Assertion (Ri): This is even if its volume is 40 Sa'im.

Question #1 (R. Yitzchak): Why did [Rava] mention Chananya? Also Rabanan do not argue about this!

They are Metaher Sefinas ha'Yarden due to "Aniyah b'Lev Yam", but not because it is not considered Tiltul! (Tosfos ha'Rosh answers that indeed, Rava mentioned Chananya only because through him we learn about Chachamim.)

Question #2: It seems that Sefinas ha'Yarden is moved even through people. If it were moved only through oxen, if so, from our Mishnah in Kelim, which teaches that Sefinas ha'Yarden is Tamei, he could prove that according to Chananya, moving through oxen is considered Tiltul! (Chasam Sofer points out that there is no such Mishnah. Rashash says that sometimes "Mishnah" includes Beraisos. Even if it is only a Beraisa, surely Rava knew it. If not, he should have said "according to R. Chanina ben Akavya", for Rava could not learn from the Beraisa above alone. Perhaps Chananya is Metaher even Sefinas ha'Yarden, because Lo Shmei Tiltul! - PF)

Implied question: Why didn't he bring a proof from "if [the wagon] is like a bed, it is Tamei Mes"?

Answer: He cannot bring a proof from there, for we can say that it is carried through people.

Question (Ri): Why was this brought?

Suggestion: It is because it is the Seifa of [the Mishnah cited above] "there are three wagons."

Rejection: If so, it should have brought [the Mishnah of] three bowls, which is taught in between!

Explanation: This discusses when its opening is on top. If its opening is on the side, it is proper for Midras. It would not need to movable full and empty, like it says in Bechoros (38a)!

Question (R. Tam): Why did Rav Papa add to the text "of wood..." and Sefinas ha'Yarden? He should have just reversed the first answer, that the first Tana says that a boat of Cheres is Tahor, like our Tana, and R. Yosi says that even a boat is Tamei, like Chananyah;

R. Yosi said "even", for the first Tana said that Maga [of Klei Cheres] is Tamei!

Answer (R. Tam): The text of R. Chananel is correct. In Rav Zvid's answer, it says that a boat of Cheres is Tahor, like our Tana, and R. Yosi says that even a boat is Tamei, like Chananya, like Maga of Klei Cheres;

[Rav Papa] asked, why does it say "even"? Now (according to Rav Zvid), R. Yosi does not address the first Tana's primary teaching, rather, the inference from his words, that we infer that Maga [of Kli Cheres] is Tamei!

Rather, Rav Papa says that it means as follows... a boat of Cheres is Tamei, like Chananya. R. Yosi says that even a boat is Tahor, like our Tana, just like Midras of Klei Cheres, which the first Tana explicitly said that it is Tahor.

Implied question: "Mikveh" is not precise, for a Zav needs [to immerse in] Mayim Chayim!

Answer: [Chizkiyah mentioned a Mikveh,] because he wanted to mention a Mikveh regarding Mishkav and Moshav;

We do not need [for this Hekesh] that Mishkav and Moshav require Mayim Chayim, like a Zav requires. We need only that [Mishkav u'Moshav] resemble [a Zav] a little, that it can become Tahor.

Question: If a clump of Se'or (sourdough) was designated to sit on, it receives Tum'as Mishkav, like it says in Chulin (129a), even though it cannot become Tahor in a Mikveh!

Answer (R. Tam): Things in its species, i.e. Gidulei Karka (things that grow from the ground) can become Tahor in a Mikveh, e.g. wooden Kelim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We discuss a wooden mat.

Rebuttal (R. Tam): Pashut wooden Kelim can become Tahor in a Mikveh, like is proven in Sukah (16a)!

It says there that a bed can become Tahor dissembled, and we establish this to discuss Pashut wooden Kelim, e.g. the long side board and two legs [attached to it]!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Here we discuss a mat of bark or reeds. Its Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan, except for Tum'as Midras, like I explained above (66a).

Explanation (Ri): We learn that Pashut wooden Kelim can become Tahor in a Mikveh from "v'Chol Kli Etz Tischat'u", which implies even if they are Pashut, similar to metal Kelim that are written there.

Implied question: It says "v'Chol Ma'aseh Izim." We should say that just like what is made from goats [in the Parshah] refers only to what [can become Tamei, i.e.] can be moved full and empty, also [only such] wooden Kelim [can become Tahor]!

Answer: We can learn [to require that it is movable full and empty] only regarding Sak, like it says "va'Yhi Hem Merikim Sakeihem."

Support: This is why everywhere we say "just like Sak is movable full and empty...", and we do not say "just like Beged is movable full and empty...", even though also Beged is written with Sak - "Oh Beged Oh Ohr Oh Sak."

Question: [The Tana] could make a Kal v'Chomer from [measures that hold] a Se'ah and half-Se'ah and a box whose opening is on top! They are not Metamei Midras, but they are Metamei b'Mes. A mat, which is Metamei Midras, all the more so it is Metamei b'Mes!

Answer: We cannot learn from them, for they become an Av ha'Tum'ah. A mat, since it cannot become Tahor in a Mikveh, cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah, like is proven in Eruvin (104b).

Question: He could make a Kal v'Chomer from big flasks. They are not Metamei Midras, like it says here, that Midras Klei Cheres is Tahor, but they are Metamei Mes!

Answer: He prefers to make a Kal v'Chomer from small flasks, which are Tahor from all Tum'os of a Zav.

Question: What is the source that Mayanos (bodily fluids) of a Zav are not Metamei small flasks?

Granted, hair of a Zav is not Metamei them, because we require that they be proper for his skin to touch (their interiors), like Rashi explained. We learn from "Besar ha'Zav" to hair (that his hair is Metamei only if his skin could touch);

However, regarding his saliva, it is written explicitly "v'Chi Yarok ha'Zav b'Tahor." Obviously, we do not require that it is proper for his skin to touch!

Question: How can we make a Kal v'Chomer from small flasks? Small flasks receive Tum'ah from their airspace. You cannot learn to a mat [which does not]!

Suggestion: We make a Kal v'Chomer as follows. A Zav is lenient, for he is not Metamei small flasks, yet he is Metamei a mat. A Mes is stringent. It is Metamei small flasks. All the more so it should be Metamei a mat!

Rejection: You cannot learn from a Zav, for he is Metamei Mishkav and Moshav!

Answer: We can say that other Kelim are Mochi'ach (prove that the law does not depend on receiving Tum'ah from their airspace), for they do not receive Tum'ah from their airspace, and they receive Tum'as Mes. I can say similarly about a mat!

[If you will ask that] one cannot learn from other Kelim, because they can become an Av ha'Tum'ah, small flasks are Mochi'ach (they cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah, yet they receive Tum'as Mes).

Explanation: [A Zav] cannot touch inside them, because their opening is narrow (even a small toe cannot enter);

Also through Heset (moving) they do not receive Tum'ah, for if Tum'as Maga does not apply [to something], Tum'as Heset does not apply.

Question: If so, a Kli Cheres surrounded with a Tzamid Pasil (hermetic seal) should not receive Tum'as Heset, but in Nidah (5b) it says that it is not saved from retroactive Tum'ah of a Nidah! (Chachamim decreed that when a woman finds that she became Nidah, she is Metamei what she touched or moved in the last 24 hours, or from the last time she checked herself, whichever is smaller.)

Also in Gitin (61b) it says "we should be concerned lest his wife moved [a Kli Cheres with a Tzamid Pasil] when she was Nidah!"

Answer (R. Tam): [A Kli Cheres with] a Tzamid Pasil is considered that Tum'as Maga applies, for it is destined to be opened.

Implied question: Why is this unlike a bone [with marrow inside] of a Neveilah? We say in Chulin (126b) that since the bone was not yet punctured (to enable touching the meat inside), it is considered Mechusar Ma'aseh. Even if he intended to puncture it, it is not Metamei b'Masa (since Tum'as Maga does not apply to it, even though he will open it)!

Answer: There, Stam it is not destined to be opened, just he intended. Stam, [a Kli Cheres with] a Tzamid Pasil is destined to be opened.

Remark: From the Kal v'Chomer here, we hold everywhere that anything that is Metamei Midras is Metamei Mes.

Question: A Kli Cheres surrounded with a Tzamid Pasil should be Mochi'ach (disprove this Kal v'Chomer)! It receives Tum'ah from a Zav through Heset, like I explained above (in the previous Tosfos), but it is does not receive Tum'as Mes!

Answer (R. Tam): You cannot say that a Tzamid Pasil is Mochi'ach, for it receives Tum'ah from a Zav through Heset, because it is as if the Zav touched inside, like we say (in Toras Kohanim) "what touching is like touching all of it? This is Heset (moving);

[Also] regarding Mes, if a k'Zayis of Mes were in it, it would be Tamei!

Question: In Bava Kama (25b) it brings [the Kal v'Chomer] about a mat here, and learns from it both Tum'as Erev (one immerses it, and it is a Tevul Yom until nightfall, and then it is totally Tahor) and Tum'as Shiv'ah (it requires Haza'ah with Mei Chatas);

How do Tum'as Erev and Tum'as Shiv'ah apply, since it can never become Tahor?!

Answer #1: This Kal v'Chomer helps also for Pashut wooden Kelim special for Midras. They receive Tum'as Mes, and [the Kal v'Chomer] brings to Tum'as Shiv'ah.

Answer #2: The Beraisa discusses all mats, whether of wood, bark or reeds. Regarding wood it says there that [the Kal v'Chomer] brings to Tum'as Shiv'ah, for it can become Tahor in a Mikveh.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If it receives Tum'as Midras, how can it save? Anything Tamei does not block Tum'ah! Rather, this shows that it does not receive Tum'as Midras. Therefore, a Kli Cheres surrounded with a Tzamid Pasil is Tahor from all Tum'ah;

Also through Heset it is not Tamei, for anything to which Tum'as Maga does not apply, Tum'as Heset does not apply.

Rebuttal: Surely a Kli Cheres surrounded with a Tzamid Pasil receives Tum'as Heset, like is proven in Nidah (5b) and Gitin (61b), like I explained above (DH she'Tehorim b'Zav)!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): He infers since it says "v'Chol Kli" - do we not discuss [even] if he designated them for Ishto Nidah? We should be Metaher it from all Tum'os that come from its outside, since it says v'Chol. Therefore, even if he designated it for sitting, they are Tehorim;

However, they receive Tum'as Heset, which comes through the inside. We consider it as if he touched inside, like we say (in Toras Kohanim) "what touching is like touching all of it? This is Heset.

Explanation #3 (Ri): [Rava] did not want to say that the verse discusses in every case, even if Ishto Nidah sat on them or moved them. (Maharam - it receives Tum'as Heset. If the verse discussed every case, why does it save when she moved it? It is Tamei!)

Rather, if he designated a Kli Cheres for Ishto Nidah it is Tahor, for a Kli Cheres does not receive Tum'as Midras;

If it were Tamei, it would not save through a Tzamid Pasil, even if she did not sit on it;

Even though [a Kli Cheres] is not Mekabel Tum'ah from its outside, since it can receive Tum'ah through Midras, it should not block Tum'ah in Ohel ha'Mes. The Ri was unsure about this. (Rashash - he did not understand how it can receive Tum'as Midras but not receive Tum'ah [of Mes] from its outside, for whatever receives Tum'as Midras, it receives Tum'as Mes!)

Explanation: Some say that we learn that the patch is six (by six) since it is written "Lechayav ka'Arugas ha'Bosem", and Lechayav connotes an expression of Luchos, and Luchos (ha'Bris) were six by six. This implies that also the patch is this size.

Explanation: [The species on the sides] are in the middle of each side, like it is brought in the Gemara, like I will explain b'Ezras Hash-m.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Kil'ai Zera'im is mid'Rabanan.

Rebuttal (Ri): It says in Chulin (115a) "Kil'ai Zera'im should be forbidden [to eat due to "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah"], for the Torah forbade you [to plant it]"!

Suggestion: Grafting [different species of] trees is called "Kil'ai Zera'im" (the Torah forbids only this).

Rejection #1: In Kidushin (39a) we learn [the Isur] from "Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim." (Shabbos Shel Mi - it is unreasonable to say that this forbids grafting, but not sowing diverse species. Maharam - there, we learn the Isur of grafting because this is written adjacent to "Behemtecha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim." If not, we would not establish it to discuss grafting, for the words connotes unlike this. Therefore, it is difficult to say that the Gemara calls grafting Kil'ai Zera'im! Maharsha - "Mishum..." is not a rejection. Rather, it is the basis of the suggestion why the Gemara calls grafting "Kil'ai Zera'im." The coming word in Tosfos "v'Od" is a mistake; it must be deleted. The rejection begins "d'Hasam..."

Rejection #2: In Kidushin (39a) it says about that matter itself "Behemtecha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim" - just like the Isur of your animal is crossbreeding, the Isur of your field is grafting. And just like the Isur of your animal is both in Eretz Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz, also Isur of your field is both in Eretz Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz;

The Gemara asks "but it says Sadcha" (which implies what is yours, i.e. in Eretz Yisrael), and answers that Sadcha excludes Zera'im in Chutz la'Aretz.

Rejection #3: In Bechoros (54a) it connotes explicitly that [Kil'ai Zera'im] is forbidden mid'Oraisa!

Implied question: R. Yoshiyah says that he is not liable until he sows wheat, barley and a grape seed together by hand! (This implies that he does not forbid Kil'ai Zera'im mid'Oraisa.)

Answer: That is to be liable for Kil'ai ha'Kerem "Lo Sizra Karmecha", but he agrees that one is liable for "Lo Sizra Sadcha" (even without all three).