Explanation #1: But if they initially held more than a Log, they will need a larger Shi'ur than that of 'K'dei Sichas Katan'; and even if the owner then designated it for anointing a Katan, his Da'as is Bateil to that of everybody else, and his Yichud is not effective, seeing as it is not the done thing to designate broken pieces from a large vessel for anointing a Katan.

Proof (Part 1): And so it seems, that we are talking here about a case where one designated the pieces, because how can broken pieces receive Tum'ah other than through designation? ...

Proof (Part 2): ... do we not say at the end of ha'Matzni'a (Shabbos 85b) that 'an earthenware vessel which has a hole the size of 'Motzi Zayis' is Tahor with regard to receiving olives; but it is still a K'li to receive pomegranates'. And Rashi there explains this to mean that 'it is Tahor' - with regard to receiving Tum'ah in its capacity as S'tam K'li Cheres, whose Shi'ur is a k'Zayis; and even if it was previously Tamei, it now becomes Tahor. 'But it is still a K'li to receive pomegranates' - in that if he now designates it for pomegranates, it will receive Tum'ah from now on. Or else, if it was initially designated for pomegranates, it does not become Tahor'. From which we see that Yichud is required.

Question (Part 1): We learned in the Tosefta of Keilim (in Perek Machat ve'Taba'as) that one may not use the sides of a broken ladle and of fragments of vessels, and the base of vessels, and the outside of their walls to draw Mei Chatas, to mix the water with ashes or to sprinkle them.

Question (Part 2): If however, one smoothens them and makes Keilim out of them, Rebbi Meir holds that they will receive Tum'ah from now on; but according to the Chachamim, once an earthenware vessel becomes Tahor, it will never again be subject to Tum'ah.

Question (Part 3): Now if an earthenware vessel that has a hole the size of an olive would require Yichud in order to receive pomegranates, the moment a hole appears, it would become Tahor. In that case, how will designating it for pomegranates after that help to render it fit to receive Tum'ah?

Question (Part 4): Whereas if Yichud is not required, all is fine, since it will not become Tahor as long as it is still fit for pomegranates.

Answer (Part 1): The case in the Tosefta speaks where, after Yichud, it is not fit to use without first rectifying it (Tikun); which is why in a case of broken pieces which are smaller than the Shi'ur, such as those specified in our Sugya, due to their inferiority, Yichud will not help ...

Answer (Part 2): ... whereas there where Tikun is not required, we will not say that it only requires Yichud, and in such a case, it lacks only Yichud, and once it has become Tahor, it will never become subject to Tum'ah.

Implied Question: And that what we learned in Maseches Keilim (Perek 5, Mishnah 8) that if one cut a Tamei oven into sections that are smaller than four Tefachim, it is Tahor, but that if one smears it with cement, it will receive Tum'ah when he subsequently heats it up to bake sponge-cakes' ... implying that it becomes subject to Tum'ah due to the Tikun ...

Answer: ... there is different, since it is considered a complete K'li, seeing as the Tikun renders it as new as it was originally. But small broken pieces, will not become fit to make into vessels, irrespective of how good the Tikun is.

Question #1 (Part 1): According to what we just explained - that the fact that the broken pieces are fit to repair does not help to render them fit to receive Tum'ah, until the owner designates them, in Perek Kol ha'Keilim (Shabbos 124b) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue over a vessel that breaks on Shabbos and is now fit for a different use, as to whether it is Muktzah because of 'Nolad' (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (Rebbi Meir); whereas they both agree that if it broke on Erev Shabbos, then it is not 'Nolad', and that one is permitted to move it on Shabbos, seeing as it is fit to use for a different purpose on Shabbos.

Question #1 (Part 2): So we see that it is considered a K'li regarding Shabbos; if so, it is also considered a K'li regarding Tum'ah - as Rava says in Perek Kol ha'Keilim (Shabbos 123a) with regard to a regular needle 'Since it is not a K'li with regard to Tum'ah, it is not a K'li with regard to Shabbos either?'

Question #2: It is also evident there - that we do not need Yichud regarding Shabbos, with regard to the case where Rava's shoes became dirtied with mud, and where his Shamash came, and taking a piece of clay, he proceeded to wipe the shoe clean. And the Gemara there attributes this to the fact had he been in the Chatzer, it would have been fit to cover a vessel with it.

Explanation #2: Really one needs Yichud with regard to Tum'ah, and when Rava said that, since regarding Tum'ah it is not considered a K'li, he means even through Yichud, because, since its point or its eye has been removed, Yichud is not effective ...

Clarification: ... and when the Mishnah says in Keilim (Perek 13, Mishnah 5) that a needle whose eye or point has been removed is Tahor; but if one prepared it to use for stretching, it becomes subject to Tum'ah, the Tana is not speaking where one merely designated it, but where one made some Tikun or other. But there where it is a K'li with regard to Tum'ah by means of Yichud only, regarding Shabbos, they did not institute Yichud.

Proof (Part 1): ... and so it is implied there when Abaye explained the case there according to Rava by 'Gulmi' (unfinished Keilim), since sometimes, the owner changes his mind and declares them finished Keilim ...

Proof (Part 2): ... implying that, even though it is Tahor, seeing as he has not yet changed his mind, one is nevertheless permitted to move it, seeing as it is fit to become a K'li through Yichud.

Question #1 (Part 1): There is however a Kashya from the case cited in Perek Bameh ha'Ishah Yotz'ah (Shabbos 58b) 'If someone made bells for a mortar, for a cot or for baby's cloths, they are Tamei if they have a striker, but Tahor if they don't. If their striker has been removed, their Tum'ah remains intact'.

Question #1 (Part 2): According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - because one can strike them with an earthenware vessel; according to Rebbi Yochanan - because one can use them to water a little child (Gimua)' ...

Question #1 (Part 3): ... from which we see that, as long as they are fit to be used, even without Yichud, they are subject to Tum'ah, even though he did not designate it for watering a child.

Proof #1: It clearly speaks where he did not designate it, since Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina argues, declining to render it Tamei because of Gimu'a, since he necessitates a Melachah that is similar to its original use, and if he had designated it, why should there be a difference between whether it never had a striker or it had one and it was removed?

Proof #2 (Part 1): And furthermore, since the Gemara asks 'And does Rebbi Yochanan not require a Melachah that is similar to its original use?' Does the Beraisa not state that one might have thought that if someone overturned a Sa'ah and sat on it, it would be Tamei ... '. And Rebbi Elazar says there that although we say by Medrasos 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachteinu', we do not say it by a Tamei Meis; whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, we do ...

Proof #2 (Part 2): ... and that can only be speaking where there is no Yichud, just as the case of where someone overturned a Sa'ah and sat on it, which speaks where he did not designate it for sitting, seeing as the Gemara precludes it from the Pasuk "asher Yeishev alav ha'Zav", 'one which is designated for sitting, to preclude this case where one says to him "Get up and let us do our work!" '.

Answer: The case of the bells is different, inasmuch as, even an ordinary layman is able to return the striker, as the Gemara says there. Consequently, we can say that it is considered a K'li vi a small thing - where one can still drink from it before the striker has been returned, even without Yichud.

Conclusion: And according to the one who holds 'since it is fit to bang on it with a K'li Cheres, Mah Nafshach there is no problem; If one normally requires a Melachah that is similar to the original one, here too, the fact that it fit to drink water in it does not suffice, since that is a different Melachah. And even if it is normally Tamei without Yichud, here, where it stands to revert to its original use, through returning the striker, if it would not be fit to bang it ... , it would not be Tamei, and the fact that one can drink water from it would not suffice, since we would then say 'Get up and let us do our work!'

Clarification: The Gemara now retracts from all the previous answers, and it is as if it said 'Ela'.

Question (Part 1): In Perek Tefilas ha'Shachar (B'rachos 26a) Rebbi Yehudah states that one may Daven Shachris until four hours. The Gemara asks there whether 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal' or 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chelal' ...

Question (Part 2): ... and it concludes 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal', similar to Rebbi Yehudah's other ruling there, where he says 'Tefilah ha'Musafin ad Sheva Sha'os', which is a case of 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal' (as is evident there ), and that is a Kula, seeing as one is now permitted to Daven until the end of the fourth hour?

Answer: There is a Chumra there too, inasmuch as we do not say that the time has passed and that consequently, one remains Chayav to Daven the entire fourth hour.

Question: How can one learn 'until the fourth hour' from Tefilas ha'Musafin? Perhaps one of them is 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal', whilst the other one is 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chelal', like we say here, in connection with 'the case of the rope that was attached to the bed', where 'five' is like more than five, and 'ten' is like less than ten?

Answer: Here is different, since they are both equal in that they are both le'Chumra.

Question: Rashi says that he does not understand the problem.

Answer (Part 1): The explanation is - 'There is pure water', which comes as a result of a wound, yet it is Kasher in the case of a kidney, and we do not learn from the case of 'Mugla' (pus).

Answer (Part 2): So we see that one cannot compare one T'reifus to another.

Explanation: Meaning that the Mishnah actually inserted 'Divrei Rebbi Shimon'.

Alternative Suggestion: We cannot explains it to mean that it follows the opinion of an individual ...

Refutation: ... because so what if it did, seeing as we learned in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos Daf 42b) that when there is a S'tam in the Mishnah and a Machlokes in the Beraisa, the Halachah is like the S'tam'.