(a)Our Mishnah rules that the Gaba'in who entered one's house, as well as thieves who returned vessels that they stole, are believed to say that they did not touch Kodesh. Who are the 'Gaba'in'? Why did they enter the house?
(b)Are they also believed if they say that they did not touch ...
1. ... Terumah?
2. ... Mei Chatas?
(c)The Beraisa declares everything in the house Tamei. How do we establish the Beraisa, to reconcile it with the Mishnah?
(d)What are the Gaba'in believed to say even in the case of the Beraisa?
1)
(a)Our Mishnah rules that the Gaba'in - (Jewish tax-collectors appointed by a Nochri king who entered one's house in order to take a security from taxes still owing), as well as thieves who returned vessels that they stole, are believed to say that they did not touch Kodesh.
(b)If they say that they did not touch ...
1. ... Terumah or ...
2. ... Mei Chatas - they are not believed.
(c)The Beraisa declares everything in the house is Tamei. To reconcile it with our Mishnah, we establish it - where they came on their own, whereas the Beraisa which says that everything in the house is Tamei, speaks when they came together with a Nochri.
(d)Even in the case of the Beraisa however - the Gaba'in are believed if they say that they did not enter the house.
2)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue over the reason for the Din in the Beraisa. One of them explains that it is because the Gaba'in are afraid of the Nochri. What reason does the other one give?
(b)What is the difference between the two reasons?
2)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue over the reason for the Din in the latter Beraisa. One of them explains that it is because the Gaba'in are afraid of the Nochri - the other says it is because they are afraid of the king.
(b)The difference between the two reasons - will be in a case where the Gabai is accompanied by a Nochri who is not important, and who therefore poses no threat that he might divulge what they did to the king; whereas if it is the Nochri of whom he is afraid, the Gabai will still not be believed.
3)
(a)How does Rav Pinchas reconcile our Mishnah, which believes the thieves with regard to Kodesh, with the Beraisa, which declares Tamei wherever the thieves trod?
(b)Why is this answer really evident from the Lashon of our Mishnah?
(c)The Tana of the Beraisa, commenting on our Mishnah, explains that in Yerushalayim, an Am ha"Aretz is believed on large earthenware vessels with regard to Kodesh. How about small ones?
(d)The reason that Chazal were more lenient in Yerushalayim than anywhere else is because furnaces were forbidden in Yerushalayim, as we explained earlier. What special concession did they make regarding small vessels, but not large ones?
(e)Why is the reason for this?
3)
(a)Rav Pinchas explains that our Mishnah, which believes the thieves with regard to Kodesh - speaks when they did Teshuvah; whereas the Beraisa which declares Tamei wherever the thieves trod - speaks when they did not.
(b)This answer is evident from the Lashon of our Mishnah - which talks about the thieves returning the vessels that they stole.
(c)The Tana of the Beraisa, commenting on our Mishnah, explains that in Yerushalayim, an Am ha'Aretz is believed on large, earthenware vessels with regard to Kodesh - how much more so with regard to small ones.
(d)The reason that Chazal were more lenient in Yerushalayim than anywhere else is because furnaces were forbidden in Yerushalayim, as we explained earlier. The special concession they made regarding small vessels exclusively was - to believe the potters even outside Yerushalayim (whereas regarding large ones, they only believed them).
(e)The reason for this is - because, whereas everyone needed small vessels for the Nesachim which he kept in his house before taking them to the Beis-Hamikdash, it was only very few people who handed large barrels of wine to the Beis Hamikdash, so that it sufficed to believe the Amei ha'Aretz in Yerushalayim itself.
4)
(a)What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "va'Ye'asef Kol Ish Yisrael el ha'Ir k'Ish Echad Chaverim"?
4)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learned from the Pasuk in Shoftim (in Tanach) "va'Ye'asef Kol Ish Yisrael el ha'Ir k'Ish Echad Chaverim" - that on Yom Tov, when everyone gathers together in Yerushalayim, they all have the Din of Chaverim, who are believed regarding Terumah.
5)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, permits a Chaver who opens a barrel of wine to sell on Yom Tov or starts selling his dough, to continue selling it after Yom Tov. What do the Chachamim say? Why is that?
(b)Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha were discussing whether, according to the Chachamim, after Yom Tov, the Chaver is permitted to leave the remainder of his barrel of wine or dough for the following Yom Tov and sell it then. What is the reason of the one who ...
1. ... permits it?
2. ... forbids it?
(c)One Beraisa says 'Yanichenah', another says 'Lo Yanichenah'. What problem do we initially have with this Machlokes?
(d)Like whom do we establish the latter Beraisa to avoid the problem?
(e)And who is then the author of the first Beraisa?
5)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, permits a Chaver who opens a barrel of wine to sell on Yom Tov or starts selling his dough, to continue selling it after Yom Tov. The Rabanan rule - that his wine and dough are considered Tahor only on Yom Tov itself, but not after Yom Tov.
(b)Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha were discussing whether, according to the Chachamim, after Yom Tov, the Chaver is permitted to leave the remainder of his barrel of wine or dough for the following Yom Tov and sell it then. The reason of the one who ...
1. ... permits it is - because there is no logical reason why after Yom Tov to be any worse that on Yom Tov itself, when everyone touched it, yet the Torah permitted it.
2. ... forbids it is - because the Torah only permitted them on Yom Tov itself, but once Yom Tov is over, they become Tamei retroactively.
(c)One Beraisa says 'Yanichenah', another says 'Lo Yanichenah' - a Kashya on Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, who appear to be duplicating an established Machlokes Tana'im.
(d)To avoid the problem - we establish the author of the latter Beraisa as Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, and 'Lo Yanichenah' means that he does not need to leave it until Yom Tov.
(e)The author of the first Beraisa ('Yanichenah') - is therefore the Rabanan.
6)
(a)After Yom Tov, says the Mishnah, the Kohanim would Tovel all the holy vessels, because they had been touched by Amei ha'Aretz, who are generally considered to be Tamei. Why, if the last day of Yom Tov fell on Thursday, would they not do this until after Shabbos?
(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, they would not do it either if it fell on Wednesday. Why not?
(c)What would they warn the Kohanim Amei ha'Aretz, who entered the Heichal on Yom Tov to bow down to Hash-m (see Tosfos Amud 2 DH 'she'Lo')?
6)
(a)After Yom Tov, says the Mishnah, the Kohanim would Tovel all the holy vessels, because they had been touched by Amei ha'Aretz, who are generally considered to be Tamei. However, if the last day of Yom Tov fell on Thursday, they would not do this until after Shabbos - because on Friday, they were busy with the preparations for Shabbos.
(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, they would not do it either if the last day fell on Wednesday - because on Thursday too, they were busy clearing the ashes that had accumulated on the Mizbe'ach over Yom Tov.
(c)They would warn the Kohanim Amei ha'Aretz who entered the Heichal on Yom Tov to bow down to Hash-m (see Tosfos Amud 2 DH 'she'Lo') - to take care not to touch the Shulchan.
26b----------------------------------------26b
7)
(a)How did they account for the possibility of the holy vessels becoming Tamei (and therefore temporarily unusable)?
(b)Which were the only two vessels in the Beis-Hamikdash that did not require Tevilah after contact with Tum'ah?
(c)According to Rebbi Eliezer, this was because they were considered joined to the ground. What do the Chachamim say?
7)
(a)They accounted for the possibility of the holy vessels becoming Tamei (and therefore temporarily unusable) - by making a spare set.
(b)The only two vessels in the Beis-Hamikdash that did not require Tevilah after contact with Tum'ah - were the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav and the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes.
(c)According to Rebbi Eliezer, this was because they were considered joined to the ground - the Rabanan maintain that it was because they were covered (as will be explained shortly in the Sugya).
8)
(a)According to the Beraisa, they would warn the Kohanim not to touch the Shulchan or the Menorah. Why does our Mishnah omit the Menorah?
(b)What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Terumah "v'es ha'Menorah Nochach ha'Shulchan"?
(c)Then how does our Mishnah (which does not learn the Hekesh) explain the Pasuk?
8)
(a)According to the Beraisa, they would warn the Kohanim not to touch the Shulchan or the Menorah. Our Mishnah omits the Menorah - because according to the Tana, it doesn't matter so much if it is out of use for a short while, since the Torah does not write "Tamid" in connection with it, as it does by the Shulchan.
(b)The Tana of the Beraisa however, learns from the Pasuk in Terumah "v'es ha'Menorah Nochach ha'Shulchan" - that the Torah is comparing the Menorah to the Shulchan, in which case, Tamid applies to the Menorah, too.
(c)According to the Tana of our Mishnah (who does not learn the Hekesh) - the Pasuk is merely coming to fix the location of the Menorah.
9)
(a)Why do we initially contend that the Shulchan should not be subject to Tum'ah? What size Kli are we talking about?
(b)What does Resh Lakish learn from the Pasuk in Terumah (with regard to the placing of the Lechem ha'Panim) "al ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor"?
(c)What is the reason for that?
(d)What miracle were they demonstrating?
9)
(a)We initially contend that the Shulchan should not be subject to Tum'ah - because, due to its size (it can hold forty Sa'ah of liquid, or two Kur of solids), it is a wooden vessel that cannot be carried both when empty and full (giving it the title 'Kli Etz he'Asuy l'Nachas'). Consequently, it is not comparable to a sack (to which the Torah compares regular wooden receptacles regarding Tum'ah), and is not subject to Tum'ah.
(b)Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk in Terumah (with regard to the placing of the Lechem ha'Panim) "al ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor" ('mi'Chelal she'Hu Tamei') - that, in spite of its size, it is subject to Tum'ah.
(c)The Torah is indicating here - that the Shulchan should be picked up on Yom Tov (when everybody was in the Azarah), and shown to the people, so that they should be aware of the tremendous miracle that occurred weekly, and realize how much Hash-m loved them. In any event, it transpires that the Shulchan was picked up full as well as empty.
(d)The miracle concerned was - the fact that the bread was still as hot and fresh as when it was baked eight days earlier (and they could see the steam still rising from it).
10)
(a)The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that if a table or a folding-chair breaks or is overlaid with marble, it remains Tamei, provided sufficient space to place cups remains on the part that is not broken or overlaid. What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(b)What principle governs the opinions of both Tana'im?
(c)What do we learn from this Beraisa with regard to a vessel that is overlaid?
(d)That being the case, why do we need to say that the Shulchan was Tamei because they used to pick it up (as we explained earlier)? Why will it not suffice to say that it was subject to Tum'ah because it was overlaid with gold (which is a metal, and would therefore have been subject to Tum'ah, even if it had not been carried when it is full)?
10)
(a)The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that if a table or a folding-chair broke or was overlaid with marble, it remained Tamei, provided sufficient space remained on the part that was not broken or overlaid, to place cups. According to Rebbi Yehudah - there must also be space for pieces of bread and meat as well, because the main usage of a table is to eat on.
(b)The principle that governs the opinions of both Tana'im is - that a vessel remains subject to Tum'ah, as long as it can still be used for its original purpose.
(c)We learn from this Beraisa that when a vessel is overlaid - it adopts the status of the material with which it is overlaid (even l'Kula, how much more so l'Chumra).
(d)Nevertheless, we need to say that the Shulchan was subject to Tum'ah because they used to pick it up (as we explained earlier); the fact that it was overlaid with gold (which is a metal, and would therefore have been subject to Tum'ah, even if it had not been carried when it is full) will not suffice - because, in spite of that, the Pasuk in Yechezkel specifically refers to the Shulchan as a wooden vessel, when it writes "ha'Mizbe'ach Etz ... va'Yedaber Eilai 'Zeh ha'Shulchan Asher Lifnei Hashem' ".
11)
(a)What distinction does Resh Lakish draw between valuable vessels and ordinary ones regarding the Din of Tzipuy Kelim?
(b)What does Rebbi Yochanan say?
(c)Is there any difference according to him, between whether one overlays the rim or not?
(d)According to Resh Lakish, how would we answer the Kashya that we just asked in the previous question (Why will it not suffice to say that it was subject to Tum'ah because it was overlaid with gold?)
11)
(a)Resh Lakish maintains - that valuable vessels do not become Bateil to the Tzipuy (material with which they are overlaid), only regular ones.
(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan - all vessels are Bateil to the Tzipuy, even valuable ones.
(c)Nor does it make any difference, according to him, whether the rim is overlaid too, or not.
(d)According to Resh Lakish, the Kashya that we just asked in the previous question ('Why will it not suffice to say that it was subject to Tum'ah because it was overlaid with gold?'), is automatically answered - because the Shulchan was made of acacia wood, which was valuable, and therefore not Bateil to the Tzipuy (as we will now explain).
