Explanation: You must toil in order to resolve the matter, and not say that [the teaching] is mistaken due to a question, for it is clear to me that so Shmuel said;

This is like the testimony of Chizkiyah the father of Ikesh. The wording of his words was not resolved, and below we resolve it.

Explanation #1: This expression (Shetef) applies to wooden Kelim, like it says "v'Chol Kli Etz Yishatef ba'Mayim", like Rashi explained.

Explanation #2: We can say that also metal Kelim are called Klei Shetef, for it says about them "u'Morak v'Shutaf ba'Mayim."

Implied question: Why does it ask below "something that has no interior, among Klei Shetef, mid'Oraisa it receives Tum'ah!"? We require similar to Sak (which is carried empty and full). (What was difficult? Metal Kelim need not resemble Sak!)

Answer: It is obvious [to the Makshan] that it discusses also Klei Etz in all these that are called Klei Shetef, since it did not say "Klei Matchos."

Explanation: "Inside" is the side normally used.

Inference: You are forced to say that it discusses [Nitma] to be Metamei others. There is no relevance for anything else (to say that the entire Kli is Tamei).

Question: This is difficult for the text of the Rashbam in Shabbos (16a). It connotes that Klei Cheres are not Metamei from their outsides at all;

Implied question: In Chulin (24a), we say that the airspace of a Kli Cheres is Tamei and its outside is Tahor!

Answer: It means that it does not receive Tum'ah from its outside, but it is Metamei others from its outside;

Source (Toras Kohanim): The Midah of being Metamei is greater than the Midah of becoming Tamei. [A Kli Cheres] is Metamei others from its outside, but it does not receive Tum'ah from its outside.

Implied question: We say in Nidah (26a) that a rock that sticks out a Tefach from an oven, it is considered a Yad (a handle, regarding Tum'ah)!

Answer: That is to be Motzi Tum'ah (be Metamei others), but not to enter Tum'ah (be Metamei the oven). It is no better than the outside!

Implied suggestion: Perhaps it is better [than the outside], and it even enters Tum'ah!

Rejection #1: A Tosefta (Kelim 1:6:1) teaches that a Kli Cheres has Tum'ah only from its airspace and from Heset (if a Zav, Zavah, Nidah or Yoledes moved it).

Rejection #2: We expound "if [a Kli Cheres] has a Tzamid Pasil (flush seal) on it, it is Tahor." Is this not even if it has a Yad, like it says in Shabbos (84) "is this not even if he designated it for his wife when she is Nidah?!"

Implied question: In Chulin (118a), at the beginning of the Sugya, it connotes that the Gemara holds that the Yad of an oven enters and emits [Tum'ah], and it is better than the outside!

Answer: In the conclusion we need not say so.

Explanation: Other Pashut Kli Etz (without a receptacle) are Tehorim. I explained their law in Bava Basra (66a) and in Eruvin (31a).

Inference: This is a Mum Kavu'a.

Question: In Gitin (69a) there are cures for Barka, and also in Shabbos (78a) we say that we paint eyes for [a cure for] Barkusi!

Answer #1: There is when it is coming, before it is fixed.

Support: So we must answer another question, for there in Shabbos it teaches that the Shi'ur for [Hotza'ah] of blood is to paint one eye, for so people paint for Yarod, and in the Tosefta (Shabbos 8:10) the text says Charvar in place of Yarod. This connotes that it is all one;

Charvar is considered below (in the coming Mishnah) a Mum Kavu'a.

Rebuttal: We can say that in Shabbos we discuss when it is not Kavu'a.

Answer #2: When it does not heal by itself it is considered a Mum Kavu'a.

Implied question: It says below about Kavu'a water that if it goes away when we feed it moist and dry [fodder that grew] from rain, it is not Kavu'a!

Answer: That is not a real cure. It is merely a check and test whether or not it is Kavu'a. However, a total Refu'ah can remove a Mum Kavu'a.

Proof: Below (39b) we say that if the sac containing the Beitzim is Chaser [this is a Mum], but not if it is removed, for if it was removed, it can grow back more;

Also when it is Chaser, one can remove it (and then it can grow back. This is like a cure for a Mum!)

Rejection: We can say that when it was Chaser initially (before it was removed), there is no remedy.

Suggestion: We can prove somewhat from Yalefes written in the Torah, and it is a Mum, like below (41a), and it is Egyptian Chazazis, and in Bava Kama (80b) it connotes that it has a cure!

This is like we say, that we are Masri'a (announce; some say, with Shofaros and trumpets) on Shabbos about boils, and we establish this to Egyptian Chazazis, which is wet on the outside and dry on the inside.

Rejection: We can say that we are Masri'a not so it will heal, rather, lest it worsen;

No matter what you will say, it has no cure, for we say that below (41a) that it surrounds a person and progresses until the day of death, and also it is written "Asher Lo Suchal Leherafei."

Assertion: However, we can infer from Yabeles (wart) written [in the Torah], and it is a Mum, like below (40b), and a Mishnah teaches in Eruvin (103a) we may cut a Yabeles in the Mikdash on Shabbos, and similarly we cut a Yabeles from a [Korban] Pesach (Pesachim 65b);

Note: Eruvin 103b discusses cutting a Yabeles to be Machshir a Kohen. Most Meforshim explain that the Mishnah (103a) discusses an animal.

Inference: It can be cured through cutting it off, and it is considered a Mum!

Implied suggestion: The case is, it has no bone.

Rejection: [If so,] it is merely a dangling piece of flesh, like it says below (40b. It is not a Mum!)

Rejection: We can establish it to discuss Yabeles in the eye, and it has no hair. We do not slaughter based on this, not in the Mikdash and not outside the Mikdash.

Implied question: In Eruvin (103a) it discusses [cutting the Yabeles when] it is wet or dry, [and] by hand or through a Kli! (How do these apply to a Yabeles in the eye?)

Answer: [Indeed,] all of these apply to a Yabeles in the eye.

Limitation (R. Tam): We say so only when he needs the ruling [for himself], like here;

Support: This is so also in Yevamos (76a) regarding "he girded a knife like a Yishmaeli [and taught that a Mo'avis is permitted], and in Yevamos (98a) regarding "a convert may marry the wife of his maternal brother (after she is widowed or divorced)."

Implied question: We say so also in Kidushin (70a) regarding the episode with Rav Yehudah 'anyone who says "I come from Beis Chashmonai", he is a slave! (Rav Yehudah did not need this for himself.)

Answer: [He needed it,] for it seems that Rav Yehudah said so because it appeared that Rav Yehudah said so because [his opponent, who claimed to come from Beis Chashmonai,] had provoked him.

Explanation #1: According to the Drashah, the white of the eye is called Chelev, like Rashi explained, for there is the fat of the eye;

[Rashi] wants to say that the Rasha goes to an evil way due to great fatness of the eye (he desires what he sees);

Explanation #2: The simple meaning of the verse means that the eye sticks out due to a great amount of fat in it.