Explanation: This discusses Kodesh and Terumah, but not Chatas (Parah Adumah).

Support: A Tosefta explicitly teaches that if collectors entered a house, they are believed to say "we did not touch" regarding Taharas Chatas and Taharas Terumah;

"Chatas" refers to Kodesh, like it teaches there, and not Efer Chatas. This is even if they did Teshuvah [they are believed only in these cases]. Rabbeinu Shimon explained so.

Explanation: All the more so, he is believed about small Klei Cheres.

Support: A Beraisa in the Yerushalmi explicitly says that they are believed about all Kelim. Rabbeinu Shimon said so.

Explanation: We say so to Kohanim Amei ha'Aretz who enter the Heichal to bow;

We need not say so to Yisre'elim, for they may not go even between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach [all the more so they may not enter the Ulam and Heichal]! Also Rashi explained so.

Explanation (Rashi): "Tamid" written regarding it (the Menorah) is unlike Tamid written regarding the Shulchan. The [former] Tamid is from night to night, like "Olas Tamid" written regarding the Tamid and Chavitei Kohen Gadol [are from day to day];

The Menorah did not burn during the day. It says "me'Erev Ad Boker" - give it the proper measure [of oil to burn] from evening until morning. Therefore, one may remove it anytime during the day;

However, Tamid written regarding the Shulchan is the entire day and the entire night. The Lechem [ha'Panim] was arranged on it from Shabbos to Shabbos.

Question #1 (R. Elchanan): In Maseches Tamid (30b), it connotes that the Ner Ma'arivi burned the entire day. [The Kohen] would light [the other Neros] from it, and he would conclude with it [extinguish and relight it last];

Presumably, we learn from "Tamid"!

Question #2 (R. Elchanan): The Gemara in Tamid is unlike the Drashah "me'Erev Ad Boker" - Chachamim gauged the measure of half a Log [to burn from evening until morning]. Therefore, one may remove it anytime during the day;

Answer: The Ner Ma'aravi did not have more oil than the other Neros. In any case, by itself, miraculously, it burned the entire day;

When there was no miracle, they would light it in the morning in order to light the others from it.

Question (R. Elchanan): All the years that Bnei Yisrael were in the Midbar, they moved it. If so, it is not made to be stationary!

If so, why do we need a proof from a verse "ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor", which implies that it could become Tamei? (It can become Tamei because it was made to be moved!)

Answer #1 (R. Elchanan): We need the verse only for [when the Mishkan was in] Nov, Giv'on, Shilo and the Beis ha'Mikdash, when it was not moved;

We learn from the verse that they would lift it.

Objection: Since already it was moved, even after they came to the Beis ha'Mikdash, it does not lose its initial ability to receive Tum'ah!

Answer #2: Rather, its movement did not help [for it to receive Tum'ah], since it was not moved by itself, rather, only with the other Kelim.

Explanation: Regarding softness [its removal was like its arrangement]. The verse says "Chom (warm) b'Yom Hilakcho." This is not precise. It was not warm;

There is an opinion in Menachos (95b) that it was baked on Erev Shabbos;

It is impossible that it kept its heat until Shabbos, unless we will say that it remained in the oven to preserve its heat until Shabbos morning [when it was arranged on the Shulchan. Si'ach Yitzchak - it was not Hukdash, for then it would be disqualified through Linah, therefore we cannot say that it stayed warm miraculously.]

Possibility: Perhaps this is in the name of a city, and the Kelim from there are important.

Question: Here it connotes that they were of wood, and in Zevachim (94a) it connotes that they were of leather, like Rashi explained regarding "leather [on which Dam Chatas splashed] must be washed in a Kodesh place." (See Tosfos Menachos 97a.)

Explanation #1: The [plating of] the Shulchan in the Mikdash did not stand [firmly attached]. There were three Shulchanos in the Mikdash, just like there were three Aronos that Betzalel made. It was easy to remove the plating.

Explanation #2: "A standing plating" means a marble plating, like on a table or stand [on which puts things that will go on the table]. The marble is thick and strong. It stands by itself, even without the wood. Therefore, the wood is not important;

However, in Moshe's Shulchan the gold was thin and weak. It could not stand [by itself]. Therefore, the wood was primary, and the plating was Batel to it.

Question #1: Also the Mizbe'ach is called Etz, like it says "ha'Mizbe'ach Etz Shalosh Amos"!

It was taught in our Mishnah that they argue about it because the plating was not Batel to the wood, but the wood is Batel. (No one is Metaher because it is called Etz!)

Question #2: It says below (27a) 'alternatively, Rabanan said to R. Eliezer "do you think [that if the Mizbechos were not like land, they would be Mekabel Tum'ah] because they are plated? The plating is Batel to them!'

Inference: [They are Tehorim] because the plating is Batel to the wood.

Regarding a table or stand, if one did not leave over any area [not plated], the wood is Batel to the plating!

Answer #1: Yehonason translated this verse about the wooden Mizbe'ach "Pesora d'Samuch l'Mizbe'ach d'Dehava" (table near the golden Mizbe'ach, i.e. the table is called Etz), but the Mizbe'ach is not called Etz. (Perhaps the text of Tosfos should say "ha'Mizbe'ach Etz", i.e. he cites the verse.)

The other version (cited in Question #2) holds that even the Shulchan is called Etz only regarding the Shulchan near the Mizbe'ach, since the verse calls it "Mizbe'ach". (Therefore, Rabanan hold that also the Mizbechos are called Etz);

However, other tables and stands are not called Etz. Therefore, the plating is not Batel to them, if one did not leave a remnant [not plated].

Answer #2 (R. Elchanan): This is not difficult at all, like our Mishnah says "all Kelim in the Mikdash require Tevilah, except for Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav veha'Nechoshes"

It says about Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes "Mizbe'ach Adamah Ta'aseh Li." (The Torah calls it land, which is not Mekabel Tum'ah.) It says about Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav "ha'Menorah veha'Mizbechos" - they (the two Mizbechos) are equated to each other;

Therefore, the plating of Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes is Batel. Therefore, they are not Mekabel Tum'ah;

Question: This requires investigation, how we establish "ha'Mizbe'ach [Etz] Shalosh Amos." If it is Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, it is only two Amos [tall]!