Implied question: Regarding Tum'ah, it says "Kli." This strap is not a Kli, since we do not permit moving it, in Shabbos (112a)!

Abaye was going in back of Rav Yosef. The strap of his sandal snapped. It is clear that he forbade moving it. This shows that it is not a Kli!

Answer: We must say that here enough remained in the strap to be considered a Kli. A commoner can return (fix it);

However, in the Yerushalmi we find that his sandal snapped. (The Yerushalmi says that he used it to plug a hole in the barrel. Perhaps Tosfos explains that also the Bavli means that he used the sandal. I prefer to explain that also the Yerushalmi holds that he used a strap, for it uses the feminine, but "sandal" is masculine - Si'ach Yitzchak.)

Explanation: Even though Rabanan do not require like the episode that occurred, in any case they were not stringent about [taking across a river] Kodesh, only for Chatas.

Implied question: It says in Zevachim (93a) that Mei Chatas that became Tamei, it is Metaher, for we sprinkle on a Nidah [even though the water becomes Tamei when it lands on her]!

Answer: This refers to other Tum'os. Regarding Tum'as Mes, [the water] becomes Pasul.

Note: The same should apply to Tum'as Mes, for everyone we sprinkle on is Tamei Mes, and the water is Metaher! Turei Even concludes [unlike Tosfos] that the one who says that Tamei Mei Chatas is Metaher, holds that there was no decree. The other opinion holds that the Mei Chatas must be Tahor until it touches the person.

Explanation: The Chaver eats Al Taharas Kodesh. There is concern for spit of an Am ha'Aretz, who does not eat Al Taharas Kodesh, only Al Taharas Terumah. Its Taharah is considered Tum'ah regarding Kodesh.

If the Chaver's spit is not Tamei, we establish [our Mishnah] to discuss a true Am ha'Aretz. (Si'ach Yitzchak - the Yerushalmi did not resolve whether one who eats Terumah is considered like a Zav regarding Kodesh.)

Question (my Rebbi): Why do we establish it like this? We should establish it even regarding the Chaver himself. The spit, which is a liquid, is Tamei due to the [Stam] hands, which are a Sheni [l'Tum'ah], and the Kli is Tamei due to the hands.

Answer (my Rebbi): The decree that hands are a Sheni has no Derara d'Oraisa, only mid'Rabanan. Hands are Metamei a liquid, and a liquid is Metamei a Kli mid'Rabanan;

These are among the latter stringencies (without Derara d'Tum'ah d'Oraisa), and not among the former.

Inference: We say so because it (ha'Erev Shemesh) was not taught explicitly.

Question: Had it taught it explicitly, one might have thought that for Terumah, [ha'Erev Shemesh is not needed, but] Tevilah is needed!

Answer (R. Elchanan): We cannot err about this. If so (Tevilah were needed for Terumah), it would have explicitly said that Tevilah is needed for Terumah, and ha'Erev Shemesh for Kodesh!

Implied question #1: We say in Yoma (2a) that everything for it [Mei Chatas] is done with Kelim of stone or earth [which are not Mekabel Tum'ah]. Here, the tube is [a reed, i.e. vegetation, which has the law of Kli] Etz!

Implied question #2: A Mishnah says [about Mei Chatas] "if one left a flask uncovered, and found it covered..." A Stam flask is of earthenware!

Answer: There, [we say that everything is done with Kelim of stone or earth] only during the seven days [that the Kohen is separated before burning Parah Adumah], since they were lenient to do Parah Adumah with [matters that normally require] ha'Erev Shemesh, they made other stringencies, lest people disgrace it;

At other times, we need not be concerned [to use Kelim that are not Mekabel Tum'ah].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): They would touch a [dead] Sheretz to him.

Rejection (and Explanation #2): The Tosefta connotes unlike this. Rather, he [another Kohen] himself touched him.

Citation (Tosefta): All seven days, his fellow Kohanim separated from him;

Citation (cont.): On the eighth day, they touched him and were Metamei him. They immersed him, and [Parah Adumah] was done through a Tevul Yom.

Citation (Tosefta): A case occurred in which a Tzeduki Kohen requested to burn the Parah. He wanted to do it after ha'Erev Shemesh;

Citation (cont.): R. Yochanan ben Zakai heard about this, and pressed his hands on him, and said to him "dear Kohen Gadol! How nice it is for you to be Kohen Gadol! He descended and immersed...

Implied question: The Tzedukim are not concerned for that Tum'ah, this that they touch him now, and [they hold that] it is not a stringency of Parah this that they did not touch him for seven days!

Answer: In any case, everyone sees that according to Chachamim, touching an Am ha'Aretz is Metamei, and they touched him on the eighth day. This shows that one does Parah with a Tevul Yom.

Explanation: [They made him like a Tamei Mes on the seventh day after [the second] Haza'ah.

Question: If so, he should not require Tevilah!

Answer: Even after Haza'ah, he requires Tevilah, like R. Tam explained in Megilah (20a DH v'Lo) that there are two Tevilos. One is before Haza'ah, and the other is after Haza'ah.

Reference: In Shabbos (84b) we make a Kal va'Chomer. Small [Cheres] flasks are Tehorim regarding a Zav, for they do not have an interior that the Zav's flesh can touch (he cannot stick his finger inside), yet they receive Tum'as Mes;

A mat, which receives Tum'as Medras, all the more so it receives Tum'as Mes!

Question #1 (R. Avraham): We can make a Kal va'Chomer from all Kelim that do not receive Tum'as Medras, like we say here "get up, and let us do our work!" Even so, they receive Tum'as Mes. (A mat, which receives Tum'as Medras, all the more so it receives Tum'as Mes!)

Question #2 (Ri): We should make a Kal va'Chomer from large Klei Cheres. Even if they are open (not covered with a Tzamid Pasil), they are Tehorim from Midras of a Zav, like it says there in Shabbos;

We learn from "v'Chol Kli Patu'ach Asher Ein Tzamid Pasil Alav." The verse discusses Tum'as Mes. A mat, [which receives Tum'as Medras...]

Answer (to Question #1): All [other] Kelim are different. The reason they do not receive Tum'as Medras is not because they are lenient, rather, because they are not made to tread on them. (Tum'as Medras) does not apply there.

Answer (to Question #2): Similarly, large Klei Cheres do not receive Tum'as Medras, but they receive other Tum'os of a Zav. There, it is because the Torah made Tum'as Mes and Sheretz dependent on the interior, for all Klei Etz are equated to a Sak;

However, Tum'as Medras is not due to the interior, rather, because it is special to sit on;

Therefore, a mat, which is Metamei Midras, and this is its law, should not receive Tum'as Mes (if we had no other source), since it has no interior.

However, now that we make a Kal va'Chomer from small flasks, which are Tehorim from Tum'ah of touching and moving, which apply to big [flasks], and [small flasks] are proper [to receive these Tum'os] because they have an interior, but they are Tehorim due to a Gezeras ha'Kasuv...

Since it is not possible for a Zav's flesh to touch, also touching of his hair and bodily fluids do not apply [to small flasks], and they have a uniform law. Even so, regarding Tum'as Mes, they are like big flasks [and receive Tum'as Mes];

All the more so, a mat, which has also Tum'as ha'Zav, such as Midras, it receives Tum'as Mes!

Conclusion: Now [that the Kal va'Chomer is from small flasks], we cannot distinguish, that they are special to sit on [so they receive Tum'as Medras, but not Tum'as Mes];

Designation to sit on them (mats) helps [to receive Tum'as Medras], but [designation] does not help for small flasks, for them to receive Midras of (i.e. Tum'ah from touching a) Zav due to their interior

Therefore, it is a full Kal va'Chomer, since they have no Tum'ah of the interior, which applies to them. This is from the Ri.

Question (R. Nisim Ga'on): Here it connotes that they became Kodesh in the Kli, for Tziruf helps;

In Yuma (44b), it says that a Kav of coals scattered, and he sweeps them to the Amah.

Why is this permitted? He wastes Kodesh!

Answer #1 (R. Nisim Ga'on): The Yerushalmi in Chagigah establishes our Mishnah to discuss coals of Yom Kipur;

Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina citing R. Yochanan): Why do we say that Shirayim of Menachos join themselves? (If part became Tamei all of it is Tamei.) It is because they need their Kli.

Citation (ibid. - Rav Acha citing Reish Lakish): They knew that a Kli Shares joins [its contents]. They came to testify about Soles (fine flour), Levonah, Ketores and coals.

Citation (ibid.) Question: Granted, [it joins] Soles, Levonah and Ketores. How can we explain coals?

Citation (cont.) Answer (R. Bun): The Mishnah discusses coals of Yom Kipur. In the same [Kli] that he scoops [from the Mizbe'ach], he enters them [into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim];

Citation (cont.): This does not apply to coals of every day, like a Mishnah says, that a Kav of coals scattered, and he sweeps them to the Amah.

Explanation #2 (Ri): The Yerushalmi asked "how can we explain coals?", i.e. why does he (a Tevul Yom) disqualify all of them? They are many [coals] that are not needed!

We establish [the Mishnah] to discuss Yom Kipur, on which all [of the coals in the Kli used to scoop from the Mizbe'ach] are needed.

Alternative answer: The Yerushalmi could have answered that we discuss the Machtah of every day. It did not say so, for it was unsure whether the silver Machtah in which he scoops [from the Mizbe'ach] was Kodesh or not.

"A Kli Shares joins them" connotes any Kli in which we put them, similar to Levonah and Ketores. (If we knew that the silver Machtah was not Kodesh, we could have said that we discuss the Machtah of every day. This would refer only to the gold Machtah.)

Question: Below, we say that mid'Rabanan, a Kli joins even what does not need the Kli!

Answer: That is according to the opinion that Tziruf is mid'Oraisa. According to the opinion that Tziruf is mid'Rabanan, it does not help at all [to join them].

Answer #2 (to R. Nisim's question (a:2), why we may sweep the coals to the Amah): Perhaps a Kli is Mekadesh only what is needed. What is not needed for the day, there is no problem to waste it.

Answer #3 (R. Tam): A Kli Shares is Mekadesh only with intent.

Question (R. Elchanan): There is an argument about this in (Sukah 49b). Some say that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh [without intent. How can they answer?]

Answer: In Menachos (7a, 78b) some prove from "v'Lakchu Es Kol Klei ha'Shares" that they are Mekadesh only with intent;

Amora'im argue about this. We do not find that Tana'im argue about this.

Answer #4: Some say that the silver Machtah is not Kodesh. Only the [gold] Machtah into which they pour [from the silver Machtah] is Kodesh. The Kav of coals that scattered and were swept into the Amah were in the silver Machtah.

Question (R. Elchanan): The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh what is proper for it.

Answer: This is not difficult. R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about coals taken from the Mizbe'ach to the ground. (Si'ach Yitzchak did not find this argument.)

Inference: Coals are not considered proper for the Mizbe'ach.

Inference: If not for this, Tziruf mid'Oraisa [of Kodesh] would properly apply, for we inferred only from "he added." (We did not say that the verse does not teach this!)

Support #1: Also, we ask what is the source that this Tziruf (that R. Akiva discusses) is mid'Rabanan. This implies that the Makshan held that it is mid'Oraisa.

Support #2: In Pesachim (35a), we expound "veha'Basar Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" to include wood and Levonah. (Mid'Oraisa they are Mekabel Tum'ah, even though they are not Kelim or foods. If so, we can say that Tziruf of Levonah is mid'Oraisa.)

Support #3: Also in Chulin (36b), we say "rather, Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir mid'Oraisa. What is the source?... Rather, we learn from the Seifa "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" to include wood and Levonah.

Support #4: In Zevachim (34a), if a Tamei ate Kodesh before Zerikah, one said that he is lashed, and one said that he is not lashed;

However, regarding Tum'ah of meat, all agree that he is lashed, for it says "veha'Basar....", and it was taught that this includes wood and Levonah.

Inference: The verse comes primarily for this.

Support #5: In Pesachim (24b), it says what do we learn from "veha'Basar"? This includes wood and Levonah. What do we learn from "[Kol Tahor Yochal] Basar"? This includes Eimurim...

Implied question: It says in Zevachim (46b) 'however, we learned that "veha'Basar" includes wood and Levonah!', and we answer that it is a mere Pesul!

Answer: There, mid'Oraisa it is Pasul from offering it. We say that it is [a mere] Pasul only to teach unlike the opinion that one is lashed.

Implied question: In Pesachim (35a), it says "are wood and Levonah Mekabel Tum'ah? Are they foods?!" Rather, it is a stringency.

Answer: It is mid'Oraisa. It is called a stringency, because it is not a food, and it is considered like a food.

Support: It says there "after ha'Erev Shemesh, he may eat Terumah. After he brought his Kaparah [he may eat Kodshim]. He is proper [to eat beforehand], just it is a stringency."

There, it is mid'Oraisa, for in Yevamos (74b) we learn it from verses. It says that there are three verses... (Even so, it is called a stringency.)

Conclusion: It seems that really, Tziruf is mid'Oraisa for wood and Levonah.

Implied question: It says in Menachos (21a) "this excludes wood and Levonah, which are not Mekabel Tum'ah"!

Answer: It means that they are not Mekabel Tum'ah without Hechsher.

Implied question: Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir mid'Oraisa!

Answer: One cannot say so uniformly, since Chulin wood is not Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, even through Hechsher, if not for an extra verse;

If so, we can say that we include [Kodesh wood] only through Hechsher.

Implied question: It says in Pesachim (19a) "this shows that Tziruf is mid'Rabanan, for R. Akiva's testimony is mid'Rabanan!"

Answer: However, really, wood and Levonah are mid'Oraisa.

Observation: This is unlike Rashi, who explained that we infer that Tziruf is a stringency mid'Rabanan, and R. Akiva holds that wood and Levonah do not receive Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, for they are not food.

Rejection #1: This is wrong, like I explained all these [Gemaros] that I brought.

Rejection #2: Also our Sugya connotes unlike this. Rather, he infers that Tziruf is mid'Rabanan from this that was taught in the Reisha, "R. Shimon testified about Efer Chatas (ashes of Parah Adumah)..." [Tum'ah of] Efer Chatas is mid'Rabanan, for it is not Kodesh. It is Chulin;