Previous daf

1)

(a) Based on Rav's distinction between an oven and a pot that we just discussed, we rule that a Kuvya (or Buchya [ - a sort of oven made of earthenware tiles, which is used mainly as a base for a pot, but which is sometimes smeared with fat and used for baking bread]), which is heated from the outside, cannot be Kashered by re-heating it.

(b) On the other hand, we ask why it is necessary to break the earthenware pots in the Azarah - since they can be saved by heating them in a kiln.

(c) This suggestion does not clash with the Pasuk "u'K'li Cheres Yishaver" - since the latter refers exclusively to the Mishkan (seeing as in the desert, where they were constantly on the move, they did not have kilns [which need to be permanent]).

(d) This suggestion must assume that the Torah does not forbid Bishul without Beli'ah - because if it did, the obligation to break it would be a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' (as we explained earlier), and returning it to the kiln would not help (see Tosfos DH 'Ela').

(a) Rebbi Zeira answers the Kashya (about returning the pots to a kiln in Yerushalayim) - by citing the prohibition of having kilns in Yerushalayim (because the smoke will interfere with the Nesachim).

(b) Abaye however, retorted by asking whether it was any better to turn the Azarah into a trash heap ...

(c) ... but he seemed to have forgotten the Beraisa cited by Rav Shemayah in Kalnebo - which describes how the broken pieces of earthenware in the Azarah would miraculously disappear into the ground.

(a) Despite the fact that earthenware ovens can be Kashered by re-heating, the ovens in the Azarah had to be made of metal (and not of earthenware) - because of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (on Shavu'os) and the Lechem ha'Panim (every Friday), which besides being baked in them, were also sanctified there. This gives them the status of a K'li Shareis, which cannot be made of earthenware.

(b) And we add that this goes even according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - who validates K'lei Shareis made of wood.

4)

(a) After leaving Rami bar Chama, Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Yehudah went to learn - with Rav Sheishes.

(b) Rami bar Chama accused him of - conceit.

(c) He replied however - by ascribing the switch to the fact that whereas he (Rami bar Chama) tended to answer his She'eilos with his own S'varos, and then get caught out when he (Rav Yitzchak) would quote a Beraisa, Rav Sheishes would answer his She'eilos with a Beraisa, which would counter any Beraisa that he might subsequently come up with.

(d) Rami bar Chama responded to that - by challenging him to ask him a She'eilah, and see whether he would not respond by citing him a Beraisa.

(a) When Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Yehudah asked Rami bar Chama whether, if someone cooked a piece of Korban in part of a vessel, the rest of the vessel requires 'Merikah u'Shetifah, he replied - in the negative ...

(b) ... because he compared it to Kibus with regard to a Beged.

(c) And when Rav Yitzchak remarked that this was not a Beraisa, he replied - that the Din of Kibus is after all, based on a Mishnah, which is even better than a Beraisa.

(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Yehudah refuted Rami bar Chama's proof - by drawing a distinction between Haza'as ha'Dam (which does not spread to the rest of the garment, and cooking food (which spreads to the rest of the vessel).

(b) He also asked from a Beraisa, which discusses the respective Chumros of Haza'ah and Merikah u'Shetifah. The Chumra of ...

1. ... Haza'ah over Merikah u'Shetifah (besides the fact that it also applies to the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos, whereas the latter do not [since they are confined to food in cooking utensils]) is - that it applies even before Zerikah, whereas Merikah u'Shetifah does not.
2. ... Merikah u'Shetifah over Haza'ah (besides the fact that they apply to Kodshim Kalim too, whereas the latter does not) is - that even though one only cooked the Kodshim in part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires Merikah u'Shetifah (a Kashya on Rami bar Chama).

(c) Rami bar Chama's reaction to this latter proof was - 'I Tanya Tanya' (that if it is a Beraisa, he has to accept it).

(d) The Tana learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im bi'Cheli Nechoshes Bushalah" - that even if one cooked Kodshim in part of a vessel, the entire vessel needs Merikah and Shetifah (see Tzon Kodshim).

(a) Based on the fact that the basic Pasuk regarding Merikah u'Shetifah is written with regard to Chatas, Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "Kodesh Kodshim Hi" - that all Kodshim (even Kodshim Kalim) are included.

(b) "Osah" comes to preclude - Terumah from Merikah u'Shetifah (as we will explain later).

(c) We now know that "Kodesh Kodshim" cannot be taken literally, because if it were - then we would not need "Osah" to preclude, either Kodshim Kalim or Terumah.

(a) Rebbi Shimon interprets "Kodesh Kodshim Hi" - to preclude Kodshim Kalim from the Din of Shetifah ve'Hadachah.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Shimon, based on the D'rashah from "Osah" (precluding Terumah), which clearly implies that Kodshim Kalim are subject to the Din of Merikah u'Shetifah.

(a) Rebbi Shimon for his part, disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, because he learns from "Osah" - "Osah" Kesheirah ve'Lo Pesulah (to preclude the blood of a Chatas that had a Sha'as ha'Kosher but that became Pasul, from the Din of Kibus Begadim.

(b) He now holds that ...

1. ... Kodshim Kalim is not subject to Merikah and Shetifah ...
2. ... 'Kal va'Chomer' Terumah.

(a) The Beraisa rules that ...

1. ... cooking milky in a meaty pot is forbidden, and that if one did, the meat requires a Nosen Ta'am (sixty to one) to negate it.
2. ... cooking Chulin in a pot that was used to cook Terumah is prohibited, and that if one did, the Terumah requires a Nosen Ta'am to negate it.

(b) The problem this Beraisa creates with the previous Beraisa is - that it now seems that Terumah requires Kashering no less than Kodshim, whereas both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon precluded it from the Din of Merikah u'Shetifah.

(c) We give three answers to this Kashya. The basic principle that all three answers have in common is - the fact that even Terumah is subject to Hag'alah (according to all opinions), and the Tana'im only argue over the Chumros of Merikah u'Shetifah.

(d) Abaye explains that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon are referring to exempting Terumah from the Din of 'Bishel be'Miktzas K'li, Ta'un Merikah u'Shetifah Kol ha'K'li'. The Chumra of Merikah and Shetifah from which the Beraisa exempts Terumah, according to ...

1. ... Rava, is - that of not using wine, or wine mixed with water.
2. ... Rabah bar Ula is - that Merikah u'Shetifah must be performed with cold water, either of which is permitted in connection with Terumah.

(a) Even though Merikah and Shetifah both take place in cold water, the vessel is Kashered - through Hag'alah, since according to this opinion, they are required in addition to Hag'alah.

(b) What is the basic Machlokes between this opinion and the one that holds 'Merikah be'Chamin, u'Shetifah be'Tzonen'?

(c) According to the second opinion, in what way is Terumah more lenient than Kodshim?