Implied question: Also a Tamei may not delay in a cemetery!

In Nazir (17a), we ask whether or not a Nazir in a cemetery must delay to be lashed;

In Nazir (42), Rav Huna said that if a Nazir stands in a cemetery, and they passed to him his Mes (a relative) or another Mes, he is liable;

This is because he increases Tum'ah on himself. Through Chiburim (while he touches a Mes), he makes another (one who touches him) an Av ha'Tum'ah, like it says there!

Answer: Kusim do not hold like these teachings.

Reference: In Mo'ed Katan (5a), we learn from here Tziyun of (marking off) a cemetery.

Question: According to R. Shimon, who says that graves of Nochrim have no Tum'as Ohel, how can we learn from here? It says in Mo'ed Katan that we mark only for Tum'as Ohel!

Answer: Since we mark temporarily (when the Mes is on the ground), due to Tum'as Maga and Masa, if so, at least we should mark for Tum'as Ohel. (I.e. likewise, we should mark for Yisre'elim also after burial, for they have Tum'as Ohel. The wording of Tosfos is awkward - Maharam.)

Implied question: In the Hava Amina in Yevamos (61a), we wanted to say that R. Shimon holds that Nochrim do not have even Tum'as Maga and Masa! (If so, what is his source for Tziyun?)

Answer: He learns Tziyun from another Drashah there.

Implied question: [How does R. Shimon explain] Tziyun [that will be done for the Mesim] of Gog?

Answer: That is not for Tum'ah, rather, to clean the land from the dead.

Question: According to R. Shimon, who expounds that Nochrim are not called Adam, why does it say "v'Ro'oh Etzem Adam"?

Answer: There it says Adam to teach unlike one might have thought, that they buried animal bones.

Explanation #1: This is when we know that there is a Mes buried there, but we do not know under which branch. The Kusi is not believed to say that it is not buried under this branch;

This is even if he walks under it, for he is not concerned for Safek Tum'ah. We say below that he is believed only when he walks over the entire area.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): The tree is near a cemetery, and sometimes they bury there.

Rebuttal: There was no need to say so, since we must say that it is known that a Mes is buried there. If it were a Safek, he would not be believed even if he walks over the entire area!

Implied question: A Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor!

Answer: Here Rabanan decreed [to be Metamei].

Implied question: It says below (68b) that Sechachos and Pera'os are not an Ohel, and Rabanan decreed about them! (Tosfos said that there is a Vadai Mes, only it is a Safek under which branch.)

Answer: It is not precise to say that they are not Ohel, for we discuss when there is a Vadai [Mes] buried there, like I explained;

Rather, it means that this Tum'as Ohel is only mid'Rabanan, for [mid'Oraisa] in Reshus ha'Rabim a Safek is Tahor.

Alternatively, the branches that are separated from each other, we view them as if they were close [to each other] to be considered an Ohel;

A Tosefta in Ohalos (9:4) says "these are Sechachos - [branches of a tree] that tower over the ground;

R. Yehudah says, we see the bottom ones as if they rise above, and the upper ones as if they descend below. If they would touch each other [and span] a square Tefach, they bring Tum'ah [under them] and block [Tum'ah from passing above them]...

Explanation: [It is called Beis ha'Peras] because the bones are cut through feet trampling on them, or through the plow.

Implied question: In a field in which a grave was lost, this reason does not apply, and [even so,] in Mo'ed Katan (5b) it is called Beis ha'Peras!

Answer #1: Since we call a field in which a grave was plowed Beis ha'Peras, we call also a field in which a grave was lost Beis ha'Peras.

Answer #2: It is called Beis ha'Peras because the Parsos (feet) of people refrain from going there, due to the Tum'ah.

In Mo'ed Katan (5b), a Beraisa says that there are three [kinds of] Beis ha'Peras - a field in which a grave was plowed, one in which a grave was lost, and a field of crying;

It explains the reason for a field of crying, due to despair of the owner.

Explanation #1 (Aruch): It is a special field that relatives of the Mes bring it to that field, and people of the cemetery come to greet them, and they cry together...

The first ones return to their houses, and these take him to bury him.

The field is Tamei, lest a small part of [the Mes] dangled and was shaken and fell there, and they forgot it.

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): Sometimes people of the city leave [the Mes] there because they think that people of the cemetery will come and take it, and people of the cemetery think that people of the city will take it to the cemetery, and it remains there.

Explanation #3 (Aruch): [The third field is called] Sedei Kuchin, because there are cavities [to hold coffins], and they leave the Mes there temporarily, until they are free to bring it to the cemetery for burial;

Sometimes it is forgotten there, and it is not removed. This is "despair of the owner."

Explanation: This refers to a field in which a grave was plowed. We are unsure [whether there is] a bone [at least] the size of a barley seed for 100 Amos around the grave;

Since it was trampled and crushed through feet, we can say that they moved a bone ki'Se'orah the size of a barley seed from there.

Regarding a field in which a grave was lost, this leniency does not apply.

Reference: The Tosefta in Ohalos (17:1) explains that the 100 Amos are in every direction. (Aruch l'Ner - this is unlike the Mishnah cited in our Sugya, which is concerned for a total width of only 100, and a total length of only 100.)

Distinction: However, in a field in which a grave was plowed, even if he walks on all of it, he is not believed, for it is only a Safek mid'Rabanan, lest he moved a bone ki'Se'orah, and the Kusi is not concerned [for the Safek].

Question: Just like regarding Tziyun of graves he is believed about Torah laws, for we establish that a Kohen is standing there, here also our Mishnah should teach that he is believed about Sechachos and Pera'os, when he walks on the entire field!

Answer #1: The Mishnah does not consider this to be a Chidush to teach that we are not concerned lest a strip comes out.

Answer #2: A field in which a grave was plowed, it does not help to walk on all of it, like I explained. [This helps] only for a field in which a grave was lost.

Question: Also [a field in which a grave was] lost, how does it help? Perhaps [the Kusi] is Tamei!

Answer: The case is, he is holding Terumah and eating it, like we said above;

The same applies if he is holding [Terumah] and not eating it, e.g. if we know that it is Tahor [but received Hechsher to receive Tum'ah]. The Kusi would not be Metamei it.

Question: Why do we pursue questions? There are several Mishnayos in the sixth Perek and seventh Perakim about laws of Kesamim. We should ask from them, and we could not answer that she felt the Ed (Bedikah cloth) or Ever!

Answer (Ri): We cannot ask from laws of Kesamim, for we could establish it when there is a big delay from when it was washed, and I could say that she felt, but did not put it to her mind;

However, in our Sugya we ask from Kesamim on her skin. It is not common for a Kesem to remain on her skin a long time without her knowledge, that it does not dry or fall.

Question: However, the Beraisa of three Sefekos brought below asks from her robe, like we will explain the case!

Answer #1: It connotes that [the Kesem on her robe] was there a short time, similar to the case of [on] her skin. We answer that it was a long time ago, and I could say that she felt, but did not put it to her mind.

Answer #2: Since most of her days are Temei'im, there is concern.

Question: Why didn't we answer that she felt urine, like above, and even if she did not urinate, like it says at the beginning of Nidah? We should have said that she thought that she feels urine!

Answer: Here it was a short time between Bi'ah and finding blood. She would have known if she feels urine!

However, above between one Bedikah and another there is a long time, and many times she feels urine in between.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A woman who has no Veses, and she normally sees constantly and checks herself constantly, and whenever she does not check, she establishes herself to be Tamei, therefore if most of her days she is Temei'ah, [what she touched or moved] is Temei'ah.

Objection: This is astounding! We do not find this stringency anywhere;

A woman who has a Veses, she is Dayah Shaitah. Tum'ah of me'Es la'Es is only when she has no Veses, and not from one Bedikah to another [if it was more than 24 hours ago], and even when she sees, and all the more so here [we are not Metamei her more than 24 hours retroactively], that there is no Kesem here;

We do not distinguish between one who sees constantly and one who does not see constantly!

Explanation #2: [Uvi'Maga'os...] refers to when it was found on her robe. It says that if after finding the stain, most of her days were Temei'im, [what she touched or moved] is Temei'ah, and even though she passed through a butcher's market;

We do not say that if it was from her body, it should have been found on her skin.

Explanation: At the end, we challenge Shmuel from this.

Implied question: Why didn't we ask from it initially? Rather, we asked first from what she touched or moved, i.e. the Seifa!

Answer: This is because [the Seifa] was simpler (what it means). The Reisha, we needed to answer [an intrinsic difficulty], and afterwards we ask from it.

Question: What is it different below in our Sugya regarding one who wore three robes and passed through a butcher's market?

She attributes the blood [to the market] even on the bottom robe (closest to her skin). We do not say "if it came from outside, it should have been found on the outer robe!

Answer: There, sometimes she uncovers the top robes, and the blood comes on the bottom robe. However, it is not normal to expose her skin.

Question: What was the question? Also here, I can say that she felt, but did not put it to her mind, like [the Gemara] said above!

Answer: There, most of her days are Tamei. There are Raglayim l'Davar (circumstantial evidence) to attribute [the blood] to Hargashah, but she did not put it to her mind;

However, here there is no proof that we should attribute to Hargashah that she did not put to her mind, for it is on her skin only a short time.