1)

(a)The Mishnah in Kelim discusses three kinds of wagons ('Shalosh Agalos Hein'). A wagon that is 'Asuyah ke'Katadra' is - a small wagon (shaped like a sedan-chair) which is made for sitting on (during transportation).

(b)The Tana rules that a wagon that is ...

1. ... Asuyah ke'Katadra, is Metamei Medras - precisely because it is made specifically to sit on.

2. ... a long wagon that is also used to transport goods, is Tamei Tum'as Meis and all other forms of Tum'ah, but not Tum'as Medras - because it is not made exclusively to sit or to lie on.

3. ... a wagon made for transporting stones is not subject to Tum'ah at all - because it has large holes underneath (and any Kli which has holes larger than a pomegranate, is Tahor).

2)

(a)A large chest, whose door is at the side, and on top of which people tend to sleep, is Metamei Tum'as Medras - because it can be used without asking the person who is sleeping on top to get off). But if the door is on top - and the person who is sleeping there will have to get off when ever it is needed ('Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachteinu'), then it is not subject to Tum'as Medras.

(b)It is however subject to other Tum'os - even to become an Av ha'Tum'ah through contact with a Meis, and a Rishon through other Tum'os.

(c)When Rebbi Yochanan said (in Perek Bamah Ishah) that 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachteinu' applies to Tum'as Meis, he was not talking in the context of Tum'as Medras, but about a vessel which broke, which, in his opinion, is only subject to Tum'ah if one can say 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachteinu' - by which he means that it is fit to perform its original function.

(d)A 'Teivah ha'Ba'ah be'Midah' (a wooden chest which is so large, that people tend to refer to it by its measurement) - is not subject to Tum'ah at all, because it is too large to carry when it is full (as we learned on the previous Amud). Nor is it Metamei because of Tum'as Medras, since the window, via which one uses the inside, is on top, in which case, it is like the wagon with the door on top - which we just discussed.

3)

(a)Rav Z'vid explains the Beraisa 'Medras Kli Cheres, Tahor. Rebbi Yossi Omer, Af ha'Sefinah' like this: 'Medras Kli Cheres, Tahor, u'Maga'o Tamei; u'Sefinah shel Cheres, Temei'ah (like Chananyah)'. Rebbi Yossi Omer, Af ha'Sefinah Tehorah, (like the Tana of our Mishnah). Rav Papa queries this however - from Rebbi Yossi's use of the word 'Af', since the Tana Kama did not speak about anything being Tahor Maga, that Rebbi Yossi should add that the boat is Tahor too.

(b)So Rav Papa explains it like this - 'Medras Kli Cheres, Tahor, u'Maga'o, Tamei; ve'Shel Etz, Bein Medraso, u'Vein Maga'o, Tamei. u'Sefinas ha'Yarden, Tehorah (like our Tana). Rebbi Yossi Omer, Af ha'Sefinah Temei'ah (like Chananyah).

(c)Chizkiyah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Ish Asher Yishkav be'*Mishkavo*" and de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael from "ke'Mishkav Nidasah Yihyeh Lah" - that the Torah compares the Mishkav to the person himself, to say that, just as he can become Tahor by going to the Mikvah, so too, the Mishkav. In other words, a Mishkav that cannot be Toveled - such as one made of earthenware (which is never subject to Tevilah) is not subject to Tum'as Mishkav and Moshav.

4)

(a)A Mapatz is - a cane mat ...

(b)... which, we would have thought, is not subject to Tum'ah at all, because it is a flat wooden vessel, which is not subject to Tum'as Sheretz, in which case it ought not to be subject to Tum'as Meis either.

(c)The Beraisa learns that it is however, from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from small earthenware jars - which, although they remain Tahor if a Zav sits or lies on them, are nevertheless Tamei Tum'as Meis; in which case a Mapatz, which is Tamei through a Zav, should certainly become Tamei through a Meis!

(d)Rebbi Ila'a now asks on this 'Kal-va'Chomer' from the previous Derashah (from the two Pesukim in Vayikra) - that seeing as a Mapatz does not require Tevilah, how can it be subject to Tum'as Meis?

5)

(a)A Mapatz is not subject to Tevilah, because, like food, flat wooden vessels are not mentioned in the Parshah of Tevilas Kelim in Matos.

(b)Rebbi Chanina answers that the Torah includes a Mapatz with vessels that are subject to Tum'as Meis (despite the fact that it is not subject to Tevilah) because other wooden receptacles - are.

(c)Rebbi Ila'a unimpressed with Rebbi Chanina's answer, commented - 'May Hash-m save us from your opinion'!

(d)To which Rebbi Chanina countered - 'On the contrary, 'May Hash-m save us from your opinion'!

6)

(a)We vindicate Rebbi Chanina by citing two (seemingly contradictory) Pesukim. The two (seemingly contradictory) Pesukim in Vayikra "ve'Ish Asher Yishkav be'*Mishkavo*", and "ve'*Chol ha'Mishkav* Asher Yishkav Alav ha'Zav" appear to clash - in that the former implies that the Torah does not compare a Mishkav to the person who sits on it - and that all Mishkavim are subject to Tum'as Mishkav; whereas the latter implies that only a Mishkav which is subject to Tevilah, like the person who sat on it, is subject to Tum'as Moshav.

(b)We reconcile them - by establishing the latter Pasuk by where there is no Tevilah in that species at all (such as earthenware Kelim), and the former one by where there is (such as flat wooden vessels) ...

(c)... e.g. Mapatz - like Rebbi Chanina.

7)

(a)Rava extrapolates that there is no Tum'as Medras by earthenware vessels from the Pasuk in "ve'Chol Kli Pasu'ach Asher Ein Tzamid Pasil Alav, Tamei Hu" - which implies that if it does have a sealed lid, then it is Tahor, and who's to say that the Torah does not incorporate an earthenware vessel which was designated for his wife to sit on (even when she is a Nidah)? A proof that there is no Tum'as Medras by earthenware vessels.

(b)Seeing as there is no Tum'as Medras by sealed earthenware vessels - there is no Tum'as Heset either (See Tosfos DH 'she'Tehorim').

8)

(a)Our Mishnah permits sowing - five different kinds in a patch of six Tefachim by six Tefachim.

(b)These are hinted in the following way 1. "Totzi"; 2. "Tzimchah"; 3.&4. "Zeru'ehah"; 5. "Tatzmi'ach" (see Tosfos DH 'Minayin').

(c)Each seed (or seeds) fills one row of minimal width, with a minimal space left at the end of the row, so that the seeds should not actually mix with those in the row adjacent to it.

(d)The fact that there is no three-Tefachim space between the rows does not create an Isur of Kil'ayim - which is based on the seeds mixing rather than nurturing from one another. And the fact that the rows are all facing different directions is enough to negate the Isur Kil'ayim.

9)

(a)The Tana cannot mean that one sows one seed in each corner and one in the middle - because if that was the case, one would be permitted another four seeds in the middle of each row (clearly then, the Tana is teaching how to make most use of the given space, not how to plant the most kinds of seeds).

(b)A space of three Tefachim is required between the middle seed and rows - because that is the distance must be left between one species and another whenever there is no Heker (a sign to demonstrate that they are not growing together).

(c)The reason for the three Tefachim distance is due to the fact - that seeds feed from one another at a distance of one and a half Tefachim.