases?

Answer#1: This is indeed still similar to leprosy, being that there are four cases where he is liable.

Answer#2: Rabeinu Moshe explains that just because the case is not exactly like leprosy, the Mishnah should not refrain from explaining the laws of Shabbos. However, after the Gemara concludes that this is not the main place to explain the laws of Shabbos, it is understandable why the Gemara asks that we require the cases to be like those of leprosy.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding leprosy the Mishnah does state Avos and Toldos. [Why, then, couldn't our Mishnah say this regarding Shabbos?]

Answer: The reason there is because it is impossible to find "two that are four" regarding leprosy without discussing both the Avos and Toldos.

Observation: According to the simple explanation of the Gemara, the Gemara implies that it is only asking regarding our Mishnah, because it does not say any exemptions. However, regarding the Mishnah in Shabbos that states liability and exemption, it has no question.

Question: This is difficult. How can we find regarding Hotza'os alone "two that are four" for a homeowner and a poor person?

Answer: The Ri explains that now the Gemara is including cases of exemption (that are not just exempt according to Torah law, but also are) permitted according to Rabbinic law. This would mean that all eight cases could be found regarding Hotza'os.

Question#1: What is the difference between the Toldah of Hotza'ah, which is stated, from the Toldos of other Avos that remain unstated by the Mishnah?

Question#2: There is an additional difficulty that the second part of the Mishnah says that these are the forty Avos Melachos, less one. This implies that it does not say any Toldos!

Answer#1: Certainly, when someone carries from one domain to another, the main prohibition is Hotza'ah. However, it includes bringing in a short manner.

Answer#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that being that Hotza'ah and Hachnasah are weak Melachos and are novel ideas, the Tana made a point of stating Hachnasah by itself.

Text: The Riva does not have the text "immediately," as without this text it is very clear that we cannot find "two that are four inside" or "outside" without including Hachnasah.

However, based on what we have explained previously, it is understandable why this should be the text. [The Maharsha explains that as Tosfos previously stated (5a, DH "v'Ha") that all of the cases could be talking about Hotza'ah, the only proof that the Mishnah is talking about Hachnasah is that it immediately starts explaining cases of Hachnasah. This means the text is needed.]

Explanation#1: Rashi in Shabbos (2b) explains that when the Mishnah says, "The taking out of Shabbos is two" it means that there are two domains, the public domain and the private domain. Through these two domains, there are four possible prohibitions of carrying inside, and four possible prohibitions of carrying outside.

Implied Question: According to his explanation, it should not have said, "And two that are four outside." Rather, it should have said "(Two that are four inside) and they are four outside." [Why say "two" twice?]

Explanation#2: The Ri therefore explains that regarding the domains of Shabbos there are two cases where one is liable that equal four inside, and two cases where one is liable that equal four outside.

Opinion#1: Some erase "Rav Ashi" in the answer earlier that the Tana calls Hachnasah "Hotza'ah." This is because the Shas would not have established the words of Rava after those of Rav Ashi, as on the day that Rava died Rav Ashi was born.

Opinion#2: One should not erase "Rav Ashi" for this reason. Rava's statement is not coming to answer questions. Rava is only coming to explain that our Mishnah says, "Yetzios" and not "Hotza'os" because "Yetzios" implies taking out and in from different domains. The Gemara established it here because this helps answer the question, "Doesn't it say, "Yetzios?"

You should know this is true, as if Rava was coming to give an answer, who made him say this answer? It must be that the Tana called Hachnasah "Hotza'ah," as is apparent from the Mishnah of "ha'Motzi mei'Reshus l'Reshus" -- "One who takes out from one domain to another (which includes both Hachnasah and Hotza'ah)."

Explanation: The order of whiteness is (from light to dark): snow, wool, white, plaster of the Heichal, and eggshell.

It seems that whatever is lighter than snow is included in snow, and whatever is lighter than wool and darker than snow is included in wool. Whatever is lighter than plaster and darker than wool is called plaster, and whatever is lighter than eggshell and darker than plaster is called eggshell.

The Mishnah in Nega'im (1:4) is understandable when it says there are seventy-two Maros, as there are many shades of Nega'im. However, one cannot divide them into more than four categories when it comes to combining them (to make a Nega).

Question: However, it is difficult. How can the Gemara ask later that people will say that whatever is lighter than eggshell is impure and combines (with any other lighter shade of white)? How would we separate the Maros into these four categories? How would I know how to combine them if they were not counted? [Accordingly, what is the Gemara's question? There is clearly a big difference in Halachah if they are separated into categories!]

Answer: It therefore seems that the Nega does not usually come in anything besides these four colors. There usually are no other colors. This is also Rashi's explanation later in the Gemara.

The seventy-two shades mentioned in Nega'im include mixed colors or leprosy of houses and clothes, as I explained in the Mishnah (see Tosfos 2a, DH "Maros").

However, it is possible that in each one there are many types of leprosy, as there are snows that are whiter than other snows, and they all look like snow. Similarly, there is white wool that is very clean from the day that the sheep is just born (see 6b), which is more white than other wool. All of these colors are considered like wool. The same applies to plaster and eggshell. However, leprosy will never be anything other than these four categories of colors (of white).

Explanation: The Gemara is shortening its discussion and skipping over the fact that Rebbi Meir in the beginning of Nega'im says that Si'eis is eggshell, and that its secondary color is white wool.

It appears that white wool according to Rebbi Meir is not the color of wool on the day a sheep is born, as it is according to the Chachamim. Rather, it is unclean wool, and is darker than plaster. This is because there is no reason for Si'eis, which is darker than other shades of leprosy, to have a lighter Toldah of white than the Toldah of Baheres which is (known as) the most white of all shades of leprosy.

Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't Rebbi Chanina ask that (if the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Akiva) you have made Baheres unable to combine to form leprosy? If one requires something to combine with plaster, there is wool that is better than plaster. If one requires something to combine with wool, it is not the same type!

Answer: Rashi explains that Baheres and Si'eis combine, as is derived in Toras Kohanim from the word, "v'Hayah" which teaches that they combine with each other.

Question#1: This is difficult. If so, Toldos should also combine!

Question#2: There is another question. In the Yerushalmi, in the beginning of our Mesechta, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Boon says that the Pasuk does not say, "v'Hayu" but rather says, "v'Hayah." This teaches that they do not combine with each other. Chizkiyah says a similar teaching, noting that the Pasuk does not say, "for the Nega'im of leprosy" but rather "for the Nega." This teaches that they do not combine.

However, this itself is difficult, as the Yerushalmi quotes this regarding its conclusion that they do combine. In depth study is required on that Yerushalmi.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara ask simply that our Mishnah is clearly unlike the opinion of Rebbi Akiva (who says that the order of their whiteness is snow, wool, plaster, and eggshell)? Our Mishnah says that second to Baheres (whose primary color is snow) is like the plaster of the Heichal. This implies that plaster combines with snow, but not with wool. According to Rebbi Akiva, the opposite is true! Plaster should combine with wool but not with snow, which is much lighter than it by two categories!

Answer: This is what the Gemara means. [We could make an argument that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Akiva, but it is difficult.] If we say our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva, we will have to make the following assumptions. The Mishnah's statement that "second to it" is plaster of the Heichal does not mean that it can combine with snow, but rather that it is a Toldah of Baheres, and therefore does not combine with wool even though it is only one category lighter.

Additionally, Rebbi Akiva's statement that each is lighter than the other is not in order that plaster should combine with wool, as it is not a Toldah, but rather to say that plaster should not combine with snow even though it is a Toldah. This is because it is two categories removed from it. If so, you have essentially stated that the color of plaster is pure (from being able to combine with other colors)!

Explanation#1: This means that if you will say that our Mishnah is unlike Rebbi Akiva, it is understandable. [The Maharsha says that it is as if the Gemara said, "Hachi Nami Mistavra" -- "it is indeed logical (that the Mishnah is unlike Rebbi Akiva)."]

Explanation#2: Rabeinu Moshe mei'Ibra explains that (the Gemara means) if you will say the following, it is understandable. Rebbi Akiva, who says that each shade is lighter than the other, also agrees that an Av and Toldah can combine. He only said each is lighter than the other to add that even plaster and wool or plaster and eggshell can combine, even though they are not in the same category.

Our Mishnah that says, "And second to it etc." also holds that each shade is lighter than the next. It comes to teach that even snow and plaster or wool and eggshell, where one is higher than the other by two categories, combine to form leprosy. This is because they belong to the same category. This would mean that every category combine with another category to form leprosy, aside from snow and eggshell.

However, according to you who asked that if so you have purified plaster (from combining with another category), you hold that Rebbi Akiva holds that combinations can only be with the closest category (not two categories removed). According to our Mishnah, two shades only combine if they are in the same category (of Baheres or Si'eis).

If our Mishnah is according to Rebbi Akiva, an Av and its Toldah can only combine if one is one category lighter than the other. If so, you should also ask about eggshell (not just about plaster)!