(a)Shmuel disagrees with Rav. According to him, the Kohanim did not make a mistake. How does he interpret Chagai's She'eilah, and how can one infer this from the Pasuk there "v'Naga bi'Chenafo"?
(b)What proof does the Gemara attempt to bring for Shmuel from the Pasuk "Vayomer Chagai Im Yiga Temei Nefesh b'Chol Eileh, ha'Yitamei, Vaya'anu ... Yitamei"?
(c)How does Rav explain the fact that they erred by Tum'as Sheretz in the very same point which they seemed to know with regard to Tum'as Mes?
(d)According to Ravina, there is no difference between their knowledge of Tum'as Sheretz and Tum'as Mes (in fact, they were not fully conversant in either). Then how does he explain Rav's understanding of the Pasuk in b? How does he interpret "Temei Nefesh" mentioned there?
(a)According to Shmuel, it was not a Revi'i ba'Kodesh that Chagai asked the Kohanim, but a Chamishi: A Sheretz touched a pocket, the pocket touched bread, the bread, a stew, the stew, wine and the wine, oil or any other Kodshim food. This can also be inferred from the word "bi'Chenafo", which implies that the bread touched the pocket (after it had been touched by the Sheretz), rather than the Sheretz itself.
(b)When Chagai then asked them "Im Yiga Temei Nefesh b'Chol Eileh, ha'Yitamei, Vaya'anu ... Yitamei" - they did not err (since in that case, the oil or the food was a Revi'i). And we can assume, says Shmuel, that, since they did not err in the second She'eilah, they did not err in the first She'eilah, either.
(c)According to Rav, it is not surprising that they erred in the first She'eilah, but not in the second - since they were experts in the Din of Tum'as Mes - knowing that a Shelishi makes a Revi'i by Tum'as Mes, (in which the Kohanim needed to be expert), but not in that of Tum'as Sheretz - even though it was a question of exactly the same Halachah, because Tum'as Sheretz is not so closely connected with the laws of Kehunah.
(d)According to Ravina, Rav explains the Temei Nefesh mentioned by Chagai to mean, not quite what it says, but that the above things touched an actual corpse, in which case, the oil or the food was a Shelishi l'Tum'ah (not a Revi'i), which was never subject to doubt. This they answered correctly (though it is not clear why he needed to ask them such a simple question).
(a)How does Shmuel explain the fact that the Navi refers to them as Tamei? Does this not imply that there was something wrong with their reply?
(b)And how does he explain the continuation of the Pasuk "v'Chen Kol Ma'aseh Yedeihem", which definitely implies something positively bad, and not just rhetoric?
(a)According to Shmuel, what the Navi was saying was not 'These people are Tamei', but 'Are these people (who are conversant with the laws of Tum'ah) Tamei?'
(b)And when he continued "v'Chen Kol Ma'aseh Yedeihem" - he was referring to the future; he foresaw that they would sin during the era of the second Beis Hamikdash.
(a)We learnt earlier that, according to Rav, even Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer agrees that 'Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya' (water and oil) are subject to Tum'ah; whereas according to Levi, when Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer said 'Dachan', he was referring to Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya'. Why must Levi follow the opinion of Shmuel who says 'Dachan mi'Letamei Tum'as Acheirim' (but not Tum'as Atzman), in order to explain the Pasuk in Chagai?
(b)And why must Shmuel (who says that the Kohanim did not err - because Chagai was speaking about a Chamishi), hold like Rav (who says Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya) and not like Levi (who says Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya)?
(a)According to Levi, all liquid of Kodshim - even water and oil of the Mizbe'ach, are Tahor. In that case, how does he explain the Pasuk in Chagai, which clearly considers them Tamei? Unless he holds like Shmuel, in whose opinion Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer is confined to transmitting Tum'ah to others, but who agrees that they can become Tamei. According to Levi, the Kohanim did not err: first they answered that the oil and the food remain Tahor, because the wine, which became Tamei before them, could not transmit Tum'ah (like Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer). In the second She'eilah, Chagai asked them what if a Tamei Mes touched each one separately, to which they replied that they would all be Tamei. Both answers were correct.
(b)Shmuel says that the Kohanim did not err, because Chagai was speaking about a Chamishi. The wine could not be Metamei the oil, only because it was a Revi'i, but had it been a Sheni or a Shelishi, it would indeed have done so. Now if he were to hold like Levi, that, according to Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer, even Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya is Tahor, then the wine would not have been able to render the wine Tamei, whatever level of Tum'ah is was. Consequently, we are forced to say that Shmuel holds like Rav (who establishes Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer by Mashkeh Beis Mitbechaya i.e. blood, but not by Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya, which can even transmit Tum'ah, as well).
(a)'Blood, wine, oil and water which became Tamei inside the Azarah, are Tahor'. Like which of the above Amora'im does the Tana of this Beraisa hold?
(b)Can the blood etc. receive Tum'ah?
(c)Why do they transmit Tum'ah if they became Tamei before they were brought into the Azarah?
(d)What did Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi mean when he said that Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya are only Tahor in their place - in order not to clash with the Reisha of the above Beraisa?
(a)The Beraisa which says 'Blood, wine, oil and water which became Tamei inside the Azarah, do not render other things Tamei' - is a support for Levi, who holds 'Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya Dachan'.
(b)The blood etc. can certainly receive Tum'ah. Otherwise, how would we understand the prophecy of Chagai (as we proved above)?!
(c)If they became Tamei before they were brought into the Azarah - they will certainly continue to transmit Tum'ah, like they did before, because, how would this power be removed from them?
(d)When Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya is only Tahor in its place, he cannot have meant that the moment it leaves the Azarah, it is no longer Tahor - because then he would be arguing with the Reisha of the Beraisa that we just quoted. What he must therefore have meant, is that it would only become Tahor if it became Tamei inside the Azarah, but not if it became Tamei outside - like the Seifa of the Beraisa.
(a)In a Beraisa which holds like Rav, the Tana renders the blood and the water of Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya Tahor whether it became Tamei when it was inside a receptacle or when it was in a pool on the ground. Rebbi Shimon differentiates between the two. What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(b)Why is Rebbi Shimon strict with regard to Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya that is inside a receptacle?
(c)Then why is he lenient when it is lying in a pool on the ground?
(d)Does this distinction apply to blood as well as to water, or is it confined to water?
(a)Rebbi Shimon agrees that Mashkeh Beis Mitbechaya is Tahor if it became Tamei when it was lying in a pool on the ground, but not inside a receptacle.
(b)Rebbi Shimon is strict with regard to Mashkeh Beis Mitbechaya that is inside a receptacle - because he follows his own opinion earlier in the Sugya, that liquid is subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah - even as regards transmitting Tum'ah to others.
(c)He is lenient when it is lying in a pool on the ground - because then min ha'Torah, it has a Din of a Mikveh, and is not subject to Tum'ah at all (min ha'Torah, only mid'Rabanan).
(d)This distinction (of Rebbi Shimon) is confined to water, but not to blood (which, technically speaking, is also included in Mashkeh Beis Mitbechaya), which is not eligible for a Mikveh.
(a)How do we reconcile the Pasuk in Metzora "es Kol Besaro" from which we learn that a Mikveh must contain forty Sa'ah (water which can contain a human body) and the fact that a Mikveh is Kasher (min ha'Torah) as long as it contains a Revi'is ha'Lug of water?
(a)To Tovel people, a Mikveh must contain forty Sa'ah (as we learn from "es Besaro"), whereas for Toveling vessels, a 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai' teaches us that a Revi'is (sufficient to Tovel needles) will suffice.
(a)According to Rav Papa, 'Mashkeh Beis Mitbechaya Dachan' is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, and applies even if liquids are Metamei mid'Oraisa. What does the Gemara ask on this from Rebbi Eliezer, who says that there is no Tum'as Mashkin at all, because of the testimony of Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer?
(b)And what else does the Gemara ask from the distinction that Rebbi Shimon makes between liquid that became Tamei in a receptacle and liquid that became Tamei in a pool?
(a)Rebbi Eliezer says that there is no Tum'as Mashkin at all, because of the testimony of Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer. Now if 'Mashkeh Beis Mitbechaya Dachan' is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, as Rav Papa suggests - then how could we learn from Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer that there is no Tum'as Mashkin at all, since we cannot learn anything from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai?!
(b)And if, as Rav Papa suggests, 'Mashkeh Beis Mitbechaya Dachan' is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai', how can Rebbi Shimon make a distinction between liquid that became Tamei in a receptacle and liquid that became Tamei in a pool (a distinction that only makes sense if 'Mashkeh Beis Mitbechaya Dachan' is mid'Rabanan)?!
(a)It is clear from our Sugya that less than a Revi'is (ha'Lug) of liquid is subject to Tum'ah. How do we reconcile this with the accepted fact that the Shi'ur of Tum'as Mashkin is a Revi'is?
(a)The well-known ruling that gives the Shi'ur of Tum'as Mashkin as a Revi'is (ha'Lug) - refers to transmitting Tum'ah; whereas our Sugya, which holds that even less than a Revi'is of liquid is subject to Tum'ah refers to receiving Tum'ah (see Gilyon ha'Shas).
(a)What does the statement of Rebbi Yehudah 'la'Kol Tamei' mean, and what do we derive from it with regard to Tum'as Mashkin?
(b)The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Kelim says that any receptacle that becomes Tamei via its back, does not render its inside Tamei. Why is that?
(c)What comment does Rebbi Yehudah make there that contradicts his previous statement?
(a)Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'la'Kol Tamei' (with regard to Safek Mashkeh being Metamei others) means - that liquid is Metamei everything, even vessels. So we see from here that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, liquid can transmit Tum'ah even to vessels - mid'Oraisa.
(b)The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Kelim says that any receptacle that becomes Tamei via its back, does not render its inside Tamei - because its Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan, and the Chachamim decreed that its inside should remain Tahor in this case, to serve as a reminder that this Tum'ah is not d'Oraisa, and that one should not burn Terumah and Kodshim that touched it.
(c)Rebbi Yehudah comments there - that that applies when the cup became Tamei through contact with liquid (which is only Metamei mid'Rabanan), but not when it became Tamei through a Sheretz, which renders it Tamei mid'Oraisa. So we see from there that, in Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, liquid only transmits Tum'ah mid'Rabanan.
(a)Shmuel answers the previous question by saying that Rebbi Yehudah retracted from his original statement (and he really holds that liquid transmits Tum'ah to vessels only mid'Rabanan). Ravina maintains that Rebbi Yehudah did not retract. How then, does he reconcile his two contradictory statement?
(b)This answer however, is unacceptable - from the very words of Rebbi Yehudah himself, who differentiated in the Mishnahin Kelim between vessels that touched Tamei liquids and vessels that touched a Sheretz. How does that disprove Ravina's answer?
(c)We therefore remain with the original answer of Shmuel; namely, that Rebbi Yehudah retracted, and now holds that Tum'as Mashkin is mid'Rabanan. What are the two possible ways of explaining this retraction (in a way that he may hold like Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon, or he may hold like Rebbi Meir)?
(a)Ravina attempts to reply that Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (who holds that liquids are Metamei vessels min ha'Torah) is referring to liquid that became Tamei through a Sheretz; whereas Rebbi Yehudah in Kelim (who holds that it is Metamei only mid'Rabanan), is referring to liquid that became Tamei because someone touched it.
(b)If Ravina's answer were correct, then why did Rebbi Yehudah himself (in the Mishnah in Kelim) differentiate between a vessel that became Tamei through liquid and one that became Tamei through a Sheretz? Why did he not differentiate between liquid that became Tamei through hands and liquid that became Tamei through a Sheretz (from which we are forced to deduce that according to Rebbi Yehudah, all liquid transmits mid'Rabanan, but not mid'Oraisa)?!
(c)Rebbi Yehudah may have retracted only from the fact that liquid is Metamei vessels - but concedes that it is Metamei food (like Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon); or he may have retracted completely - to hold like Rebbi Meir, that Tum'as Mashkin is entirely mid'Rabanan.