Question (R. Elchanan): How could they bring Efer Parah to Galil? It can be made only in Yerushalayim. If so, it becomes Tamei when brought through [the strip of] Eretz ha'Amim (the Nochrim's land)!

Answer: Perhaps one can bring [in Taharah] on a narrow path, but to bring wine and oil for Nesachim requires a wide path.

Question: How did they come for the Regel from Galil? Since a strip interrupts, one becomes Tamei, and they must sprinkle on him on days three and seven, like it says in Nazir (54a)! (Maharav Ransborg - Tosfos Eruvin 31a DH u'Mar says that all agree that a fat bull, or a door, shields one who rides on it from Tum'ah. Sha'ar Efrayim (37), Turei Even and others ask that perhaps indeed they came a week before the Regel, in order to become Tahor for the Regel! Tosfos ha'Rosh said that they did so. Mitzpas Eisan says that Sanhedrin 11a connotes unlike this.)

Note #1: It says there that we are not Me'aber the year for the sake of people in Galus who did not yet leave (start coming) to enable them to arrive in time for Pesach. We may be Me'aber until Adar 29. Tosfos there explains that people at the end of Eretz Yisrael can leave on Rosh Chodesh and reach Yerushalayim, for it is 15 days journey. I.e. therefore the Mishnah did not discuss being Me'aber for people in Galil, for they can leave tomorrow and arrive in time. I.e. they need not arrive a week before Pesach for Haza'ah. (This is unlike Lechem Mishneh Yehudah, who connotes that the Hava Amina to be Me'aber is only for Bnei Galus who are exempt, and even so, they want to exert themselves to come. Also, according to Rav Yosef (Bava Metzi'a 28a), in Bayis Sheni there were fewer people, and they were closer to the Mikdash, so the journey was much shorter. And according to Abaye there, if all want to arrive in Yerushalayim at the same time, perhaps they could travel together day and night in caravans, and save a week of traveling time. However, according to Rava, the last opinion there, we can say that 15 days are needed.) Tosfos must hold that the strip was not seven days journey from Yerushalayim. If it were, people could receive Haza'os on the journey, and he has no question at all!

Note #2: There are only 14 days from Rosh Chodesh until Erev Pesach! It seems that the journey is 12 [week]days of traveling; we begin requesting rain on the night before the 15th day after Shemini Atzeres, to allow all to return home first. Alternatively, it is 13 days journey; the minority who live at the border can travel a little faster, or start earlier each morning and end later each night. Perhaps we cannot expect people to travel faster towards Yerushalayim, for it is a higher elevation, and many people are laden with Korbanos or Ma'aser Sheni. I answer that 14 days in spring have as much traveling time (daylight hours) as 15 days in fall. In Eretz Yisrael, when Sukos ends near the end of September, the next 15 days average about 12 hours [from sunrise to sunset]. When Sukos ends near the end of October, the average is about 11 hours. Presumably, the 15 days given suffice even in such years (or, people near the border must travel faster then). The days in the first half of Nisan always average at least 12 hours; when Pesach begins in late April, they are about 13 hours. The extra hour (or two hours) per day amount to about one (or two) extra day(s) of traveling.

Question (R. Elchanan): A Tosefta teaches that Eretz ha'Amim is Tamei, and its Mikva'os and paths are Tamei. Eretz ha'Kusim is Tahor, it Mikva'os are Tehorim, and its paths are Tehorim...

Answer (my Rebbi): That was taught before the Kusim corrupted [and worshipped] the image of a dove, like it says in Chulin (6a). It connotes like this in the Yerushalmi in Avodah Zarah;

Citation (Yerushalmi): The Kusim asked R. Avahu "your ancestors used to be supplied from us (eat our food). Why don't you be supplied from us?"

Citation (cont. - R. Avahu): Your ancestors did not corrupt their deeds. You corrupted your deeds;

Citation (cont. - Mishnah): Eretz Yisrael is Tahor, its Mikva'os are Tehorim... [Eretz ha'Kusim is Tahor, its Mikva'os are Tehorim, and its paths are Tehorim. The former is a Mishnah, and this is a Tosefta.]

Our Mishnah [holds that they are not believed in Galil, due to the strip of Eretz ha'Kusim. It] is after they corrupted, for we find that even R. Meir decreed about them in Chulin. (Si'ach Yitzchak - do not ask that the Yerushalmi connotes that until the days of R. Avahu (after the Mishnah), we accepted from the Kusim, for we find that R. Meir already decreed about their wine. Even though his decree was not accepted until later, for the Tzibur could not fulfill it regarding wine and Shechitah, we can say that they accepted to consider Kusim's residences like Eretz ha'Amim.)

Citation (Nazir 55a): Tana'im argue about this!

Citation (cont. - Beraisa): If one entered Eretz ha'Amim in a box, chest or cabinet, Rebbi is Metamei and R. Yosi bar Yehudah is Metaher;

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Rebbi holds that Chachamim decreed about the air [of Eretz ha'Amim, so in any case he is Tamei], and R. Yosi holds that they did not decree about the air. (They decree only about the ground. Since an Ohel separates him, he is Tahor.)

Citation (cont.) Rejection: No, all agree that they decreed about the ground, and not about the air. [Rebbi] holds that Ohel Zaruk is not considered an Ohel, and [R. Yosi] holds that it is considered an Ohel.

Citation (cont.) Support (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): If a box was full of Kelim, and one threw it over a Mes in an Ohel, it is Tamei...

Question: What does the Gemara mean? Since [R. Yosi] holds that it is considered an Ohel, when he throws it over a Mes in an Ohel, why is it Tamei? It is an Ohel Zaruk. It should block the Tum'ah!

Answer #1: Some say that the Beraisa was [not a support, rather,] a question. It asks like I explained, that the box should block the Tum'ah! Afterwards, the text of the conclusion is "alternatively, you can say that all agree that it is not an Ohel."

The text says "all agree [that they decreed] about the air. [R. Yosi] holds that it is not common [to enter in a box, chest or cabinet,], so they did not decree.

Question #1 (R. Elchanan): Our Sugya connotes that they argue about whether or not it is considered an Ohel when it is Zaruk, and so does the Sugya in Eruvin (30b)!

It is difficult to say that it mentions here Ohel Zaruk because initially we wanted to say so, but in the conclusion this is not so.

Question #2 (Ri): Also there, we must say that according to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, it is considered an Ohel!

We establish the argument to be about [whether or not we decree] lest he stick his head or majority outside [of the box], and he does not hold that [we did not decree about] the airspace [of Eretz ha'Amim without towering over the ground, i.e. in a box, chest or cabinet, for it] is not common.

Why is R. Yosi Metaher, if not because Ohel Zaruk is considered an Ohel? The question returns, why is a box full of Kelim [thrown over a Mes] Tamei?

Answer (Ri): Really, it is true that they argue about whether or not Ohel Zaruk is considered an Ohel;

They argue only in a case such as a box, chest or cabinet, which go (are being carried). However, if one threw a box, it is not considered an Ohel.

Support (Ohalos 8:5 - Mishnah): A flying bird, or one who jumped, or a Talis waving [in the wind], or a ship sailing is not an Ohel.

[The Gemara in Nazir] brought a support from one who threw a box full of Kelim, for it says "if it was Munachas (placed), it is Tahor", i.e. if it was going gently. This is Ohel Zaruk;

In the Reisha, he threw it. It is not considered Ohel Zaruk, like a flying bird.

Question: Why isn't this listed among stringencies [of Kodesh over Terumah]?

Answer (R. Elchanan): We find in Gitin (61b) that Terumah is saved, in the case of one who deposits Terumah with an Am ha'Aretz enclosed in a Tzamid Pasil.

Question - Citation (Nidah 5b): A Kli Cheres closed with a Tzamid Pasil is saved in Ohel ha'Mes, but it is not saved from me'Es la'Es of Nidah (24 hours of retroactive Tum'ah from when she sees blood);

Rhetorical question: What do we say that it saves in [Ohel ha']Mes? [It saves] Terumah, but not Kodesh, like it says here;

It saves this (Terumah) also from me'Es la'Es of Nidah! It says there that [the stringency of] me'Es la'Es of Nidah applies to Kodesh, but not to Terumah!

Note: All the more so, Ma'aser and Chulin are saved in Ohel ha'Mes, and me'Es la'Es of Nidah does not apply to them.

Answer: "Saving" applies only if something would have been Metamei it;

The Gemara [there] means "a Kli Cheres, which saves in Ohel ha'Mes from what is Metamei it, e.g (Ohel ha'Mes is Metamei Terumah, and a Kli Cheres saves) Terumah, it (a Kli Cheres) does not save from me'Es la'Es of Nidah from what it is Metamei, i.e. (me'Es la'Es is Metamei) only Kodesh.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He sees that the olives were not Huchshar.

Inference: Olives require Hechsher [to be Mekabel Tum'ah]. They are not Huchshar at the time of harvesting.

This is unlike R. Tam, who explained in Shabbos (17a) "if you anger me, I will decree also harvesting olives [that they are Huchshar]", and later he decreed it.

Support: The entire Tosefta in Perek 3 of Taharos connotes like this. It teaches that olives require Hechsher.

Explanation: There is a good reason for this, like the Ri explained. The liquid [that exudes from olives at the time of harvesting] is a mere sap. It is not considered a liquid.

The text: It says "in the eyes of the Kohen" (i.e. so he can see). This is also Rashi's text.

Support: This is the text also in the Mishnah in Taharos. R. Meir says "one who finishes his olives puts them in the eyes of the Kohen";

R. Yehudah says, he hands over the key to him.

Others have the text "to a poor Kohen." This is a mistake.

Explanation: They have much oil, and they delay in the olivepresses due to the abundance of oil they have to make.

Support #1: We say so in Shabbos (47a), regarding moving a pan with ashes in it, i.e. an incense pan with ashes, like it says above [there] about an incense pan with its ashes;

Also the Aruch explained like this. This is better than a basket with a rock inside.

We ask [there from a Beraisa that says that] all agree that if there are broken wicks inside [the lamp], one may not move it. The Kli (lamp) and oil are Batel to the wick.

We establish it to discuss Galil. I.e. they were rich, due to abundance of oil, and they were not particular about it. Therefore, it is Batel to the wicks.

Support #2: We find like this in Sanhedrin (11b) "take a letter and write to our brethren "people of upper and lower Galil... to separate Ma'aser from the Kli in which the olives soften."

Support #3 (Nazir 31b): This was taught in Galil, where they prefer wine to oil. Wine was very abundant for them, and they drank mostly wine;

It connotes like this in Shabbos (78a). It says that for water, [the Shi'ur to be liable for Hotza'ah is] in order to wet the mascara stick.

This is the Shi'ur, because Refu'ah is more common than drinking. In Galil, they used to drink only wine, due to their wealth.

Even so, they prefer wine to oil. This implies that they had much oil and it was cheap, like I explained.

Rashi's opinion (in Shabbos): This was taught in Galil. We learned in Shabbos (47a) that they were poor, and wicks were not available for them.

In Shabbos (78a), he explained that because they were poor, they did a cure only from water, and not from wine.

Rebuttal #1: The Gemara connotes unlike this. If so, also drinking water was more common, since they did not have even a little wine to soak the mascara stick! They should have judged [the Shi'ur for Hotza'ah] based on drinking.

Rebuttal #2: Also, we find in Chulin (83a) "and Erev Yom Kipur in Galil" (they would slaughter many animals]. This connotes they were rich, and made a big meal.

Rebuttal #3: Rashi explained that wicks were not available for them. We say in Bava Kama (118b) that we may buy a small amount from women, e.g. linen garments in Galil;

Inference: Linen [from which wicks are commonly made] was available to them.

Implied question: Why does it say [in Shabbos 47a] "it is forbidden Letaltelah (to move it)"? This is feminine, which connotes that it refers to the wick, which is feminine. Ner (lamp) is masculine. (This suggests that the wick was Muktzeh, because they were scarce, like Rashi explained!)

Answer #1: We can say that it refers to Ka'arah (the bowl that holds the oil, which is feminine). It was mentioned above "the oil in the Ner and in the Ka'arah is permitted."

Answer #2: We find the feminine used for Ner, e.g. "a Ner Chanukah she'Kivsah (that extinguished), one need not [relight it]" (Shabbos 21a). The Ri explained all of this.

Also Rabbeinu Meir explained so. He added that due to their abundance of wine, their eyes hurt, and water was good to cure them.

Reference: This is a Mishnah in Demai.

Explanation (Rashi): The reason is due to Breirah. Initially, it was clarified that these fell to his portion. However, with two species, we do not say that it was clarified [that he received one species, and his brother received another species].

He explained another Mishnah like this. If a convert and Nochri inherited their father, [the convert] can say "take idolatry, and I will take coins", for he holds that there, Yesh Breirah.

Question (my Rebbi): Since a Stam Mishnah holds that Yesh Breirah, this is difficult for R. Yochanan, who says that brothers who split an inheritance are considered like buyers; they return their shares to each other in Yovel. This shows that Ein Breirah! (R. Yochanan taught the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah.)

Also, in Bechoros (48a), regarding [if Reuven's wife gave birth for the first time, and he died and the children are alive, if they paid (Pidyon ha'Ben from the estate) before dividing it [R. Meir says that they paid. If they divided first, they are exempt. R. Yehudah obligates even then...]

Rava establishes that R. Meir and R. Yehudah hold like Rav Asi, who considers brothers (who divide an estate) to be half-heirs and half-buyers. [All agree that Pidyon ha'Ben is like a loan without a document, which is collected from heirs, but not from buyers. They argue about whether partial Pidyon must be done when there are not five Shekalim from the inherited half of the estate, whether or not there is a lien to pay a partial Pidyon.]

Inference: They (R. Meir and R. Yehudah) are unsure whether Yesh Breirah (so they are like heirs), or not (so they are like buyers).

Implied question: We learn that Yesh Breirah from the case of one who buys wine from Kusim! (R. Meir permits to tithe through Breirah, i.e. now I make Terumah what I will separate tomorrow.)

Answer: (We cannot learn from there.) There is different, for he explicitly clarifies his words (says what should take effect. Inheritance is automatic, so there is not Breirah.)

Support: In Eruvin (37b) one opinion holds like this [to distinguish between whether or not he explicitly clarifies his words].

Suggestion: R. Yochanan agrees that mid'Rabanan, Yesh Breirah.

Rejection: He holds in Beitzah (37b) that Ein Breirah even regarding Eruvei Techumim (which is mid'Rabanan).

Answer (to Question (c)): We find several Stam Mishnayos that hold that Ein Breirah, and in several places Tana'im argue [about Breirah].

Implied question: In Eruvin (37b), the Gemara struggles to find a Tana who holds that Yesh Breirah. Why didn't it bring our Mishnah?

Answer: It prefers to bring a matter in which the Tana is mentioned, and a matter involving Eruvei Techumim, which it was discussing.

Reference: In Berachos 19b (Bechoros 29a DH Heichi – see Ha'gahos ha'Bach) I explained the entire matter based on the Perush of R. Yehudah.

Explanation (Rashi): There is Kodesh and Terumah that he is believed about. He is believed about Terumah and flasks Migo (since) he is believed about Kodesh. It would be disgraceful for it (Kodesh) if flasks, in which were his Kodesh, are Temei'im.

Question: If so, why does it mention 70 days before? Also the rest of the year [he should be believed], for the Mishnah says that if he says "I separated a Revi'is of Kodesh into it", he is believed!

Answer (R. Elchanan): Here we discuss one who designated it for Nesachim, when he will need it. There, we discuss one who already was Makdish it for this.