Question: Why regarding Tum'ah does it say "in its place"? There is no difference between in its place and not in its place, for it is not attached!

Answer (R. Tam): Not in its place it is Mekabel Tum'ah since it is moved from place to place, and it resembles other Kelim in the house. Chachamim decreed Tum'ah on it, lest it be confused [with them].

Question: Regarding those [Peshutei Klei Etz, i.e. they have no receptacle] that are proper for Midras (to sit or lie on them), there is Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, for anything proper for Midras receives Tum'as Mes!

We learn from a Kal va'Chomer from small flasks [which receive Tum'as Mes, even though a Zav cannot be Metamei them, for he cannot stick his finger inside] (Bava Kama 25b).

Also in Bechoros (38a) we ask "does a Klei Shetef (from wood, or other vegetation) without a receptacle receive Tum'ah mid'Oraisa? It must be like a sack (which is carried full and empty, to receive Tum'ah mid'Oraisa)! We answer that it refers to those proper for Midras.

Note: Some explain that Klei Shetef is any Kli for which Tevilah helps, i.e. it is not of earthenware. However, we cannot say so in Bechoros, for Pashut metal Kelim receive Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, and Tevilah helps for them!

Summation of question: And if it refers to Peshutei Klei Etz that are not proper for Midras, even mid'Rabanan they are not Mekabel Tum'ah!

This is proven in Chulin (3a). It asks [why do we say that] anyone may slaughter, and even a Tamei may slaughter Kodshim? How did he become Tamei? (If he is an Av ha'Tum'ah, he is Metamei the knife, and it will be Metamei the meat!)

We answer that he checked a sharp reed, and slaughtered with it. (Peshutei Klei Etz are not Mekabel Tum'ah.) If they are Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, this is not an answer!

Suggestion: Perhaps [normally, Peshutei Klei Etz are Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, but] there, he did not make the reed like a Kli.

Rejection: You are forced to say that he made it like a Kli, for a Kli is required for Shechitas Kodshim, like we learn in Menachos (82a) from "va'Yikach Es ha'Ma'acheles"!

Also, a Mishnah in Kelim (2:1), brought in Shabbos (16a) says that Pashut Kelim of wood, bone, and glass are Tahor, and those that can hold something are Tamei;

You are forced to say that [Peshutim] are Tehorim even mid'Rabanan, for glass Kelim, even those that have a receptacle, have only Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, like it says in Shabbos there (and we distinguish Pashut glass Kelim from those that can hold something)!

Answer #1 (R. Chananel): (We discuss Peshutei Klei Etz that are not proper for Midras.) Surely, they have no Tum'ah, even mid'Rabanan. The conclusion is unlike this [Havah Amina that they have Tum'ah mid'Rabanan]. Rather, we establish it to discuss a metal board.

Answer #2: Some say that a baker's board, even though it is a Pashut Kli Etz, is Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, since it serves man and things that serve man;

We expound in Toras Kohanim, in Parshas Shemini 'perhaps "Kli" [is Mekabel Tum'ah], even a ladder or Kolev (peg)! It says "Klei Etz", and not every Klei Etz;'

Citation (cont.): Perhaps I exclude a table, tabletop or Dulbaki (a kind of table)! "Kol Klei Etz" includes these.

Citation (cont.): (The verses that include and exclude do not specify what to include or exclude.) Why do you include these [and exclude the former, and not vice-versa]? It says "Sak" - just like a sack serves man and things that serve man, I include a table...

You are forced to say that this is when they are not proper for Midras, since it did not mention a bed, chair or bench, and (if it referred to Kelim proper for Midras), it should have included them from the verses of Mishkav and Moshav;

We discuss when they have no receptacle, since it did not say "just like a sack is carried full and empty)!

Conclusion: [A Pashut Kli Etz that serves man and things that serve man] is Mekabel Tum'ah.

Implied question: We learn from a verse! (Our Gemara says that it is Tamei only mid'Rabanan.)

Answer: The verse is a mere Asmachta, like many Drashos in Toras Kohanim and Sifri, which are mere Asmachtos.

Support: It connotes like this in Menachos (96b). R. Yochanan said that according to the opinion that the rim [of the Shulchan in the Mikdash] was below, i.e. below on the legs of the Shulchan, and not on [the top of] the Shulchan, a reversible tabletop is Mekabel Tum'ah;

I.e. we expound "ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor", which implies that it is (could become) Tamei;

According to the opinion that the rim was above, we can ask about a reversible tabletop. [We cannot learn from] the Shulchan of the Mikdash, [for] it was Mekabel Tum'ah because it had a receptacle;

However, a reversible tabletop, which has no receptacle, is a question.

Summation of support: If the Toras Kohanim is a real Drashah, why is this a question? We learn from the verse there [that it is Mekabel Tum'ah]!

Rather, surely it is an Asmachta, and [R. Yochanan] is unsure about a reversible tabletop, whether it is Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, like Rashi explained there;

[Perhaps] it is better than other Peshutei Klei Etz, because it is proper to use it from both sides;

According to the opinion that the rim was below, it is Tamei, because it says "Tahor" [regarding the Shulchan of the Mikdash].

Explanation #1 (Rashbam and R. Tam): If it is totally She'uvim, it is [Pasul] mid'Oraisa.

Proof #1: They bring a proof from Toras Kohanim, in Parshas Shemini;

Citation (Toras Kohanim) Suggestion: "Mikveh Mayim Yihyeh Tahor" - perhaps one may [carry water] on his shoulder and [pour it and] make a Mikveh from scratch, and it is Tahor!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: "Ach Mayan u'Vor Mikveh Mayim Yihyeh Tahor" - just like a Mayan is b'Yedei Shamayim (not man-made), also a Mikveh is b'Yedei Shamayim.

Rejection: [Perhaps] it is an Asmachta, like many Drashos in Toras Kohanim.

Proof #2 (R. Tam) Citation (Mikva'os 2:4 - Mishnah - R. Eliezer): A Revi'is [of a Log of Mayim She'uvim] at the beginning disqualifies a Mikveh, or three Lugim added to water [in an deficient Mikveh].

Since it is more stringent at the beginning than at the end, this shows that at the beginning it is Pasul mid'Oraisa.

Rejection: We can say that R. Eliezer is stringent at the beginning for a Revi'is because a Revi'is is the Shi'ur to immerse [small Kelim, e.g.] needles and forks, and it is already called a Pasul Mikveh.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Even if it is totally She'uvim, [it is Pasul only] mid'Rabanan, like the Tosefta in Mikva'os connotes;

Source #1 - Citation (Tosefta 2:1): If one left a Mikveh empty, and came and found it full, it is Kosher, for this is a Safek of Mayim She'uvim for a Mikveh.

Since we are Machshir amidst Safek, this shows that totally She'uvim is mid'Rabanan!

Suggestion: Perhaps we do not discuss when it is totally She'uvim, rather, there was water, but it was deficient.

Rejection: If so, it should have said that he left it deficient! "Empty" connotes totally empty. There was no water in it at all.

Source #2 - Citation (Pesachim 17b): Liquids of Beis Mitbechai (where they rinse Korbanos), in Kelim they are Teme'im, and in the ground they are Tehorim.

It explains that in the ground they are Tehorim, because it is proper to immerse needles and forks in them.

This shows that totally She'uvim, it is proper to immerse [Kelim] in it. It discusses She'uvim, since it distinguishes between [in] Kelim and [in] the ground. (If it discussed "natural" water (not She'uvim), it should rather distinguish between natural water and She'uvim!)

Also, Stam liquids of Beis Mitbechai are She'uvim.

Rebuttal #1 (Rashba): The Gemara means, in Kelim they are Teme'im, i.e. if the water was [previously] in Kelim, even though now it is in the ground, because they were She'uvim;

"In the ground" means that they were never in Kelim. They are Tehorim.

Rebuttal #2 (R. Moshe of Pontviza): Even though [totally] She'uvim is [Pasul] mid'Oraisa, in the ground is Tahor, because it is impossible that there was no Hamshachah;

When [the water] falls from the Kli to the ground, which is smooth, it flows in all directions. This is like She'uvim that were totally [added to a Mikveh] through Hamshachah, which is Kosher.

Implied question: In Temurah (12a), we are Machshir Hamshachah only if there were already 21 Sa'im in the Mikveh (the majority of the Shi'ur)!

Answer: Perhaps this is only mid'Rabanan [to require 21].

Question: Granted, if totally She'uvim is [Pasul] mid'Oraisa, this is why Chachamim decreed that three Lugim of She'uvim disqualify, due to totally She'uvim;

They decreed only about three Lugim, which are proper to bathe a person, like it says in Shabbos (14a), that initially they immersed in stinking caves, and [afterwards] poured three Lugim of Mayim She'uvim on them [to cleanse themselves from the stinking water. Chachamim feared lest people come to say that the Mayim She'uvim is Metaher, so they decreed that it is Metamei];

However, if totally She'uvim is [Pasul only] mid'Rabanan, why did they decree at all about She'uvim?

Answer: It is a decree lest one immerse in a Kli. The Torah said [that one must immerse in water] similar to a Mayan, which is in the ground.

Rejection of Source #1 (for the Ri - Rashba): The Tosefta about one who left a Mikveh empty proves that just the contrary, totally She'uvim is mid'Oraisa!

It teaches "it is Kosher, for this is a Safek of Mayim She'uvim, and the Chazakah is that Mikva'os are Kesheros";

A person makes a Mikveh only in order to immerse in it. Presumably, he does not fill it with Mayim She'uvim, rather, with water Kosher for Tevilah.

Inference: It is Kosher only due to the Chazakah. If not for this [Chazakah], it would be Pasul, for we are stringent about a Safek mid'Oraisa!

Proof #1: The Seifa (the next Tosefta, 2:1) teaches that if a pipe was pouring into a Mikveh, and a mortar is next to it, and it is a Safek whether [the water came directly] from the pipe to the Mikveh, or from the mortar to the Mikveh, it is Pasul, for there is a proof that it is Pasul (presumably the water fell straight down, directly into the Mikveh);

If there was [already] the majority of a Mikveh, it is Kosher, for this is a Safek of Mayim She'uvim to a Mikveh.

Inference: Since we are Machshir amidst Safek when there is the majority of a Mikveh, and when there is not a majority, it is Pasul, this connotes that a majority of She'uvim is [Pasul] mid'Oraisa.

Proof #2: Another Tosefta there (2:3) teaches that if there are two Mikva'os, one of She'uvim and one Kosher, and one immersed in one of them from severe Tum'ah and did Taharos, they are Teluyos (we do not eat them, nor do we burn them).

Since we are not Metaher amidst Safek, this shows that totally She'uvim is mid'Oraisa.

Remark: The Ri did not agree with these proofs. The Rashba elaborated.

Assertion (R. Tam): Mayim She'uvim disqualifies only a deficient Mikveh, but a complete Mikveh, all the She'uvim in the world does not disqualify it.

There, [R. Tam] wrote many proofs from Maseches Mikva'os. It is not proper to elaborate.

I will write one proof. A Mishnah there (6:8) says that if there were 40 Sa'im in the top Mikveh, and nothing in the bottom, he fills with [water from Kelim on] his shoulder and puts in the top, until 40 Sa'im descend to the bottom;

Inference: Even though the majority of the water is She'uvim, it is not disqualified through this, because it was complete. It is impossible [to fill the bottom Mikveh] unless he puts in the top Mikveh more than 40 Sa'im. (He cannot add exactly 40 Sa'im, and each Mikveh will have exactly 40, and no water will be lost on the slope between the Mikva'os.)

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): Regarding every case of something detached that was later attached, [Rav Yosef] asks about Hechsher Zera'im, according to Rabanan of a mortar.

Objection #1 (Ri): If so, he should say Stam "something detached that was later attached, what is the law regarding Hechsher Zera'im, according to Rabanan?", like it says in Chulin (16a);

He should not have mentioned an Iztrobil (frame around a millstone) more than other matters!

Objection #2: There is no logic to compare Hechsher Zera'im to a sale, that a mortar should be considered detached regarding Hechsher Zera'im, like it is [considered detached] regarding a sale!

Objection #3: Also regarding Shechitah, [Rav Yosef] should ask according to Rabanan, what is the law of something detached that was later attached, whether or not it is considered detached!

Objection #4: [The Rashbam] explained that according to Rabanan of a board, [Rav Yosef] does not ask. According to them, surely it is considered detached;

If so, rather than ask according to Rabanan of a mortar, whether they hold like R. Eliezer or Rabanan [who argued] about a board, regarding Hechsher of Zera'im, he should ask about Tum'ah of the board itself, which R. Eliezer and Rabanan argue about!

Objection #5: Since according to Rabanan of a board, it is obvious to him that it is considered detached, the same applies to Rabanan of a mortar!

Why should we say that these Rabanan of R. Eliezer argue with these Rabanan of R. Eliezer?

Objection #6: He does not distinguish between a board, a mortar, a wall and an Iztrobil, but in Chulin (16b) we distinguish between a knife fixed in a wall and a rock sticking out from a wall. It says that a knife is different, for one is not Mevatel it (decide to leave it there permanently)!

Explanation #2 (Ri): We ask according to Rabanan [who argue in the case] of a board. They consider a board to be detached regarding Tum'ah, and the same applies to Hechsher of Zera'im, for Hechsher and Tum'ah resemble each other;

This is like the opinion in Chulin (16a) that a built wall, which was detached and later attached, regarding Hechsher it is considered attached;

Now he asks according to Rabanan of a board and a mortar. Presumably, all the Rabanan who argue with R. Eliezer are the same. What is the law of Iztrobil?

He asks only about Iztrobil. He asks as follows. Iztrobil is Batel to the ground regarding a sale, according to Rabanan of a mortar. Is it totally Batel, like a wall, and it is considered attached also regarding Hechsher Zera'im?

Or, perhaps regarding Hechsher Zera'im, it is not considered attached like a wall. Only regarding a sale [it is considered attached], for people sell generously.

Implied question: Generosity of sellers does not help regarding a mortar!

Answer: That is because it is not destined to remain in the house as much as an Iztrobil.

Distinction: However, regarding Hechsher Zera'im, an Iztrobil is not considered attached, for it is made to take (move) it more than a wall.

Observation: We do not ask according to R. Eliezer, for he considers a board attached regarding Tum'ah, and the same applies to Hechsher Zera'im, and all the more an Iztrobil.

Implied question: Why does it say "according to R. Eliezer, you need not ask, for he says that everything attached to the ground is like the ground"? (He said so on 65b, regarding a sale of a mortar. This implies like the Rashbam, that we learn from a sale to Hechsher!)

Answer: These words are not precise, for one may not prove about Hechsher Zera'im [from a sale]. Rather, we rely on his opinion, that he is Metaher a board.