Question: How does the Gemara know that we should deduce that this does not apply to Tumas Ohel? If the reason is merely because it is not stated in the Mishnah, impurity through carrying is also not stated in the Mishnah despite the fact that one becomes impure through carrying a bone the size of a barleycorn!

Answer: Carrying does not have to be stated. However, Tumas Ohel should have been stated, since a bone does not cause impurity of Tumas Ohel.

Answer (cont.): Even though it doesn't apply to dedicated sacrifices that became invalid, it still should have been said regarding a dead person.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, even though Tumas Ohel is not like impurity through touching, as whenever one touches he is impure as opposed to Tumas Ohel which only applies to the marrow of the bone, it still should have stated Tumas Ohel regarding when it does apply.

Question: Why don't we answer that this is according to Rebbi Yosi who does not agree that impurity breaks out and goes up, as stated later in the Gemara?

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara does not think it is logical to establish the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yosi.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this is even though there is no marrow at all in the bone. Rashi understood this was correct because the Gemara did not say that there is no marrow in the bone.

Question: He did not have to say this, as since the Mishnah discusses a Kulis, the implication is that there is some marrow in the bone.

Explanation: In other words, it would be understandable if the case was where there was a Kzayis. The case of Mukdashin would then be understandable, even according to the opinion in Pesachim (121a) that only an amount of Nosar the size of an egg causes impurity. This is because each impure case of Mukdashin would be based on however much of it was needed for it to be impure.

Explanation (cont.): However, since the Mishnah is discussing a dead person, if there is not an amount which would cause impurity regarding Mukdashin, why etc?

Question #1: This is difficult. What is Rav Mari teaching us? This is stated in a Mishnah!

Question #2: Additionally, in Pesachim (83a) the Gemara quotes a proof to the opinion of Rav Mari and then proceeds to push it aside. Why doesn't the Gemara there quote our Mishnah to support Rav Mari?

Answer: It appears that Rav Mari is teaching us regarding bones that were Nosar, even if now they do not have any marrow. The Mishnah is discussing bones that currently still have a Kzayis of marrow, and is required to teach that there is a concept of an item serving the purpose of Nosar (bones for the marrow) and therefore being impure.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) wanted to bring a proof to Rav Mari from the bones of a Pesach sacrifice (that regarding other Korbanos we do not see bones are considered significant even if they have marrow), as it said that it must be that there is marrow in the bone (regarding the Pesach). (Why ask a question on Rav Mari from the bones of a Pesach if it could have asked from our Mishnah which is only referring to bones with marrow?)

Answer: It brought a proof from the bones of a Pesach where there used to be marrow, but now there was no marrow. (This is the Maharam's explanation of the last few lines of Tosfos.)

Explanation: It will no longer fill in the cut in the flesh. Therefore, since there is not a Kzayis of marrow it does not cause impurity through Ohel, as there is not an amount which causes impurity. It is also not considered a limb. This teaches that if the amount of flesh that is missing was cut out with a knife (or other similar implements), it does not cause impurity through Ohel (as it will not heal).

Explanation: This teaches us that touching (in the Mishnah) is Mahil, and they combine.

Question: Why doesn't the Mishnah say that if someone touches a Kzayis from a dead person he is impure, and I will know (just as Rebbi Yochanan says now) that touching refers to Ohel?

Answer: We only know this here because we generally say that a Kzayis from a dead person causes impurity through Ohel. However, now that the Mishnah discusses a Kulis from a dead person and it says "touch," it is clear that "touch" really means Ohel. This is because one cannot actually touch the marrow that is inside the Kulis, but it can cause impurity through Ohel.

Implied Question: Rebbi Yochanan did not answer that the case is where the flesh was cut out with a knife, as Abaye answered earlier. (Why not?)

Answer: It is possible that he holds that even if it is cut out it can still heal.

Implied Question: Rebbi Zeira seemingly could have answered that the case is where the impure item was less than a Tefach under his hand, as Abaye states later. (Why didn't he say this?)

Answer #1: Rather, he understands that Ohel implies there is over a Tefach between the object and what is covering it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he does not agree with the logic stated later.

Question: If we are specifically referring to a case where the impure item is less than a Tefach from what is covering it, why does the second case state that if something else causes the impurity to be in the same area as him he is pure? It should have said, "If the impurity is not less than a Tefach from what is covering it, he is pure!"

Answer: It is coming to teach that even between two structures, as in the first case, there is no impurity less than a Tefach that can be continued through a different entity. In order for a person to become due to this type of impurity, two things are required: It must be that he is between these two structures, and that either he is hovering over the impure item or the impure item is on him.

Opinion: Rashi explains that this proof is only being brought according to Rava's explanation (stated later).

Proof: This is correct as according to Abaye, what is the answer? It must be that the Mishnah is discussing all cases (and not differentiating between less than a Tefach and more than a Tefach). Otherwise, why did Rebbi Zeira have to say that the case must be about impurity that is between two structures? Let us say that the Mishnah is only regarding a case where the person was less than a Tefach away!

Proof (cont.): Rather, it must be that the Mishnah is referring to any type of Ohel. Otherwise we could still ask (on Rebbi Yochanan's answer on 125a, similar to the way the Gemara starts on 125a - see Maharam) that the Mishnah only discusses touching, but implies that hovering over higher than a Tefach would not be valid.

Proof (cont.): Therefore, we cannot establish this proof according to Abaye, since he holds that if one hovers over an object more than a Tefach it cannot be called touching.

Proof (cont.): However, according to Rava who only excludes (from being included in "touching") something hovering over both him and the impurity, there is no question. This is because our Mishnah is not discussing something else hovering over both of them, as it clearly states, "One who touches." This implies a case of Ohel similar to a case of touching, meaning he is hovering over it and causing the Tumas Ohel, not a third entity that is over both him and the impurity.

Observation: Abaye and Rava do not agree with Rebbi Zeira who answers earlier that the case is where there is impurity between two wooden structures. If they agreed with him, why would they give his explanation (as they can explain the Mishnah otherwise)? Rather, they clearly do not agree with him.

Question: We know that Rava and Abaye do not agree with Rebbi Zeira, and they explain the Mishnah in Ohalos (3:1) quoted earlier differently. Rava's explanation that the first case in Ohalos (ibid.) where they combine is as if they touched since there is nothing hovering over them, and the second case where they do not combine is through something hovering over them, is a very good and simple explanation. Why do we need to quote Rebbi Yosi to prove he is correct? We can understand the Mishnah as proof to Rava that Ohel is called touching!

Answer: It is better to quote a proof from a statement that includes the name of the scholar who said it (in this case Rebbi Yosi).

Question: Since he does not nullify (intend to keep) them there as Rashi explains, a person who is even in the space that is not over the holes should become impure! This is as the Gemara states in Bava Basra (19b) that anything that is not put down with intent to stay there does not interrupt impurity.

Answer: However, he explains there that anything that closes up an entire window does not have to be nullified. This is explained there (in Bava Basra 20a, DH "Hee").

Question: How could we have established the Mishnah earlier as being according to Rebbi Yosi? We established that our Mishnah's comment that a closed Kulis has a law that the impurity breaks through and goes up and that therefore one who touches it is impure means that one who is over it is impure!

Answer: Even though Rebbi Yosi holds that hidden impurity does not break through, he admits regarding a closed Kulis that it is impure in an Ohel just as a dead person wearing clothing causes this type of impurity.

Explanation: This is because the structure interrupts between the impure item (outside of it) and what is inside of it. The structure itself does not become impure (and therefore can be considered an interruption) because it remains in its place (it is not moved around).

Implied Question: It appears that Rebbi Yosi admits to the Gemara's statement in Beitzah (10a) that if a dead person is in a house and there are many exits, they are all impure because the impurity is going to leave through one of them. (How can his position be reconciled with this Gemara?)

Answer: The Gemara (ibid.) is referring to a whole dead person who is not normally burned and cut up into pieces of less than a Kzayis.