1)

(a)The problem with the Pasuk in Metzora "Kol ha'Noge'a be'Chol asher Yih'yeh Sachtav", as it stands is that - we already know this from the Pasuk there "ve'Ish asher Yiga be'Mishkavo Yechabes Begadav ... ve'Tamei ad ha'Erev".

(b)So we amend the Pasuk to read - 'ha'Noge'a be'Chol asher (ha'Zav) Tachtav" (with reference to Elyono shel Zav) ...

(c)... and we interpret the Torah's ruling "Yitma ad ha'Erev" to mean that - he is only Metamei Ochlin and Mashkin (but not Adam and Keilim).

(d)Based on the continuation of the Pasuk (regarding someone who carries the Mishkav or Moshav of a Zav) "Yechabes Begadav ... ", 'Nitko ha'Kasuv mi'Tum'ah Chamurah' means that - the earlier Pasuk (regarding Elyono shel Zav) is clearly coming to issue a more lenient ruling (as we just explained) ...

(e)... which we learn from the fact that - the Pasuk divides the two phrases by adding the word "Yitma".

2)

(a)We challenge our interpretation of "Yitma ad ha'Erev" however, based on the very continuation of the Pasuk that we just quoted, in light of which we suggest 'Nitko ha'Kasuv ... ' to mean (not that Elyono shel Zav is not Metamei Adam ve'Keilim, but) that - it is Metamei Adam, but not the clothes he is wearing.

(b)We conclude however that - the Lashon "Yitma ad ha'Erev" implies the lightest Tum'ah (to be Metamei Ochel and Mashkeh until the evening [though it is unclear what this means, since food and drink are not subject to Tevilah] see Tosfos 32b, DH 'u'Reminhu' and Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman').

(c)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Yitma Shiv'as Yamim" that - even if, for example, a man is Bo'el a Nidah on her seventh day, he is Tamei for a full seven days (just as she was initially) and not just until nightfall (like she is now).

2. ... "u'Sehi Nidasah alav" that - he is Metamei Adam by merely touching him, but a K'li Cheres only by moving it (just lie she is).

3. ... "ve'Chol ha'Mishkav asher Yishkav alav ha'Zav Yitma" that - the Mishkav on which he lies is only Metamei Ochlin and Mashkin, but not Adam and Keilim ('Nitko ... ' like we Darshened earlier with regard to Elyono shel Zav).

(d)When Rav Acha'i suggested that perhaps the previous D'rashah only comes to preclude the clothes that he is wearing, but not Adam and Begadim (should he touch either of them), Rav Asi answered - that "Yitma" implies the lightest possible Tum'ah (as we explained there).

3)

(a)Based on the Pasuk "u'Sehi Nidasah alav ve'Tamei Shiv'as Yamim, ve'Chol ha'Mishkav asher Yishkav alav Yitma", we ask that "u'Sehi Nidasah alav" and "ve'Chol ha'Mishkav ... " ought to serve as a 'K'lal u'P'rat' - in which case a Bo'el Nidah would only be Metamei Mishkav and Moshav (but not Adam and K'lei Cheres).

(b)Abaye answers that it cannot serve as a 'K'lal u'P'rat' - because, with "ve'Tamei Shiv'as Yamim" in between them, they constitute a 'K'lal u'P'rat' that are far from each other (which are not considered a 'K'lal u'P'rat').

(c)Rava answers that (even assuming that that this is considered a Klal u'Perat) - they cannot work as a 'K'lal 'u'P'rat' here, since "ve'Chol ha'Mishkav ... " implies a 'Ribuy' (which comes to include) rather than a 'P'rat' (which excludes).

4)

(a)When Rebbi Ya'akov suggests that, based on the Hekesh between the Bo'el Nidah and the Nidah ("u'Sehi Nidasah alav'), we should Darshen it le'Kula, he means that - just as regarding the Nidah herself, we do not differentiate between what she touches and her Mishkav (both of which are Metamei Adam as well as the clothes he is wearing), so too, should we not differentiate between what a Bo'el Nidah touches and his Mishkav and Moshav, neither of which should be Metamei the clothes of the person that they touch.

(b)Rava refutes this suggestion however, due to the word "alav", which implies that - the Bo'el Nidah himself adopts the same level of Tum'ah as the Nidah herself.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak Magdela'ah establishes our Mishnah 'Mipnei she'Hein Bo'alei Nidos' - with regard to those that are married (as there is no basis to suspect all the Kutim of being Bo'alei Nidos).

(b)Rebbi Meir showed surprise at the initial statement in our Mishnah 've'Hein Yoshvos al Kol Dam ve'Dam' - because in itself, this would be a praiseworthy Chumra to adopt ...

(c)... and the trouble is that - they did not count seven days after each sighting, but counted the second sighting of red blood as part of the seven-day period.

(d)Others (Yesh Omrim) explain that the Kutim tended to count the day on which the sightings terminated, by which they meant - that after seeing three consecutive days (following the seven days of Nidus), they would begin the seven clean days from the time that they stopped seeing on that third day ...

(e)... based on the principle 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' (part of the day is considered like the complete day).

6)

(a)The problem Rami bar Chama has with the opinion of Yesh Omrim is - what exactly is wrong with that, and why the B'nos Yisrael should not do the same thing?

(b)Rava attempts to resolve the problem, based on the Din of a Zav who sees Shichvas-Zera - who discounts the day that he sees from the seven clean days.

(c)Rava now tries to prove from there that - we do not say 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' with regard to the seven clean days of a Zavah, because if we did, why should the sighting of Keri discount that day, when the remainder of the day can still be counted?

(d)We counter ...

1. ... Rava's proof however - by restricting the Pasuk from which we learn this Din to where she saw close to sunset, and there is nothing left of the day to count.

2. ... the Kashya that it is rather pushed to explain the Pasuk in this way - by simply dismissing it, because if (in face of the principle 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo') we have to establish the Pasuk in such an unusual case, so be it.

7)

(a)Rami bar Chama asked whether a Zavah who is Poletes Shichvas-Zera discounts that day or not. One side of the She'eilah is that she is after all, Tamei because she saw Zera; the other side is that - she is not Tamei because of the sighting, but because her body touched the Zera.

(b)Rava queries the She'eilah, because it is not practical. The problem if she were to negate ...

1. ... all seven days would be that - it is not logical for her to be more stringent than the Bo'el (whose Zera she emitted), who only discounts one day and not seven.

2. ... one day would be that - the Pasuk "Achar Tit'har" implies that the seven clean days must be consecutive (without any Tum'ah in the middle).

(c)We counter Rava's Kashya - pointing out that by Zav too, the Pasuk writes "le'Taharaso" - which has the same implication as "ve'Achar Tit'har" of a Zavah, yet in spite of that, a sighting of Keri discounts only one day (as we just explained).

(d)We therefore answer both Kashyos" - by confining the D'rashah requiring seven consecutive days to seeing Zivus (but not Keri) in the middle.

8)

(a)When Rav Papa arrived in Tav'ach and began inquiring whether there was a Talmid-Chacham that he could visit, an old woman told him - that there was a Talmid-Chacham by the name of Rav Shmuel - who had learned Beraisos, and blessed him that he should be like him.

(b)He reacted to her words - by stating that, since he received such a blessing, Rav Shmuel must indeed be a Talmid-Chacham (see Mitzpeh Eisan).

(c)When Rav Papa arrived at his house - Rav Shmuel prepared an ox in his honor (see Rashash).

(d)He also queried our Mishnah 've'Ein Sorfin aleihen es ha'Terumah Mipnei Tum'as Safek' from a Mishnah in Taharos - where the Tana rules 'Safek Bigdei Am ha'Aretz - Sorfin aleihen es ha'Terumah' (see Tosfos DH 'u'Reminhu').

9)

(a)Rav Shmuel refutes Rav Papa's answer, that our Mishnah is speaking about a Kuti Chaver, on the grounds that - there are no grounds for establishing a Kuti Chaver as a Bo'el Nidah (see Tosfos DH 'Bo'el Nidah').

(b)Rav Papa's reaction to Rav Shmuel's disproof was - to walk out (in embarrassment) See also Aruch la'Ner.

(c)So he went to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who asked him why he did not establish our Mishnah by a Kuti who had Toveled before treading on the garment of a Chaver which touched the Terumah, thereby eliminating the problem of Tum'as Am-ha'Aretz. There is no problem regarding Bo'el Nidah either - because it is only a S'fek S'feika (perhaps seven clean days had passed since he was Bo'el Nidah, and even if they hadn't, perhaps she did not add the red blood of her second sighting to the yellow blood of her second one, in which case his Bi'ah was not a Bi'as Nidah in any case.

(d)And we circumvent the problem of Bigdei Am ha'Aretz Medras li'Perushim (which would have rendered the Chaver's garments Vaday Tamei) - by establishing our Mishnah by a Kuti who was naked when he stood on the Chaver's Beged.

10)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that the daughters of Tzedokim who ...

1. ... follow in the footsteps of their parents - have the Din of Kutiyos

2. ... have separated from the ways of their parents to go in way of Yisrael - have the Din of Yisre'eliyos.

(b)Rebbi Yossi says that - the daughters of Tzedokim S'tam - have the Din of Yisre'eliyos (S'tam) as long as we are not aware that they have followed in the footsteps of their parents.

(c)They asked what the Din of B'nos Tzedokim will be in the case of Stam, according to the Tana Kama. We reject the proof from the Reisha of our Mishnah, that they have the Din of Kutiyos if they follow in the footsteps of their parents, implying that S'tam, they do not - from the Seifa, which implies that S'tam, they have the Din of Kutiyos.

(d)So we end up - learning nothing from the Reisha of our Mishnah.

11)

(a)We finally resolve our She'eilah from Rebbi Yossi - who argues with the Tana Kama, and holds that S'tam, the B'nos Tzedokim have the Din of Yisre'eliyos, in which case - the Chachamim clearly hold that they do not.

(b)When a Kohen Gadol was once speaking to a Tzedoki in the market-place - some spit that the latter emitted settled on the former's garment.

(c)The Kohen Gadol's reaction to that - was to turn color, and to go for clarification to the Tzedoki's wife (see Agados Maharsha) ...

(d)... who assured him that - the wives of the Tzedokim were afraid of the Perushim, and therefore made a point of showing their blood to the Chachamim.

12)

(a)Rebbi Yossi attested - (independently) to what the wife of the Tzedoki told the Kohen Gadol, that all the Tzedoki women showed their blood to a Chacham, with the exception of one woman who had lived in his vicinity ...

(b)... and who had not done so. He was not worried about her (however, even to consider her a minority) - since she was no longer alive.

(c)The problem with the fact that the Tana presents a case of a Tzedoki is that - the Kohen Gadol ought to have been Tamei even if the man with whom he had been speaking had not been a member of that sect - because of the Din of 'Tzinora de'Am ha'Aretz' (the spit of an Am ha'Aretz, which is Metamei a Chaver anyway.

(d)Rava refutes Abaye's answer (that the Beraisa is talking about a Tzedoki Chaver) - because in that case, there would be no grounds to consider him a Bo'el Nidah (as Rav Shmuel explained earlier).

13)

(a)Rava therefore establishes the Beraisa - on Yom-Tov, when all Yisrael have the Din of Chaverim, and are considered Tahor, removing any problem that might have pertained to an Am ha'Aretz who was not a Tzedoki).

(b)And we learn this from the Pasuk in Shoftim "va'Ye'esof Kol Ish Yisrael el ha'Ir ke'Ish Echad Chaverim" which teaches us that - whenever all Yisrael gather together (such as on a Yom-Tov) they have the Din of Chaverim.