Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that someone who is carrying the Medras of a Zav is not permitted to carry Kodesh. They forbade it on account of the incident related by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - in which someone was carrying an earthenware barrel of Kodesh wine when the strap of his shoe (which was a Medras ha'Zav) snapped. The man removed the strap and placed it on the lip of the barrel, from which it slipped and dangled in the air-space of the barrel (rendering the barrel, Tamei).

(b) The author of our Mishnah, which confines the decree to Kodesh (and not to Terumah), is Rebbi Chananyah ben Akavya, who argues with the Tana Kama. The Tana Kama forbids carrying Mei Chatas or Eifer Chatas even by throwing them, or handing them across a stretch of water. Carrying them whilst ...

1. ... riding on the back of his friend or of an animal - is forbidden too (according to him).
2. ... walking on foot across a bridge however - is permitted (since he is walking on dry land).

(c) What actually happened there was - that someone was transporting Mei Chatas and Eifer Chatas across the Jordan-River by boat when a k'Zayis of corpse was discovered stuck to the bottom of the boat, rendering the Mei Chatas and the Eifer Chatas Tamei.

(d) Rebbi Chananyah ben Akavya says there - that Chazal confined the decree to transporting the Mei Chatas and the Eifer Chatas across the Jordan-River, and to no other case (restricting the decree to circumstances similar to those of the occurrence that caused the decree).

(a) They asked a She'eilah whether the decree extends even to carrying Kodshim together with a *Tahor* shoe, or even to carrying Kodshim in a *closed* barrel together with a Tamei shoe - She'eilos that the Gemara makes no attempt to resolve.

(b) They also asked what the Din would be Bedieved if someone disregarded the prohibition and carried Kodshim in an open barrel together with the shoe of a Zav. Rebbi Ila rules that the Kodshim is Tamei - according to Rebbi Zeira, they remain Tahor.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that vessels that were completed be'Taharah, require Tevilah for Kodesh. They cannot have been completed by an Am ha'Aretz - because then, the Tana would not have described them as 'Nigmarin be'Taharah'.

(b) In fact, they were completed by a Chaver, and the reason that they require Tevilah is - because of the spittle of an Am ha'Aretz which might have settled on them.

(c) If the spittle of the Am ha'Aretz fell on them *before* they were completed, it does not render them Tamei (at that stage), and *after* their completion, the Chaver would certainly be careful to prevent this from happening. The Mishnah must be referring to a case - where the spittle settled on the vessels before their completion, but that it remained wet until after they were completed.

(d) Our Mishnah requires Tevilah, but not (we can infer) Ha'arev Shemesh.

(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, a cane that was cut for the purpose of filling it with Mei Chatas, may be Toveled immediately and used. According to Rebbi Yehoshua - one first makes it Tamei Sheretz before Toveling it.

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer, this cane requires Tevilah, despite the fact that it was cut by a Chaver - because of the suspicion that the spittle of an Am ha'Aretz (as we just explained in the previous question).

(c) We are normally Metamei vessels that are used for Mei Chatas as well as the Kohen who burns it - in order to Tovel them and use them for Mei Chatas without Ha'arev-Shemesh. This in turn, was in order to counter the Tzedokim, who maintained that Mei-Chatas is forbidden to a T'vul-Yom - before Ha'arev-Shemesh. Chazal therefore went out of their way to demonstrate that they were wrong by initiating a Heker, a leniency that distinguished them from other Kodshim.

5)

(a) We try to prove from the fact that Rebbi Eliezer does not require Ha'arev Shemesh in the above case - that Rebbi Eliezer cannot be the author of our Mishnah, because if, like our Mishnah holds, vessels that are completed be'Taharah do not require Ha'arev-Shemesh (as we proved in 3d.), then what will be the Heker demonstrating that Mei Parah is different than other Kodshim?

(b) We answer 'As'uhah ke'Tamei Sheretz' - meaning that, even if Rebbi Eliezer were to be the author of our Mishnah, there would still be a Heker, inasmuch as Chazal gave the cane the Din of a Tamei Sheretz, to make whatever it touches a Sheini (unlike other vessels that were completed be'Taharah, which only become Pasul).

(c) This creates a problem however, because of the Beraisa, which requires those who cut and Toveled the cane to Tovel - and if Chazal had given it the Din of a Tamei Sheretz, why on earth would this be necessary? Since when is a Tamei Sheretz Metamei people?

(d) We therefore amend the previous answer to read, not 'As'uhah ke'Tamei Sheretz' - but 'As'uhah ke'Tamei Meis'.

(a) The reason that they do not require sprinkling with the Mei Chatas on the third and seventh days - is because Chazal gave the cane the Din of a Tamei Meis on the seventh day (after the Haza'os have already been performed).

(b) When the Tana says 'Me'olam Lo Chidshu Davar be'Parah' - he means with regard to introducing a new level of Tum'ah, such as Tum'as Moshav on a spade, which can *never* occur (unlike Tum'as Meis by a cane, which *can*).

(c) The Tana in another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'ha'Yosheiv al ha'K'li Asher *Yeishev* (and not "Yashav") Alav Yitma" - that only a vessel that is designated for sitting on is subject to Tum'as Moshav, but not one which might be sat on casually, but where the person who is sitting on it might well be asked to stand up, so that it can serve its regular function.

(a) We also learned in our Mishnah 'ha'K'li Metzaref Mah she'be'Socho le'Kodesh ... '. Rav Chanin learns from the Pasuk in Naso "*Kaf Achas* Asarah Zahav Me'lei'ah Ketores" - that the spoon (which contained the Ketores) combined its contents into one entity, so that if one of them became Tamei, they would all become Tamei.

(b) The Reisha of the Mishnah in Iduyos states 'Hei'id Rebbi Shimon ben Beseira al Eifer Chatas she'Naga ha'Tamei be'Miktzaso, she'Timei es Kulo'. This can only be mi'de'Rabbanan, and cannot derive from the Pasuk of Rav Chanin - because the latter refers exclusively to Kodshei Mizbei'ach, a category to which the ashes of the Parah Adumah does not belong.

(c) The problem with Rav Chanin's Derashah from Rebbi Akiva, who, taking his cue from Rebbi Shimon ben Beseira, adds 'the So'les the Ketores, the frankincense and the coals (on the Mizbei'ach)' to the list - is that, seeing as Rebbi Akiva takes his cue from Rebbi Shimon ben Beseira, he clearly considers Tziruf K'li in all of these cases (including Ketores) to be only mi'de'Rabbanan. In that case, how can Rav Chanin learn it from a Pasuk?

(d) The Chidush of these four items over and above other Korbanos - is the fact that they are subject to Tum'ah at all, seeing as they are neither food nor vessels, but raw materials, which are not normally subject to Tum'ah. The reason that they *are* is because of 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' (meaning that because they are Hekdesh, they have a higher status than ordinary raw materials).