Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

2. The strap of his shoe (which was a Madres of a Zav) tore, and he placed it on top of the barrel, and it fell in and made the wine Tamei.
3. At that moment, the Chachamim enacted that one may not carry Kodesh while carrying a Madres.

(c) Question: If so, one should also be prohibited from carrying Terumah with a Madres!?
(d) Answer: This is like R. Chananyah b. Akavya, who says that the Chachamim only apply preventative enactments to the exact situation in which the mishap occurred.
(e) Question: To what extent does this enactment apply?

1. Does this enactment apply only to a [strap of a] shoe that is Tamei, or even to one that is Tahor?
2. Does it apply only when one is carrying an open barrel, or even when one is carrying a closed barrel?

(i) These two questions remain unanswered.

3. What if one transgressed the enactment and carried Kodesh while carrying a Madres (but it did not fall into the Kodesh)?

(i) (R. Ila) The Kodesh becomes Tamei nonetheless.
(ii) (R. Zeira) The Kodesh remains Tahor.

(a) Since it says that the utensils were completed with Taharah, it must be referring to utensils made by a Chaver.
(b) Question: If so, why do they need Tevilah?
(c) Answer: We fear that the spit of an Am ha'Aretz might have fell onto the utensil before it was finished (and not yet fit to become Tamei), and remained moist until the utensil was finished (and fit to become Tamei).
(d) Question: Is our Mishnah not like R. Eliezer?

1. R. Eliezer implies that utensils completed with Taharah require He'erev Shemesh, and not just Tevilah.
2. This is the implication of the Mishnah (Parah 5:4) in which R. Eliezer requires only Tevilah for utensils being prepared for use with the ashes of the Parah Adumah.

(i) He does not require that they first be made Tamei with an actual Tum'ah in order to disprove the Tzedukim.
(ii) The Tzedukim maintain that a Tamei person or utensil which needs He'erev Shemesh to become Tahor could *not* handle the Efer Parah.
(iii) In truth, though, the Efer Parah requires that such a Tamei person or utensil have only Tevilah in order to handle it.
(iv) According to R. Eliezer, if the utensil was not purposely made Tamei and then used for Efer Parah after Tevilah alone, what Heker is their against the Tzedukim?
(v) It must be that R. Eliezer holds that all other utensils finished with Taharah require He'erev Shemesh (and the Heker against the Tzedukim is that this utensil requires only Tevilah), not like our Mishnah!

(e) Answer (Rav): Our Mishnah could be R. Eliezer.

1. When Rebbi Eliezer requires only Tevilah for a utensil prepared for use with the Efer Parah, that is because he maintains that the Chachamim gave it a status of Tum'as Mes on its seventh day.
2. Thus, there is a Heker against the Tzedukim, who would require He'erev Shemesh to use such a utensil.

(a) Question: What is the source for this?
(b) Answer (R. Chanin): The source is the verse, "One bowl (Kaf Achas)..." (Bamidbar 7:14) -- the verse considers everything in a bowl to be joined together as one.

1. Question: Is this stringency really d'Oraisa!?
2. But a Beraisa implies that it is d'Rabanan!

(i) (Beraisa) R. Akiva added that if a Tevul Yom touched one part of the Soles, Ketores, or Levonah, all of it becomes Pasul.
(ii) This is clearly d'Rabanan, because R. Akiva is adding to R. Shimon b. Beseira's ruling that if a Tamei person touched one part of the Efer Parah, it all becomes Tamei.
(iii) R. Shimon b. Beseira's ruling is d'Rabanan, because the verse (cited by R. Chanin) refers only to things offered upon the Mizbe'ach, and not to Efer Parah.