1)

(a)Chizkiyah Avi Ikesh issued a testimony in the name of Rabban Gamliel ha'Zaken - in front of Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh (Rabban Gamliel ha'Zaken's grandson), regarding an earthenware K'li that does not have an inside (that is not a receptacle).

(b)When he said that regarding such a vessel, there is no distinction between the back and the outside he meant that - whether the inside (i.e. the side that is used) became Tamei, or the outside, if Tum'ah touches one of them, both sides become Tamei ('Nitma Tocho, Nitma Gabo').

(c)The problem with Chizkiyah's basic statement is that - the Torah declares an earthenware vessel that does not have an inside, Tahor.

(d)So Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin amends the statement to read 'Kol she'Ein Lo Toch bi'Chelei Cheres, Kenegdo bi'Chelei Shetef (which are not made of earthenware) Ein Lo Achorayim la'Chalikah ... '. Since this in itself, does not teach us anything, the Beraisa must be coming for the inference that - if the K'lei Shetef do have an inside, the same distinction will apply to them as applies to K'lei Cheres ('Nitma Tocho, Nitma Gabo').

2)

(a)In this context, K'lei Shetef means - wooden vessels (by which the Torah writes "Yishatef ba'Mayim" [see also Tosfos DH 'bi'Chelei Shetef']) ...

(b)... not metal vessels - because then, how will we justify the query that we will ask shortly How K'lei Shetef without an inside can receive Tum'ah.

(c)The Tana's distinction between Tocho and Achorav with regard to K'lei Shetef is a problem - because the Torah's distinction is confined to earthenware vessels, and does not extend to wooden ones.

(d)We solve the problem by establishing the case where the vessel became Tamei via Tamei liquid - which is only Metamei mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Rabbanan confined their decree in the way that we explained.

3)

(a)The above decree is based on a Mishnah in Keilim. According to the Tana there, liquid (as well as food) are not Metamei vessels min ha'Torah. They decreed Tum'ah on liquids - on account of the various liquids of a Zav and Zavah (spit, Zov and urine) are Avos, and are therefore Metamei vessels min ha'Torah).

(b)And the reason that they distinguished between Nitma Tocho and Nitmo Gabo in the manner that we just described is - in order to remind those concerned that the Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and that they should therefore be careful not to burn Terumah and Kodshim which became Tamei on account of it.

(c)The Tana includes the vessel's receptacle-shaped base (or its rim), its hook and its handle in the Reisha - and if the back of the wooden vessel is Tamei, they (like the inside) are not.

4)

(a)The Chachamim did not extend the above decree to wooden vessel without an inside - because they did not consider it necessary (to achieve their aim of warning people not to burn Terumah and Kodshim on account of it).

(b)We learn from the Torah's Hekesh of wooden vessels to a sack that - wooden vessels that have no inside (that cannot be carried both full and empty) are not subject to Tum'ah.

(c)In that case - how can the Mishnah in Keilim talk about the Tum'ah of Gabo and Tocho of precisely such vessels?

5)

(a)So we establish the Mishnah by wooden vessels that are subject to Tum'as Medras - such as a chair or a bench (which are made to sit, to lean or to lie on), and which are subject to Tum'ah even though they have no inside.

(b)The Tana does not establish the case by earthenware vessels that have no inside and that are nevertheless subject to Tum'as Medras - because earthenware vessels are never subject to Tum'as Medras.

(c)Rav Papa resolves the original problem (equating Beis Shamai [M'lo Makde'ach] with Beis Hillel [ke'Sela]) by pointing to the Lashon of the Mishnah in Keilim, which refers to M'lo Makde'ach Gadol, which it equates with a ke'Sela - whereas Beis Shamai is referring to an awl which is smaller than a Sela.

(d)This answer conforms to the opinion of Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Ohalos, who establishes Makde'ach as a small awl used for head surgery, but not with that of the Chachamim there - who define it as a large borer used to effect repairs in the Beis Hamikdash (which was stored in one of the side-rooms).

6)

(a)Even establishing Beis Shamai like Rebbi Meir creates a problem - inasmuch as it would mean that Beis Shamai (who now requires a smaller Shi'ur for the skull to lose its Tum'ah) goes le'Kula (and the Mishnah in Iduyos does not list it among the six cases where this is so).

(b)Rav Nachman therefore concludes that the key to the answer lies not with the fact that the Mishnah in Keilim compares a Sela to a Makde'ach Gadol, but that it compares Makde'ach to Sela Nerunis (from the period of the Eamperor Nero) - whereas the Sela referred to by Shmuel (in Beis Hillel) refers to a small-size Sela.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah lists Ris shel Ayin which has a hole or a notch or which has split, among the Mumin of a B'chor. Rav Papa defines Ris shel Ayin as - the outer covering of the eye (the eye-lids).

(b)And the Tana adds an eye with a Dok, Tevalul, Chilazon Nachash and Einav. The last three are growths in the shape of a worm or a snake (which will be discussed later) and a grape respectively. Dok is - eye's-webb, which we have discussed before.

(c)The Tana himself describes Tevalul as a white streak that cuts the ring (the middle section of the eye that surrounds the black) and enters the black. If the black streak cuts the ring and enters the white, he maintains - it is not a blemish, because the white of the eye is a fatty substance which is not subject to blemishes.

8)

(a)The Beraisa qualifies Dok, confining it to where it causes the eye to become sunken, but not where it causes it to project. Another Beraisa says - exactly the opposite (that it is only considered a blemish if it causes the eye to project ... ).

(b)we reject the initial answer that one Tana is referring to a Dok in the black of the eye, the other, to a Dok in the white - because it contradicts our Mishnah, which states that the white of the eye is not subject to blemishes.

(c)We nevertheless establish the answer that one Beraisa speaks about black, and the other, about white - with reference to the Dok (meaning that one is speaking about a black Dok, and the other, a white one).

(d)Rabah bar bar Chanah citing Rebbi Yashiyah from Usha explains that - a black Dok which is sunken is a blemish, whereas one which protrudes, is not; whilst a white Dok which is sunken is not a blemish, one which protrudes, is.

(e)The Si'man for this is Barka, which is a Mum and white - and it also protrudes.

9)

(a)We ask - whether Chilazon Nachash in our Mishnah is two blemishes or one (a growth in the shape of a worm, but with the markings of a snake).

(b)And we resolve the She'eilah from a statement by Rabah bar bar Chanah. Rebbi Yonasan ben Elazar told him that he declined to pass in front of a certain Zakein called Rebbi Shimon ben Yossi ben Lekunyah (who was a Kohen) - because he was a Gadol be'Yisrael.

(c)On the one occasion that he did, the latter stopped him and asked him to be seated - because he wanted him to declare his B'chor Beheimah a Ba'al-Mum.

10)

(a)The ruling that Rebbi Shimon ben Yossi ben Lekunyah quoted that would enable Rebbi Yonasan ben Elazar to inspect his B'chor even though he was not permitted to inspect it himself was that - the Chilazon that his animal B'chor suffered from was synonymous with Nachash, and then he would ask him to declare it a Ba'al-Mum.

(b)We query this however, on the basis of a statement by Rebbi Aba ... Amar Rav, who ruled that a Talmid-Chacham is ...

1. ... permitted to issue a ruling (or teach the Halachah to Talmidim) - provided he does so before it affects him directly ...

2. ... but not once it does (as was the case here).

(c)We nevertheless justify Rebbi Shimon ben Yossi's employing Rebbi Yonasan ben Elazar's services in this way - by establishing that he had actually taught him the Halachah before, and that he only needed him at that moment in order to issue the ruling.

11)

(a)We establish our Mishnah, which differentiates between a white streak which runs into the black of the eye, and a black streak which runs into the white, like Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa. According to Rebbi Meir - either way is considered a Mum.

(b)Rebbi ...

1. ... Yossi learns from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Yatza me'Cheilev Eineimo" that - the white of the eye is called the fat of the eye, and is not an integral part of it.

2. ... Meir learns from the Lashon Tevalul (in our Mishnah) that - anything that mixes (connects) all three sections of the eye (irrespective of whether it is black or white) is considered a blemish).

12)

(a)Our Mishnah lists Churvar (from the Lashon Chiver [white]) ve'ha'Mayim (a runny eye [see also Bartenura]) ha'Kevu'im (permanent). Churvar must persist - for eighty days in order to be called Kavu'a.

(b)Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos requires that one examines the B'chor three times during those eighty days - because it is an illness that tends to come and go, and unless one checks at regular intervals, there is no way of knowing that the illness persisted throughout the eighty days.

(c)In order to be considered Mayim ha'Kevu'im, the animal must first have been administered, as a cure ...

1. ... wet hay - that grew in the rain season (Adar and half of Nisan) and ...

2. ... dry hay - that grew in the Summer (Elul and half of Tishri).

(d)The Sugya will set the wording in our Mishnah (with regard to a Sadeh Beis ha'Ba'al and Sadeh Beis ha'Shalachin) straight. For the ailment to be considered Kavu'a, should it persist, the animal must eat - first the wet hay and then the dry one.

13)

(a)The author of our Mishnah, which requires Churvar to last for eighty days, is Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa. Rebbi Meir says - forty.

(b)The same Beraisa requires the sick animal to be administered from hay that grew in a Sadeh ...

1. ... Beis ha'Ba'al - a field that is watered exclusively by rain, but not in a Sadeh ...

2. ... Beis ha'Shalachin - one that needs to be watered manually.

(c)The animal is only considered a Ba'al-Mum in the former case - if it is first fed wet and then dry, as we learned in our Mishnah.

(d)we reconcile this Beraisa with our Mishnah, which made no distinction between a Sadeh Beis ha'Ba'al and a Sadeh Beis ha'Shalachin in this regard - by amending our Mishnah to read 'Achal Lach ve'Yavesh shel Geshamim (Ba'al), Harei Zeh Mum; shel Beis ha'Shalachin, Eino Mum'.

14)

(a)The Beraisa gives the healing period of Mayim ha'Kevu'im as three months. We reconcile this with Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi'an, who presents Lach as Adar and Nisan, and Yavesh as Elul and Tishri - by amending it to Adar ve'Chatzi Nisan, and Elul ve'Chatzi Tishri.

(b)We ask whether we don't need to administer the Lach in Adar and Nisan, and the Yavesh in Elul and Tishri. Alternatively - we would feed both batches in the time of Lach (in Adar and Nisan).

(c)We refute the attempt to resolve the She'eilah from Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi'an (Adar ve'Nisan, Lach; Elul ve'Tishri, Yavesh) - by confining it to when the straw grew, but not necessarily to when one feeds it to the animal.

15)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Pinchas ben Aruva, one feeds the sick B'chor - a ki'Gerogeres (the volume of a dried fig) each time.

(b)They asked in Eretz Yisrael whether it should be administered at each meal during the required period - or only at the first meal of the day.

(c)Assuming that one feeds the sick B'chor the ki'Gerogeres of hay only at the first meal, we ask - whether one feeds it the hay before eating or afterwards.

(d)This would not be a She'eilah if they fed it at each meal - because then it would be obvious that it would make no difference as to whether one feeds it before or after the meal.

16)

(a)The previous question is whether administering the hay after the meal is effective; before the meal certainly is - because that is when one normally administers medicine.

(b)We ask the same She'eilah with regard to feeding it the hay before or after it has drunk (which it does after eating). Here again, we make exactly the same comment as we made in the previous She'eilah. We take for granted that the hay is effective before drinking - based on the fact that it normally eats barley before drinking.

(c)And we repeat the comment yet again regarding the next She'eilah, whether one administers the hay whilst the animal is loose or bound. The former is - obviously effective, since it is in a happier frame of mind.

(d)We also ask whether feeding it on its own is effective (as is feeding it in the company of another animal), and whether feeding it in town is effective (as is feeding it in the field). Assuming that the ruling in the latter case is in the negative, Rav Ashi asks - whether feeding it in a garden next to the city is effective or not.

(e)The outcome of the She'eilos is - Teiku.