1)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about a piece of earthenware that cannot stand by itself because it has...
1. ... a heavy handle, which causes it to topple over?
2. ... a base which is not flat, causing it to tilt and fall?
(b)According to the Tana Kama, it remains Tahor even if the point subsequently breaks off. Why is that?
(c)What does R. Yehudah say?
1)
(a)The Mishnah rules that a piece of earthenware that cannot stand by itself because it has...
1. ... a heavy handle, which causes it to topple over, or because it has ...
2. ... a base which is not flat, causing it to tilt and fall (see Tos. Yom Tov) - is Tahor.
(b)According to the Tana Kama, it remains Tahor even if the handle or the point subsequently breaks off because he holds that - once an earthenware vessel (see Tos. Yom Tov) breaks it cannot revert to the realm of Tum'ah.
(c)R. Yehudah maintains that - it can, in which case, once the handle or the point break off, the vessel is once again subject to Tum'ah.
2)
(a)According to R. Yehudah, an earthenware barrel which breaks and can now hold its contents lying on its side, is Tahor. How does he reconcile this with the Mishnah at the beginning of the second Perek, which renders broken pieces of earthenware subject to Tum'ah as long as they are able to stand unaided?
(b)What do the Chachamim say?
2)
(a)According to R. Yehudah, an earthenware barrel which breaks and can now hold its contents lying on its side (see Tos. Yom Tov), is Tahor. In his opinion, the Mishnah at the beginning of the second Perek, which renders broken pieces of earthenware subject to Tum'ah as long as they are able to stand unaided - is speaking specifically about the bottom of the vessel, but not the sides ...
(b)... whereas the Chachamim rule that - either way, it is Tamei (as we learned there).
3)
(a)What measure of dried figs must a shaky earthenware barrel not be able to hold whilst being carried, in order to be Tahor even though it is not actually broken?
(b)What is the equivalent Din regarding a broken piece of earthenware?
(c)What is the reason for ...
1. ... the latter ruling?
2. ... the Shi'ur of half a Kav in the former ruling?
3)
(a)If a shaky earthenware barrel cannot hold - half a Kav of dried figs whilst being transported, it is Tahor (even though it is not actually broken).
(b)The equivalent Din regarding a broken piece of earthenware is that - it cannot hold liquids (even though it can hold solids).
(c)The reason for ...
1. ... the latter ruling is - because otherwise one needs to bring another shard to place underneath this one, and we assume that once a broken piece of earthenware requires another piece of earthenware, the owner discards it.
2. ... the Shi'ur of half a Kav in the former ruling is - because that is the amount of one meal (see Tos. Yom Tov), and if a barrel cannot hold sufficient for one meal it is considered broken.
4)
(a)How does the Mishnah define a Gist'ra?
(b)What are the ramifications of this definition?
(c)Regarding a broken earthenware vessel with jagged edges, on what condition will those edges be subject to Tum'as ...
1. ... Avir?
2. ... Maga?
(d)What is the reason for the latter ruling?
4)
(a)The Mishnah defines a Gist'ra as - an earthenware vessel which is missing its handles (with which it is transported).
(b)The ramifications of this definition are that - despite the fact that the vessel itself remains intact, should it be shaky, it will become Tahor the moment it leaks.
(c)The jagged edges on a broken earthenware vessel - are subject to Tum'as ...
1. ... Avir - if an olive cannot slip between the jagged edges (bcause they are still considered part of the vessel).
2. ... Maga - if they allow olives to slip between the jagged edges ...
(d)... because they are then considered a Yad to the remainder of the vessel, which is Metamei be'Avir.
5)
(a)What does the Tana now say about the equivalent case, only where the vessel broke lengthwise and either of the two halves now lies on its side?
(b)The Tana describes this as resembling a Katadra. What is a Katadra?
(c)What is the significance of this ruling? Why does the Tana deem it fit to insert it?
5)
(a)The Tana issues the same ruling - in the equivalent case, where the vessel broke lengthwise and either of the two halves now lies on its side.
(b)The Tana describes this as resembling a Katadra - which is a woman's sedan chair which fits on to a wagon (see also Tos. Yom Tov).
(c)The Tana deems it fit to insert this case here - to teach us that the Halachah is like the Chachamim, who do not differentiate between a whole K'li Cheres and a Gist'ra, and not Like R. Yehudah (who confines the ruling to a whole one, as we explained in question 2).
6)
(a)Finally, the Tana declares the broken base of earthenware vessels called Kurfiyos (named after the place where they are manufactured) and Kosim (that are made in Tzidon) subject to Tum'ah, even though they are unable to stand by themselves. Why is that?
(b)Seeing as they cannot stand by themselves, how does one cook in them?
(c)How else are they able to stand without falling over?
6)
(a)Finally, the Tana declares the broken base of earthenware vessels called Kurfiyos (named after the place where they are manufactured) and Kosim (see Tos. Yom Tov [that are made in Tzidon]), subject to Tum'ah, even though they are unable to stand by themselves - because they are initially made to be supported (see Tos. Yom Tov).
(b)One cooks in them - by first placing them on a tripod.
(c)They are also able to stand without falling over - by sticking them into the ashes.
7)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses a K'li Cheres that consists of three Kelim, one inside the other. In the event that a Sheretz is found inside one of the inner ones, what will be the status of the outer ones, assuming that ...
1. ... the inner walls protrude above the outer ones?
2. ... the outer ones protrude above the inner ones?
(b)According to R. Yehudah, if all the walls are the same height, we consider from the middle of the middle wall and inwards to be the inside of the vessel, and from the middle of the middle wall and outwards, the back. What do the Chachamim say?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah?
7)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses a K'li Cheres that consists of three Kelim, one inside the other. In the event that a Sheretz is found inside one of the inner ones, the outer ones, assuming that ...
1. ... the inner walls protrude above the outer ones, will be - Tahor.
2. ... the outer ones protrude above the inner ones, will be - Tamei.
(b)According to R. Yehudah, if all the walls are the same hight, we consider from the middle of the middle wall and inwards to be the inside of the vessel, and from the middle of the middle wall and outwards, the back. The Chachamim hold that - all the remaining vessels are Tahor ...
(c)... and that is the Halachah.
8)
(a)At which stage of manufacture does a K'li Cheres become subject to Tum'ah?
(b)Why is that?
(c)Why might we otherwise have thought that it is not yet ready to become Tamei at that stage?
8)
(a)A K'li Cheres becomes subject to Tum'ah - once it is has been hardened in the oven (Tziruf) ...
(b)... because that is considered the completion of a K'li Cheres (see Tos. Yom Tov).
(c)We might otherwise have thought that it is not yet ready to become Tamei at that stage - since it still requires other preparations, such as smearing, smoothening and leveling the edges.
Hadran alach 'ha'Cheres'