Previous daf

1)

(a) Gaba'in - Jewish tax-collectors appointed by a non-Jewish king who entered one's house in order to take a security from taxes still owing, as well as thieves who returned vessels that they stole, are believed to say that they did not touch Kodesh.

(b) If they say that they did not touch ...

1. ... Terumah - they are not believed.
2. ... Mei Chatas - they are not believed either.

(c) The Beraisa says that if Gaba'in entered the house, everything in the house is Tamei, provided they came on their own - whereas the Beraisa which says that everything in the house is Tamei, speaks when they were accompanied by a Nochri.

(d) Even then - the Gaba'in are believed if they say that they did not enter the house.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue over the reason for the Din in the latter Beraisa. One of them explains that it is because the Gaba'in are afraid of the Nochri - the other says it is because they are afraid of the king.

(b) The difference between the two reasons - will be in a case where the Gabai is accompanied by a Nochri who is not important, and who therefore poses no threat that he might divulge what they did. If however, it is the *Nochri* of whom he is afraid, the Gabai will still not be believed.

(a) Rav Pinchas explains that our Mishnah, which believes the thieves with regard to Kodesh - speaks when they *did* Teshuvah; whereas the Beraisa which declares Tamei wherever the thieves trod - speaks when they did *not*.

(b) This answer is evident from the Lashon of our Mishnah - which says that the thieves returned the vessels that they stole.

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa, commenting on our Mishnah, explains that in Yerushalayim, an Am ha'Aretz is believed on large, earthenware vessels with regard to Kodesh - how much more so with regard to small ones.

(d) The reason that Chazal were more lenient in Yerushalayim than anywhere else is because furnaces were forbidden in Yerushalayim, as we explained earlier. The concession that they made regarding *small* vessels was - to believe the potters even outside Yerushalayim (whereas regarding *large* ones, it is only inside Yerushalayim that they believed the Amei ha'Aretz). This is because, whereas everyone needed small vessels for the Nesachim which he kept in his house before taking them to the Beis-Hamikdash, it was only very few people who handed large barrels of wine to the Beis Hamikdash, so that it sufficed to believe the Amei ha'Aretz in Yerushalayim itself.

5)

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, a Chaver who opens a barrel of wine to sell on Yom-Tov or starts selling his dough, may continue selling it after Yom- Tov. The Rabbanan say - that his wine and dough are considered Tahor only on Yom-Tov itself, but not after Yom-Tov.

(b) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha were discussing whether, according to the Chachamim, after Yom-Tov, the Chaver is permitted to leave the remainder of his barrel of wine or dough for the following Yom-Tov and sell it then. The reason of the one who says that he ...

1. ... may is - because there is no reason for after Yom-Tov to be any worse that on Yom-Tov itself, when everyone touched it, yet the Torah permitted it.
2. ... may not is - because the Torah only permitted them on Yom-Tov itself, but once Yom-Tov is over, they become Tamei retroactively.

(c) One Beraisa says 'Yanichenah', another says 'Lo Yanichenah'. To avoid establishing the Machlokes as being equivalent to that of Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha (both according to the Rabbanan) - we establish the author of the latter Beraisa to be Rebbi Yehudah, and 'Lo Yanichenah' means that he does not need to leave it until Yom-Tov, because, in his opinion, once a barrel is opened on Yom-Tov, the Chaver is permitted to continue selling it even after Yom-Tov.

(d) The author of the first Beraisa (which says 'Yanichenah') - is the Rabbanan, who hold that he is not permitted to finish the barrel after Yom- Tov.

(a) After Yom-Tov, the Kohanim would Tovel all the holy vessels, because they had been touched by Amei ha'Aretz, who are generally considered to be Tamei. They do not do this however (until after Shabbos), if the last day of Yom-Tov fell on Thursday - because on Friday, they were busy with the preparations for Shabbos.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, they would not do it either if the last day fell on Wednesday - because on Thursday too, they were busy clearing the ashes that had accumulated on the Mizbei'ach over Yom-Tov.

(c) They would warn the Kohanim Amei ha'Aretz who entered the Heichal on Yom- Tov to bow down to Hashem - to take care not to touch the Shulchan.

7)

(a) They accounted for the possibility of the holy vessels becoming Tamei (and therefore temporarily unusable) - by making a spare set of vessels.

(b) The only two vessels in the Beis-Hamikdash that did not require Tevilah after contact with Tum'ah - were the two Mizbechos (the Mizbei'ach ha'Zahav and the Mizbei'ach ha'Nechoshes).

(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, this was because they are considered joined to the ground - the Rabbanan say that it is because they were covered (this will be explained later in the Sugya).

(a) According to the Beraisa, they would warn the Kohanim not to touch the Shulchan or the Menorah. The Tana of our Mishnah omits the Menorah - because according to him, it doesn't matter so much if it is out of use for a short while, since the Torah does not write "Tamid" in connection with it, as it does by the Shulchan.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Terumah "ve'es ha'Menorah Nochach ha'Shulchan" - that the Torah is comparing the Menorah to the Shulchan, in which case, Tamid applies to the Menorah, too.

(c) According to the Tana of our Mishnah (who does not learn the Hekesh) the Pasuk comes to fix the location of the Menorah.

(a) We initially contend that the Shulchan should not be subject to Tum'ah - because, due to its size (it can hold forty Sa'ah of liquid, or two Kur of solids), it is a wooden vessel that is not carried both when it is empty and when it is full (a K'li Eitz he'Asuy le'Nachas). Consequently, it is not comparable to a sack (to which the Torah compares wooden vessels regarding Tum'ah), and is not subject to Tum'ah.

(b) Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk in Terumah (with regard to the placing of the Lechem ha'Panim) "al ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor" ('Mich'lal she'Hu Tamei') - that, in spite of its size, it is subject to Tum'ah. The Torah is indicating here that the Shulchan should be picked up on Yom-Tov (when everybody was in the Azarah), and shown to the people, so that they should be aware of the tremendous miracle that occurred weekly, and realize how much Hashem loved them.

(c) The miracle concerned was - the fact that the bread was still as hot and fresh as when it was baked eight days earlier (and they could see the steam still rising from it).

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that if a table or a folding-chair broke or was overlaid with marble, it remained Tamei, provided sufficient space remained on the part that was not broken or overlaid, to place cups - According to Rebbi Yehudah, there must also be space for pieces of bread and meat as well, because the main usage of a table is to eat on.

(b) The principle that governs the opinions of both Tana'im is - that a vessel remains subject to Tum'ah, as long as it can still be used for its original purpose.

(c) In any event - we see from the Beraisa that when a vessel is overlaid, it adopts the status of the material with which it is overlaid (even le'Kula, how much more so le'Chumra).

(d) Nevertheless, we need to say that the Shulchan was subject to Tum'ah because they used to pick it up (as we explained earlier); the fact that it was overlaid with gold (which is a metal, and would therefore have been subject to Tum'ah, even if it had not been carried when it is loaded) will not suffice - because, in spite of that, the Torah specifically refers to the Shulchan as a wooden vessel (in a Pasuk in Yechezkel "ha'Mizbei'ach Eitz ... va'Yedaber Eilai 'Zeh ha'Shulchan Asher Lifnei Hashem' ").

(a) Resh Lakish maintains that valuable vessels do not become Bateil to the Tzipuy, only regular ones.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan - *all* vessels are Bateil to the Tzipuy, even valuable ones.

(c) Nor does it make any difference, according to him, whether the rim is overlaid too, or not.

(d) According to Resh Lakish, the Kashya that we just asked in the previous question ('Why will it not suffice to say that it was subject to Tum'ah because it was overlaid with gold'?), is automatically answered - because the Shulchan was made of acacia wood, which was valuable, and would not be Bateil to the Tzipuy.