Question: How do we know the law of a Mishkav above a Zav?

Answer - Question: It says "v'Chol ha'Noge'a b'Chol Asher Yihyeh Sachtav Yitma". What does "Sachtav" (below) refer to?

Suggestion: It refers to a Mishkav below a Zav.

Rejection. "V'Ish Asher Yiga b'Mishkavo" teaches this!

Answer: Rather, it refers to something above the Zav. (He is below it);

The verse teaches that it does not have severe Tum'ah, rather, light Tum'ah. It is Metamei only food and drink. (It is a Rishon.)

Question: Perhaps the verse teaches that it does not have severe Tum'ah to be Metamei (one who touches it and) Begadim (that he is wearing at the time), but only a lighter Tum'ah, to be Metamei him or Kelim!

Answer: "Yitma" connotes that it is Metamei only food and drink.

Question: How do we know the law of a Mishkav below a Bo'el Nidah?

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "u'Sehi Nidasah Alav" teaches that a Bo'el Nidah can become Tahor at the same time as the Nidah he had Bi'ah with (seven days after she became Nidah, regardless of when they had Bi'ah)!

Rejection: "V'Tamei Shiv'as Yamim."

Question: If so, why does it say "u'Sehi Nidasah Alav"?

Answer: One might have thought that he is not Metamei people or Klei Cheres. "U'Sehi Nidasah Alav" teaches that he is Metamei them, like she is.

Suggestion: Just like her Mishkav is Metamei Begadim, also his is!

Rejection - Question: Why do we need "v'Chol ha'Mishkav Asher Yishkav Alav Yitma"? Since he is equated to a Nidah, we know that his Mishkav is Tamei!

Answer: The verse teaches that it does not have severe Tum'ah, rather, light Tum'ah. It is Metamei only food and drink.

Question (Rav Achai): Perhaps the verse teaches that it does not have severe Tum'ah to be Metamei Begadim, rather, Tum'ah Kalah, to be Metamei him or Kelim!

Answer (Rav Asi): "Yitma" connotes that it is Metamei only food and drink.

Question: "U'Sehi Nidasah Alav" is a Klal (general term). "V'Chol ha'Mishkav... " is a Prat (specific term. We should say that the Klal u'Frat teaches only the Prat, i.e. Mishkav u'Moshav (but not people or Klei Cheres)!

Answer #1 (Abaye): "V'Tamei Shiv'as Yamim" separates the Klal and Prat, therefore we do not expound according to the law of Klal and Prat.

Objection (Rava): Even if the Klal and Prat are separated, we expound Klal and Prat!

Answer #2 (Rava): "V'Chol ha'Mishkav... " is not a Klal, rather, a Ribuy (inclusion).

Question (R. Yakov): The Torah equated his Tum'ah to hers. Just like (we are stringent to say that) her Mishkav is as Tamei like she is (both are Metamei Begadim), we should be lenient to say that he is no more Tamei than his Mishkav (a Rishon l'Tum'ah)!

Answer (Rava): "(U'Sehi Nidasah) Alav" comes to impose stringencies on him.

(Mishnah): A Kusi... is Bo'el Nidah.

Question: Do all Kusim have Bi'ah with Nidos?!

Answer (R. Yitzchak Magdela'ah): The Mishnah refers to married Kusi men.

(Mishnah): Kusi women are assumed to be Teme'os, for they sit (i.e. wait before immersing) due to blood of any color.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If they would wait for (seven days after seeing) blood of any (new) color (i.e. it changed from what they saw at the beginning of Nidah), this would prevent them from sin!

However, they do not do so, rather, they immerse seven days from the first sighting, even if it was Yarok (which is really Tahor), and they saw red blood later in the week. (They immerse during the (true) days of Nidah, therefore they remain Teme'os.)

Also, when they become Zavos, they count the last day they saw towards the seven clean days.

Question (Rami bar Chama): They may count it, for Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo! (Part of the day counts like the whole day.)

Answer (Rava): We do not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo. The Halachah is, if a Zav saw semen, he cannot count that day towards the seven clean days (even though the end of the day was clean)!

Rejection (Rami bar Chama): Indeed, if the end of the day was clean, it counts towards the seven clean days;

It may not be counted if he saw at the end of the day.

Question: A verse teaches that he may not count a day when he saw semen. Will we say that the verse applies only when he saw at the last moment of the day?!

Answer: Indeed, Rami bar Chama must say so, even though this is difficult.

Question (Rami bar Chama): If semen (from a previous act of Bi'ah) exudes from a woman during the seven clean days, does this interrupt her count?

(Semen that exudes is Metamei even a Tahor woman.). Is this because it is considered as if she saw blood?

Or, is she Teme'ah only because semen touched her?

Objection (Rava): Rami's question is ill-founded!

If it would interrupt her count, how many days would it disqualify?!

It could not disqualify all the days she counted, and require her to start again from day one. Surely, it is not more stringent than the man from whom the semen came! (Semen interrupts only one day of a Zav's count.)

We cannot say that it disqualifies only one day. "V'Achar Tit'har" teaches that she must immerse after all the (seven clean) days were consecutive!

Counter-question: According to Rava, why does semen interrupt only one day of a Zav's count?

"L'Taharaso" teaches that there may not be any Tum'ah in the middle (of the seven days)!

Answer: You must say that "l'Taharaso" teaches that there may not be Tum'as Zivah in the middle;

Answer: Likewise, "v'Achar Tit'har" teaches that there may not be Tum'ah of (Dam) Zivah in the middle!

(Mishnah): If someone (became Tamei through Kusim and) entered the Mikdash, he does not bring a Korban...

Rav Papa (when he went to Tavach): If there is a Chacham here, I want to see him!

An old woman: There is a Chacham, Rav Shmuel. He teaches Beraisos. Hash-m should grant that you be like him!

Rav Papa: If she gave me such a blessing, he must fear Shamayim greatly! Rav Papa went to visit him. Rav Shmuel slaughtered an ox in his honor.

Question (Rav Shmuel - our Mishnah): We do not obligate a Korban for entering the Mikdash or burn Terumah due to the (assumed) Tum'ah of Kusim, because it is a Safek;

This shows that we do not burn Terumah due to a Safek;

Contradiction (Mishnah): In six cases we burn Terumah due to a Safek -- if it became Tamei through clothes of an ignoramus (someone not careful about Tum'ah. (Most) Kusim are ignoramuses... !)

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): The case is, the Kusi is a Chaver. (He observes all the Mitzvos properly.)

Rejection (Rav Shmuel): He cannot be a Chaver. The Mishnah considers him to be a Bo'el Nidah!

Answer #2 (Rav Simi Bar Ashi): (The Kusi is an ignoramus.) The case is, he stepped on a Chaver's garment immediately after immersing, then the garment touched Terumah;

After a (regular) ignoramus immerses, we assume that he is Tahor;

In addition, a Kusi is (Muchzak to be) Bo'el Nidah. Immersion is Metaher him unless he was Bo'el Nidah in the last week. His Tum'ah depends on a Sfek Sfeika (there are two independent reasons to be lenient):

Perhaps he did not have Bi'ah in the last week at all;

Even if he had Bi'ah, perhaps his wife was truly Tehorah. (E.g. the last time she became Nidah, her first sighting was red (real Dam Nidah), so she immersed at the proper time.)

We do not burn Terumah due to Tum'ah that depends on a Sfek Sfeika!

Question: We should burn the Terumah due to the Kusi's clothes!

An ignoramus' garment is Muchzak to be a Medras with respect to a Chaver! (Perhaps his wife sat on them when she was Nidah, and it is an Av ha'Tum'ah. When the Kusi wears such garments, he is Metamei Begadim, e.g. the Chaver's garment that he stepped on!)

Answer: The case is, he was naked when he stepped on the Chaver's garment. (Tosfos - we could have answered that he immersed his garments, or he was wearing a Chaver's garments.)

(Mishnah): (The Tzedukim kept the Mitzvos according to their mistaken understanding. They did not heed the Oral tradition.) If a Tzeduki's daughter acts like her father, she is considered like a Kusis. If she changes and adopts the ways of Yisraelim, she is considered a Yisraelis;

R. Yosi says, she is considered a Yisraelis unless we see that she acts like her father.

(Gemara) Question: What does the first Tana say if we do not know how she acts?

Answer #1 (Mishnah): If a Tzeduki's daughter acts like her father, she is considered like a Kusis;

Inference: If we do not know, she is considered a Yisraelis.

Contradiction (Mishnah): If she changes and adopts the ways of Yisraelim, she is considered a Yisraelis.

Inference: If we do not know, she is considered a Kusis!

Conclusion: The inferences contradict one another. We cannot resolve the question from the Mishnah.

Answer #2 (Mishnah - R. Yosi): She is considered a Yisraelis unless we see that she acts like her father.

Inference: He argues with the first Tana. The first Tana must say that if we do not know, she is considered a Kusis.

(Beraisa): A case occurred in which a Tzeduki was speaking with the Kohen Gadol in the market. Spit from his mouth landed on the Kohen Gadol's garment;

The Kohen was distressed; he asked the Tzeduki's (Rashi; Maharsha - his own) wife, who told him that Tzedukiyos fear Chaverim. They show their sightings to Chachamim and follow their rulings;

There was only one Tzedukis who did not do so, and she died.

Question: Even if the Tzeduki was not Bo'el Nidah (because his wife acted according to Chachamim), Mayanos (bodily fluids, including spit) of an ignoramus are Avos ha'Tum'ah!

Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, the Tzeduki was a Chaver.

Objection (Rava): He could not have been a Chaver, for the Kohen Gadol was concerned that he was Bo'el Nidah!

Answer #2 (Rava): This happened during the festival. Ignoramuses are considered Tehorim then:

"Va'Ye'asef Kol Ish Yisrael El ha'Ir k'Ish Echad Chaverim" -- when Yisrael are together (e.g. on the festivals), all are considered Tehorim.