Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah asked that K'lei Cheres should become Tamei by touching (even from the outside) from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from other Keilim - which are Mekabel Tum'ah from the outside, even though they are not Mekabel Tum'ah from the inside, 'Kal va'Chomer' K'lei Cheres, which are.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with other Keilim) "ve'Chol Asher Yipol *Alav*" - that they are Mekabel Tum'ah by touching, irrespective of whether it is from the inside or from the outside.

(c) We counter the current Kashya from the Pasuk there "ve'Chol K'li Pasu'ach Asher Ein Tzamid Pasil Alav Tamei Hu", from which (given that it is speaking about a K'li Cheres) we extrapolate - that if its lid is firmly shut, a K'li Cheres is not Mekabel Tum'ah.

(a) We extrapolate from "Tocho" (in connection with a K'li Cheres) - that it is only the air-space of a *K'li Cheres* that renders the K'li Tamei, but not that of other vessels.

(b) Even though we used "Tocho" for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of Rebbi Yonasan ben Avtulmus ('Tocho Letamei ve'Tocho Litamei') - we can learn the previous D'rashah, since the Torah writes four "Tocho's" ...

(c) ... two D'rashos from each of the two "Tochos" ('Toch' and 'Tocho').

(a) We have just explained two of the "Tochos". Given that we need one "Tocho" itself, we learn from the fourth one - "Tocho", 've'Lo Toch Tocho' ...

(b) ... meaning that if there is a K'li containing food inside a K'li Cheres which also contains a Sheretz, whose top protrudes above the top of the outer one, the food remains Tahor.

(a) We conclude 'va'Afilu K'li Shetef Matzil'. A 'K'li Shetef' is - any vessel other than an earthenware one.

(b) We might have thought that a K'li Shetef does not prevent the food that it contains from becoming Tamei - because generally, anything that is subject to Tum'ah does not prevent Tum'ah from passing through it.

(c) And the Pasuk is coming to teach us that this case is different - in that a vessel cannot receive Tum'ah from another vessel, which explains why the vessel itself does not become Tamei and why it protects the food inside it (see Tosfos DH 'va'Afilu').

(a) Finally, we ask why K'lei Shetef become Tamei from the outside. We would have thought that they do not - 'Kal va'Chomer' from K'lei Cheres, which are not, even though they are subject to Tum'ah from the inside (which K'lei Shetef are not).

(b) We answer - by quoting the Pasuk "ve'Chol K'li Pasu'ach ... Tamei *Hu*" - from which we extrapolate that it is only earthenware vessels that are subject to the distinction between a lid tightly shut and a lid that isn't; but other vessels, can become Tamei even if they have a lid that is tightly shut.

(a) The Beraisa establishes our Mishnah 'Tahor bi'Chelei Eitz, Tamei bi'Chelei Matchos' - to mean that Peshutei K'lei Eitz (flat wooden vessels) are Tahor, but not Peshutei K'lei Matchos.

(b) The source for ...

1. ... the ruling the regarding 'Peshutei K'lei Eitz' - is the Torah's comparison of wooden vessels to a sack (in Parshas Shemini).
2. ... the Tum'ah of K'lei Matchos - is in a Pasuk in Matos (in connection with the vessels that they brought back from the battle against Midyan), "Ach K'lei Chesef u'Chelei Zahav ... ".

(c) The Beraisa establishes 'Tahor bi'Chelei Matchos, Tamei bi'Chelei Eitz' by Gulmei Keilim - which is the shape of vessels that have yet to be completed.

(a) The Beraisa rules that ...

1. ... a wooden vessel that still requires smoothening with a horsetail plant, ornamental pins to be added, round grooves to be pressed into it, or sand papering using the skin of a tunny-fish - is considered 'Gulmei K'lei Eitz' and is subject to Tum'ah, and so is ...
2. ... a wooden vessel that still requires a base, a rim or a handle - is.

(b) The one exception which the Tana lists that is Tahor, is a wooden vessel that requires scratching out a hollow to be used as a receptacle. The problem with this is - that it is obvious, seeing as the vessel still falls under the category of 'Peshutei K'lei Eitz'.

(c) We answer 'de'Chak Kepiza be'Kaba' - which means that he had in fact carved out a hollow that holds three Lugin (turning it into a receptacle), only the vessel is incomplete because it was his intention to add another Lug, to make it four.

8)

(a) The Beraisa lists four similar Gulmei K'lei Matchos as it did regarding Gulmei K'li Eitz, but adds a metal vessel that needs to be flattened with a hammer. If 'La'shuf' means to smoothen metal vessels with a lamina, 'Legarer' means - to scratch gold and silver ones.

(b) The Tana exchanges 'Lekarkov' (to press round grooves into it) for 'Lekarker' - which means to engrave.

(c) These five Gulmei K'lei Matchos are Tahor. The Tana rules that a metal vessel that still requires ...

1. ... a base, a rim or a handle - is Tahor too.
2. ... a lid - is Tamei.

(a) The reason for the previous ruling is - because since the lid is a separate piece, the vessel is considered complete without it.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan ascribes the Tana's general leniency regarding Gulmei K'lei Matchos to the fact that metal vessels were made for Kavod (i.e. they were considered a luxury item, as was the case in those days). Consequently, until they were completely finished, they did not serve their purpose. Rav Nachman attributes the leniency by metal vessels to their high price, and until they are complete, they will not fetch the price that one expects them to.

(c) The ramifications of their Machlokes are - with regard to bone vessels, which are valuable but not made for Kavod.

(d) Rav Nachman follows his reasoning elsewhere - where he says - that bone vessels have the same Din as metal ones.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chol *Ma'aseh Izim* Tischat'u" - that vessels made from the horns and the hooves of goats are subject to Tum'ah.

(b) From "ve'Chol" - he includes vessels made from the horns and hooves of other animals.

(c) And the Pasuk only mentions "Izim" - to preclude vessels made from birds (e.g. from the claws of a vulture from the realm of Tum'ah).

(a) Our Mishnah discusses which almonds are Chayav and which are Patur - from Ma'asros?

(b) The Beraisa establishes our Mishnah 'ha'Chayav bi'Shekeidim ha'Marim Patur bi'Mesukim' by small almonds (that are not fully-grown), and the Seifa 'ha'Chayav bi'Shekeidim ha'Mesukim Patur be'Marim' - by big ones (that are).

(c) The Tana's reason by sweet almonds is because people tend to wait until they are ripe before picking them, and by bitter one - because they make a point of eating them before they become ripe and too bitter to eat.

(d) According to Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi in the name of his father, small almonds are always Patur from Ma'asros. Others say that big ones are always Chayav.

(e) According to the latter opinion - fully-grown bitter almonds are potentially edible, because when heated on the fire they become sweet.

(a) Our Mishnah discusses Temed - grape-pits onto which one pours water, and which turns into wine once the mixture ferments.

(b) The Tana rules that until Temed ferments, it cannot be purchased with money of Ma'aser Sheini (in connection with which the Torah mentions wine), and by the same token - it will invalidate a Mikveh which does not yet contain (the Shi'ur Mikveh of) forty Sa'ah, into which it falls ...

(c) ... because it is still considered water, and three Lugin of drawn water (Mayim She'uvin) invalidate a Mikveh (if it is added before the Mikvah contains forty Sa'ah).

(d) Once the Temed has fermented, the Tana rules - it has a Din of wine in both of the above regards. It can be purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money, and a mere three Lugin of it cannot invalidate a Mikvah.

(e) The connection between the previous Mishnahs on the one hand, and the current and ensuing ones on the other is - that the former are discussing the contrast between two independent Halachos, and the latter, the contrast between two halves of the same Mitzvah.

(a) When giving one's half-Shekel, everyone had to give a Kalbon - the little bit extra that everyone had to pay Hekdesh when giving his annual half-Shekel, to compensate Hekdesh on the losses it sustained in the process of exchanging the different denominational coins that people gave to the treasurer.

(b) If two brothers who had divided their father's inheritance and then formed a partnership, gave a full Shekel between them - they had to pay *two* Kalbonos.

(c) If however, they had not yet divided the inheritance (known as Tefusas ha'Bayis [alias 'the pool']) - they only needed to give *one* Kalbon between them (just as the father would have done had he given on their behalf).

(d) As far as Ma'aser Beheimah is concerned says the Tana, this distinction works in the reverse - in the former case (where they entered into a regular partnership), they would be Patur from Ma'aser Beheimah (just as all partners are); whereas in the latter case, (where they are sharing the property bi'Tefusas ha'Bayis) they are Chayav.

(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa rules that someone who makes Temed, and finds exactly as much juice as the water that he added, is Patur from Ma'asros. Rebbi Yehudah rules - that he is Chayav.

(b) We initially think that our Mishnah goes like neither Tana - because the Tana'im make no mention of the Temed fermenting, in which case it seems, the Tana Kama declares it water even if it has fermented, whereas Rebbi Yehudah declares it wine even if it has not.

(c) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah answers that the Tana'im are arguing over Temed that fermented - in which case, the author of our Mishnah will be Rebbi Yehudah.

(d) Rav Nachman prefers not to establish the Machlokes by Temed that did not ferment, in order to establish our Mishnah like the Rabbanan - because he maintains that in such a case, since they are speaking when he only found as much juice as the water that was added, Rebbi Yehudah would not consider it to be wine.

1. ... that did not ferment - is considered water even according to Rebbi Yehudah.
2. ... that ferment, but where contains more juice than the water that one added - is considered wine, even according to the Chachamim.