Rashi- D"H "Metmah" (3rd wide line). Is there a printing error in the Rashi, where Rashi should read "Ke- keri", i.e., just like a ba'al keri and should not read as printed- "Be-keri", the latter meaning that the kattan has tumah of a ba'al keri? B/c the gemarah is just proving that a Zav Kattan's reiyah reshoina is metama and Rashi's point appears to be that the level of tumah of a kattan's first reiyah would be (since now proved that it is metamah)equivalent to a zav gadol's level of tumah, i.e., tumas erev. To say that the zav kattan has tumas keri (and read Rashi as printed) seems wrong, as those words would now not been connected to the idea Rashi is presenting and in addition, appears incorrect in law since a kattan doesn't have tumas keri- as Rashi himself just pointed out two lines earlier- in the first wide line- "loh mishkachos lah". But to change Rashi to "ke-keri" would both provide for a continuation in Rashi's point he is making and would be correct in law.

Daniel Gray, Toronto, Canada

I take issue with your remarks, as to which piece of the gemarah Rashi is referring. While you contend that it relates to the words in the Gemara, "Kol she'Shichvas Zera Shelo Metamei.", I cannot understand how that could possibly be so. Because, Rashi says "metamaeh nami keshel gadol", that this (katan) is metmah JUST LIKE A GADOL. "Kol she'Shichvas Zera Shelo Metamei" refers to a gadol (by virtue of the fact that the Shichvas Zera Shelo Metamei, which is a possibility only by a gadol). Thus, the original question posed returns. [If you propose an answer that intertwines/encompasses tumas zav with tumas keri, as is a bit mashma from the gemarah and Rashi on the very next daf, I could be more receptive to that].