Previous daf

1)

(a) For Shabbos Sukos, they would fill a golden barrel that had not been sanctified as a K'li Shares ... . Ze'iri explains that this Tana holds 'Ein Shiur la'Mayim' and 'K'lei Shares Mekadshin she'Lo mi'Da'as'. The significance of ...

1. ... 'Ein Shiur la'Mayim' is that - however much water one would pour into the jar for Nisuch ha'Mayim, it would be fit for the Mitzvah, and would therefore become sanctified in the K'li Shares. Consequently, it was imperative to use a jar that had not been sanctified.
2. ... 'K'lei Shares Mekadshin she'Lo mi'Da'as' is that - even if one were to pour the water into the jar without the specific intention of sanctifying it, it would nevertheless become sanctified. For this reason too, it was imperative to use a jar that had not been sanctified.

(b) They were not permitted to use a K'li Shares to draw the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim, according to ...

1. ... Chizkiyah, who (agrees that 'Ein Shiur la'Mayim', but) maintains that our Tana may even hold '*Ein* K'lei Shares Mekadshin Ela mi'Da'as', due to a decree - because people might say that the water was drawn in order to sanctify it (and they will subsequently think that Linah does not disqualify the Nesachim).
2. ... Rebbi Yanai quoting Rebbi Zeira, who maintains that, in addition, our Tana might hold both '*Ein* K'lei Shares Mekadshin Ela mi'Da'as' and '*Yesh* Shiur la'Mayim' - because people might say that the water was drawn for the Kohanim to wash their hands and feet. So when they see the water remaining in the jar overnight and then being used the next morning for Nisuch ha'Mayim, they will think that the Pesul of Linah does not apply to the Nesachim.

(c) Although a Kohen Hedyot would wash from the Kiyor - the Kohen Gadol would make Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim from a golden jar, which had to be sanctified.

(a) If one leaves wine in an uncovered strainer, the Tana Kama forbids it to be drunk (in case the venom seeps through the strainer - even if the lower vessel is covered). Rebbi Nechemyah says - that as long as the lower vessel is covered, the water is permitted (because the venom floats, and does not seep through the strainer).

(b) The author of our Mishnah, which does not permit water that was left uncovered to be put through a strainer could nevertheless be Rebbi Nechemyah, who agrees that - such water should not be brought on the Mizbe'ach, for reasons that we shall now see.

(c) We learn from "Hakriveihu Na le'Fechasecha" - that whatever one would not offer to a human king, one should not offer to Hashem either?

3) Rav Yehudah and Rav Eina dispute whether to call it 'Simchas Beis ha'Sho'eivah' (because of the Pasuk in Yeshayah "*u'She'avtem* Mayim be'Sason") or 'Simchas Beis ha'Chashuvah' - because it is an important Mitzvah, already prepared by Hashem since the days of the creation, when he created the Shitin (according to this opinion).

4)

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the 'flute' overrode Shabbos. the Chachamim say - that it doesn't even override Yom-Tov.

(b) Rav Yosef maintains that both of them agree that the flute of the *'Simchas Beis ha'Sho'eivah'* did not override Shabbos or Yom-Tov. They argue over the flute that was played when the wine of the Nesachim was poured on the Mizbe'ach each morning and evening. (Note: Actually, the flute was not played daily - only twelve times a year - but many other instruments (incorporated in the word 'flute') were.

(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ikar Shirah bi'Ch'li' (the main Shirah was the playing of the instruments); whereas according to Rebbi 'Ikar Shirah be'Peh'.

(a) Rebbi disqualifies a K'li Shares that is made out of wood - Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah permits it. According to Rav Yosef - the Machlokes here is exactly the same as the one above: Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ikar Shirah bi'Ch'li', in which case, we will learn all the K'lei Shares from the flute of Moshe, which was made of wood and not metal;

(b) The flute of Moshe was - a bamboo flute that remained from the time of Moshe.

(c) They did in fact, attempt to overlay it with gold - but it sounded more beautiful without, so they removed the gold and left it as it was.

(d) Rebbi holds 'Ikar Shirah be'Peh' - in which case, we cannot learn the Din of K'lei Shares from the flute of Moshe (since, in his opinion, the instruments were not K'lei Shares).

(a) We refute Rav Yosef's explanation on the grounds that - even Rebbi will agree that the main Shirah constitutes *playing* the instruments. Nevertheless, he does not learn the Din of K'lei Shares from the flute of Moshe - because we cannot learn 'the possible' (to make other vessels out of metal) from 'the impossible' (to make the flutes out of metal - since it spoils the sound, as we saw earlier).

(b) Alternatively, perhaps even Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah will agree that the main Shirah constitutes the *singing*, nor will we learn the possible from the impossible. Yet he permits wooden K'lei Shares from the Pasuk in Terumah "ve'Asisa *Menoras* Mikshah Te'aseh *ha'Menorah*" - "Menoras" (according to him), constitutes a 'Ribuy', *"Zahav Tahor"*, a 'Mi'ut', and *"ha'Menorah"* a 'Ribuy'. We include everything from the last 'Ribuy', and exclude one thing only (earthenware vessels) from the 'Mi'ut'.

(c)

1. Rebbi learns a 'K'lal u'Frat u'Chelal': - The 'K'lal u'Frat' alone would teach us 'Ein bi'Chlal Ela Mah he'bi'Frat' (i.e. only what the P'rat says). Comes the second 'K'lal, and includes whatever is similar to the P'rat (i.e. metal, but not wood).
2. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns a 'Ribuy, Mi'ut ve'Ribuy': - The 'K'lal u'F'rat' would include whatever is similar to the P'rat (i.e.. metal and not wood - as Rebbi learns from the 'K'lal u'F'rat'). Comes the final K'lal to include everything (even wooden vessels), except for one thing (earthenware vessels).