Previous daf

1)

(a) We learnt in our Mishnah, that when the Kohen Gadol died, and his Minchah was brought from Terumas ha'Lishkah or by his heirs, they brought a complete tenth of an Eifah - and the Gemara establishes that they brought it twice, once in the morning and once in the afternoon.

(b) The Gemara concludes that like by the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim, they brought three Lugin of wine together with the Isaron of flour, in which case they brought three Lugin in the morning and three in the afternoon.

(c) Similarly, the Gemara learns the Din of Kemitzah from the Minchas Chotei (from which we learn the Kometz by the Asiris ha'Eifah in the first place): just as by the Minchas Chotei, they brought *one* Kometz for *each* of the two Isronos of flour, so did the heirs have to bring *two* Kematzim, once for each Isaron.

3)

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, all spittle that was found in Yerushalayim was Tahor from Tum'as Zivus.

(b) The sole exception to this rule was the upper market.

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi, it depended first of all on the season: during the year, any spittle found in the middle of the street was Tamei, and on the side, Tahor - because during the year, there were many Zavin, who used to walk in the middle of the road, while the Tehorim, in order to avoid them, would walk at the side.

(d) On Yom-Tov, the roles were reversed - it was the Tehorim (who were in the majority) who walked in the middle of the road, and the Zavin who walked at the side. Consequently, spittle found at the side of the road would be Tamei, and in the middle, Tahor.

(a) Vessels that were found in Yerushalayim were Tahor, according to Rebbi Meir - except for those that were found on the path leading down to the Mikveh, which were Tamei.

(b) Rebbi Yossi maintains that most vessels were Tahor, wherever they were found (even on the way down to the Mikveh) - because Chazal did not decree Tum'ah on Safek Keilim in Yerushalayim.

(c) The three exceptions according to him - were a basket, a shovel and a wheel-barrow (all used for collecting and transporting the bones of corpses - or objects connected with burial).

(a) One was permitted to Shecht immediately with a knife that was found in Yerushalayim on the fourteenth (even if it was found on the path leading down to the Mikveh - according to Rebbi Meir) - because the owner would have definitely Toveled it on the thirteenth, in order to leave time for Ha'arev Shemesh (nightfall, when a Toveled person or object becomes Tahor for Terumah, and for Kodshim, on the following morning).

(b) But if he found it on the thirteenth, he had Tovel it before being permitted to use it - because, at the time when the owner lost it, he still had time to Tovel it until nightfall. Consequently, there was no guarantee that it had been Toveled.

(c) Someone who found a Kupitz was obligated to Tovel it even if he found it on the fourteenth - because, seeing as it was forbidden to break the bones of the Korban Pesach, it was most probably designated to cut the bones of the Chagigah that was brought on the fifteenth. Why not the Chagigah of the fourteenth that was brought together with the Korban Pesach (in which case it should have been permitted if found on the fourteenth - no less than the knife)? Because we are speaking in a case when there would probably be no Chagigah together with the Pesach (i.e. when the Kohanim were Safek Teme'ei Meis, whose seventh day fell on Erev Pesach - enabling them to bring the Chagigah of the fifteenth, but not of the fourteenth).

(d) The Kohanim who were Tevulei-Yom were not Metamei the knife when they Shechted the Chagigah - because a Tevul Yom is not Metamei Keilim (only people and food).

(a) The chopping-knife was permitted immediately, if it was found ...

1. ... on the fourteenth of Nisan which fell on Shabbos - because (since there is no Chagigah on the *fourteenth*) we presume that the owner must have Toveled it before Shabbos to use with the Chagigah of the *fifteenth*.
2. ... on the fifteenth of Nisan - because everyone knew that one may not Tovel on Yom-Tov. Consequently, the owner must have Toveled it on the fourteenth to use on Yom-Tov.

(b) The chopping-knife was always permitted at once - if it was found tied to the Shechitah-knife (because then, it is obvious that they were Toveled together).

7) Some ascribe the decree of Tum'ah on the spittle found in the upper-market of Yerushalayim to the 'Katzran shel Nochrim', others to the 'Arodos she'Hayu Nochrin':

1. The 'Katzran shel Nochrim' - was a gentile laundry-man who lived in that district (and Chazal decreed Tum'as Zavin on gentiles).
2. The 'Arodos she'Hayu Nochrin' - were wild donkeys that the gentiles used to kill ('Nochrin' in this context 'to tear open') in the upper -market, in order to feed the King's lions - this could refer to King Herod, who also kept pigeons). In any case, there were gentiles in the upper-market of Yerushalayim. (The Sugya of the blood of Beis Rebbi's mule we already discussed above on Daf 9a.)

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah ...

1. ... during the rest of the year, it was the Teme'im who would call out 'Keep away'!
2. ... on Yom-Tov, it was the Tehorim.

(b) Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan, who says that they did not decree Tum'ah on vessels in Yerushalayim, is referring to cases of Safek, whereas Tamei vessels that are found on the path leading down to the Mikveh (the case which our Tana declares Tamei), is bordering on Vaday Tamei - and Rebbi Yochanan will agree there that Chazal decreed Tum'ah. (Note: If they are literally Vaday Tamei - as the Korban ha'Eidah maintains - then they will be Tamei mi'd'Oraysa, and it is unclear as to how Rebbi Yossi [in our Mishnah] can argue with Rebbi Meir.)

(c) *Our Tana* called one of the three vessels ...

1. ... 'Meritzah' - because they used to rush the tombstones to the graveside (though it is not clear why that would make the wheelbarrow Tamei - See also Tiklin Chadtin).
2. ... and *Aba Shaul*, 'Tziporen' - because it was shaped like a finger- nail.

(d) The Korban ha'Eidah initially explains the Beraisa: 'T'ni, ha'Sakin Keshurah Lah, Harei Zu Kamosah' - to mean that, just as the finder had to Tovel the Kupitz, so too, did he have to Tovel the knife (in which case the Tana of the Beraisa *argues* with our Mishnah), but he retracts to learn the reverse (that in fact, neither of them need Tevilah) - to *conform* with him.

(a) If the Paroches became Tamei through a V'lad ha'Tum'ah (e.g. through Tamei liquids, which are only Metamei mi'de'Rabbanan) - they would Tovel it in the Azarah and return it to its place immediately; whereas if it became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah - it had to be removed from the Azarah to be Toveled, and after the Tevilah, they would hang it up to dry in the Chil (because it required Ha'arev Shemesh, and was not permitted back in the Azarah until nightfall).

(b) In the latter case, if the Paroches was a new one, they would hang it up to dry specifically on one of the sheltered seating areas in the Chil - to show the people how beautiful it was.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel quoting Rebbi Shimon ben ha'S'gan, the Paroches was a Tefach thick. Each cord consisted of twenty-four threads. - There were seventy-two cords.

(b) The Paroches was forty Amos long and twenty Amos wide (because that was the size of the entrance of the Ulam - it is not clear why the Korban ha'Eidah establishes the Paroches by the one between the Azarah and the Ulam - rather than the one between the Heichal and the D'vir).

(c) 'u'mi'Shemonim u'Shetayim Ribu Haysa Na'asis' - is informimg us that the cost of the Paroches was 820,000 Dinrim.

(d) They would make two Parochos annually, and three hundred Kohanim would Tovel it if it became Tamei. (Note: If we were speaking about the Paroches between the Heichal and the D'vir, then the two may be referring to th two that were hung there in the second Beis-Hamikdash - one on either side of the Amah Teraksin.)

(a) The four kinds of threads that were used to weave the Paroches were Techeiles, Argaman, Tola'as Shani and Sheish Moshzar (dark-blue wool, purple wool, crimson wool and twined linen).

(b) 'Chut' implies that the thread was doubled.

(c) According to the Tana of our Mishnah ...

1. ... 'Shazur' means doubled three-fold, and ...
2. ... 'Moshzar', six-fold.

(d) Another Tana learns that each cord of the Paroches consisted of thirty- two threads.
According to him ...

1. ... 'Shazur' means four-fold, and ...
2. ... 'Moshzar' eight-fold.

1. ... 'Shazur' means six-fold. and ...
2. ... 'Moshzar, twelve-fold.

13)

(a) According to the Tana who explains Ma'seh Rokem to mean a lion on one side and nothing on the other - 'Ma'seh Choshev' means a lion on either side.

(b) According to the other Tana, Ma'seh Rokem means a lion on either side - and Ma'aseh Choshev, a lion on one side, and an eagle on the other.

(c) Shmuel says ...

1. ... that our Mishnah, which states the value of the Paroches as being 820,000 Dinrei Zahav - is an exaggeration.
2. ... that the Mishnah in Tamid, which states that, sometimes, there were more than three hundred Kur (nine thousand Sa'ah) of ashes on the Tapu'ach in the middle of the Mizbe'ach - is an exaggeration, too.