Daf 20

1) There are eleven extra strictnesses that we place on Kodesh more than Trumah. (According to R' Ilay, it's only ten, as we'll explain.) These are the eleven:

1. You may Toivel utensils within other utensils for Trumah, but not for Kodesh.
2. If Tumah touches the back, or the inside, or the handle (or a small compartment to place the dip); it only makes Tamai that part, and not the other parts, by Trumah, but not by Kodesh.
3. If someone carries Tumas Medris in one hand, he can carry Trumah in the other hand, but not Kodesh. [Rashi says since it's protected in an earthenware that can't be Tamai from its outside. Tosfos asks: if we're considering the carrier as an Av Hatumah that would make the utensil Tamai if it could touch its inside, then it should make it Tamai by moving it. Also, the Toras Kohanim says that (he's not an Av) and doesn't make other people or utensils Tamai. Rather, he wouldn't cause Tumah even if he touched the inside of the utensil, as long as he doesn't touch the Trumah.]
4. The clothes of those who eat Trumah are considered Tumas Medris to those who eat Kodshim.
5. When you Toivel utensils for Trumah, you don't need to untie any ropes on it (and it won't be considered as a Chatzitza) and you don't need to dry it out either, but you do for Kodesh. [Rashi says that, if you don't dry it out, the water would be a Chatzitza. Tosfos says: we don't say that the water becomes part of the Mikvah when it touches the Mikvah water like we usually say. Therefore, it will remain Tamai water and make the utensil Tamai again.]
6. Any utensil that was finished to make sure it was Tahor [Tosfos: i.e., they only guarded it after it's finished, since, beforehand, it's not susceptible to Tumah]; it's Tahor for Trumah, but not for Kodesh.
7. A utensil combines all the items inside it for Kodesh (i.e., if you touched one item, it's as if you touched all items inside), but not for Trumah.
8. Kodesh can become a Revei L'Tumah, and Trumah can only be a Shlishi.
9. One hand can make his other hand Tamai by Kodesh, but not by Trumah. Therefore, if one hand gets touched by Kodesh, you need to wash both hands since it's assumed that the Tamai hand touched his other hand.
10. You may eat Trumah that didn't become susceptible to Tumah (since it wasn't Muchshur) with Tamai hands, but you can't eat Kodesh.
11. An Onnein, or someone who was Tamai who went to the Mikvah but didn't bring his Korbanos yet; when they finish the Aninus, or they bring the Korbanos, they need to Toivel to eat Kodshim, but not for Trumah.

2) [Tosfos says: it seems here, and in many other places, that, when the formally Tamai person brings his Korbanos, he's completely Tahor and he doesn't need to pass a night to become Tahor. (Also, you only need a Tevila when someone brings his Tahor Korbanos if he was Tamai to be able to eat Korbanos, and not when a convert brings his Korbanos.) The same by all rabbinical Tumos, you don't need to wait until night to be Tahor except for a non-Jew that they decree him to be completely like a Zav. That's why the Kohein Gadol who talked to a non-Jew on Yom Kippur and some spit fell on him, he couldn't finish the Avodah, and he didn't just Toivel and continued doing the Avodah.

They made the one who will burn the Parah Adumah rabbinically Tamai to show the Tzodokim that someone who was Toiveled and didn't wait until night can still burn it. Although we just said that, usually, rabbinical Tumah doesn't need to wait until nightfall to be completely Tahor; we're stricter when it comes to the Taharah of the Parah Adumah.]

3) [Tosfos says: the Gemara in Pesachim says that if you find a knife Erev Pesach, you can assume it's Tahor since the owner would need to Toivel it the day before to make sure that it passed a nightfall so he can use it on Kodshim. The reason the Gemara wasn't worried that it had a rabbinical Tumah that doesn't need to be left until night and the owner planned to Toivel it Erev Pesach; since it's only a Safeik on a rabbinical prohibition, we can be lenient. Although we should say it's Tamai since the owner wasn't focused on guarding it after it was lost; they only say that it becomes Tamai through losing focus when it's in his hands, but he didn't guard it. However, it doesn’t become Tamai if it's not in anyone's possession.]

Daf 21

4) R' Ilay holds the reason that you don't Toivel a utensil in another utensil because it's a Chatzitza, since the inner utensil weighs down on the outer utensil. (Therefore, he only has ten strictnesses since this is counted as one decree with untying the ropes, since they're both because of Chatzitza.) Rava says: we're afraid that you might come to Toivel needles and forks in a utensil that doesn't have an opening the size of a pipe. After all, we don't consider an opening to combine any water to be part of the Mikvah unless they're connected by an opening the size of a pipe. So, the needles in the small-mouth utensil is in water that's not part of the Mikvah, so it wasn't Toiveled. (The size of a pipe is a diameter of two finger's width.) [Tosfos explains: the rules of combining Mikvos. If the two bodies of water are on level ground, you only need a connection of dampness to combine them if it's wet enough to make something else wet. If there is a wall between them, there needs to be an opening in the wall that's the size of a pipe. However, if the water goes a little over the wall, you only need the water to be the size of a garlic peel above the wall for the width of the size of a pipe (i.e., two finger's width).]

Daf 22

5) The practical difference between Rava and R' Ilay; if you Toivel in a very wide mouth basket. There's no worry about it not being as large as a pipe, but you're still worried about a Chatzitza.

6) If the outer utensil is Tamai and needs Teveila, the needles inside it is Tahor even if its mouth is not the size of a pipe. After all, the water inside the outer utensil needs to be considered connected to Toivel the outer utensil. So, once it's considered connected for the outer utensil, it's considered connected for the inner utensil and it's Tahor. [Tosfos points out: this is another practical difference between the two reasons; if the outer one is Tamai. You still need to worry about a Chatzitza, but you don't need to worry that the utensil's mouth is too small.]

7) Really, the argument between Rava and R' Ilay is a Tanaic argument. The Tanna Kama says: if you have a wide basket full of utensils, it's Tahor both by Trumah and by Kodshim. Abbah Shaul says it's only for Trumah and not for Kodshim. [Tosfos asks: I don't know why it's not B'dieved Tahor, like we'll say later if he carries Kodshim and a Medris at the same time, it's B'dieved Tahor.]

8) The difference between Kodesh and Trumah: the worry is not because of Chaveirim (people who were very careful in Taharos) since they know the Halachos of Chatzitza and the Halachos of combining Mikvos. However, we need to decree not to do it by Kodshim since an Am Ha'aretz might watch him and learn from him to Toivel this way. However, you don't need to worry about Trumah since we don't accept his Trumah, and it's not going to create animosity since he has Kohanim who are Am Ha'aratzim to give it to. However, we accept their Kodshim, since, if we don't, they have no other place to bring it, it will lead to animosity, and they'll build an alter to bring them, as R' Yossi's says. R' Pappa explains: from this, we accept their testimony these days for this reason. [Tosfos says: we also make Ziman with them. The Ri says: even without this, nowadays, no one could decide that the title of Talmid Chachum applies to him that he can't have Ziman with an Am Ha'aretz. We don't consider ourselves that much of a Talmid Chachum regarding this Halacha.]

9) [Rashi says: we only accept Trumah from an Am Ha'aretz at the time of the wine or oil pressing since he hires a Talmid Chachum to make sure all his utensils are Tahor. Tosfos says: from there, it seems that it's a good standard of Taharah from Halacha. However, the Gemara in Beitza says that, even according to the opinion that a barrel that was open before Yom Tov is permitted after Yom Tov (and we don't say it became Tamai from the touch of an Am Ha'aretz) because they needed to be lenient at the end, or else nobody would sell it in the first place over Yom Tov. This seems that it's a special rabbinical decree to lower the standard of Tumah in these instances by Am Ha'aratzim. (See Turei Even who asks how can you compare them? Perhaps it's a special decree by Yom Tov, but not by the press.)]

10) The reason that we're allowed to borrow utensils from an Am Haaretz and we're not worried about Tumah since he might see us Toiveling and he'll Toivel the wrong way, we must say that we need to Toivel it when we borrow it. [Tosfos asks: this should be simple, since despite anything else, it's anyhow Tamai since they decreed Tumah on an Am Ha'aretz.]

11) If an Am Ha'aretz has an earthenware utensil (that's either properly covered to protect what's inside it from Tumah, or placed in a skylight to protect the Tumah from going into the upstairs, but if it's Tamai, it won't protect); Beis Hillel held that it protects, and Beis Shammai says that it doesn't protect. Beis Shammai holds that it only protects food and drink and other earthenware utensils that we won't borrow anyhow, and they won't accept from us to hold that it's Tamai. However, the metal utensils are Tamai. [Rashi explains: since they would listen to us since you can Toivel it. Tosfos asks: why would they listen to us more than the other items? If you want to say because there is a fix to metal utensils, but not to the other items: but water can also become Tahor by attaching it to a Mikvah. Another question: we don't assume that they'll Toivel it, so we need to Toivel it ourselves. (See Mahrsha) another question: once we tell them that the earthenware is Tahor, they won't listen to us that the metal is Tamai (since they're dependent on each other). Rather, there is no practical difference to consider it Tamai but by items that we might borrow.] The reason there is a practical difference that it's Tamai, even though we anyhow Toivel any utensil we borrow; we must say that's only by regular Tumah, but here we're worried about Tumah of a corpse, and someone doesn't borrow a utensil for seven days to be able to make it Tahor. [Tosfos says: however, regularly, we don't have to worry about the borrowed utensils that it was Tamai from a corpse since it's not common.]

12) The Gemara asks: we see that an Am Ha'aretz is believed by Teveila of a corpse Tumah [Rashi explains: therefore, we shouldn't need Teveila when we borrow. Tosfos asks: we already said that they only Toiveled utensils that was Tamai for one day, but not those that were Tamai for seven days, since they can't borrow it for that duration. Rather, Tosfos explains: the Gemara is asking, why is Beis Shammai worried that the Am Ha'aretz's utensil is Tamai that it doesn't block Tumah, if we see here that they are believed to keep their utensils Tahor when they Toivel it.] Abaya answers: he's only believed by Teveila on his body, but not on utensils.

13) Rava answers: both refer to utensils, however, he's believed to say that he didn't Toivel with one utensil inside another, but he's not believed when he claims he Toiveled one utensil inside another, but he made sure that the mouth was bigger than a pipe. This is similar to what we believe them to say that his fruit was never Muchshur for Tumah, but they're not believed to say that it was Muchshur, but it never became Tamai.

14) The Gemara asks on Abaya that we don't believe an Am Ha'aretz that he waited three days before sprinkling on him the Parah waters, and he needs to wait three days. Abaya answers: the reason we believe him on the Teveila is because we were strict by him at the first three days (since he's now very careful to Toivel since he's afraid if he wasn't, the rabbis will require him to do other precautions.). [Tosfos says: therefore, when we believe him on his utensils, that's only to say that it never became Tamai, but not to say that it was sprinkled on. After all, if not, then it will be difficult that we're strict by sprinkling by a man, but lenient by utensils; and we're lenient by a man for the Teveila, and not by utensils.]

15) The six first strictnesses has some connection to Torah Tumah and, therefore, they were also strict by “Chulin that someone keeps it as if it was Kodesh,” but the last five has no connection to Torah Trumah, so they weren't strict by “Chulin being kept as if it was Kodesh,” but only by actual Kodesh. [Tosfos says: there is a decree to make a woman retroactively Tamai for twenty-four hours from when she sees blood by Kodshim. The reason it's not counted among the first ones since it doesn't have any connection to Torah Tumah. It doesn't even count it in the last ones since it's different, since there was no knowledge of the Tumah at the time and it doesn't refrain you from dealing with Kodshim. The reason we're even strict by “Chulin that's kept as Kodesh” despite not having any apparent connection to Torah Tumah, we can say that it does have a connection since the blood could have been released earlier before it was discovered.]

16) [Tosfos points out: even though a utensil combines all that's inside it from the Torah by Kodshim, it's considered as not having any connection since it's not applicable at all by Chulin.]

17) The decree of making only Tamai the part of the utensil that you touched: if the outside of the utensil is touched by Tamai liquid (that's only rabbinically Tamai, and it was decreed to be Tamai so not to be confused with the spit, or urine, of a Zav, so they made a distinction to show that it's rabbinic so not to burn Trumah and Kodshim over it), it only makes the outside Tamai, but not the inside, rim and handles. However, if it touched the inside, it makes Tamai the whole utensil. However, this is only regarding Trumah, but with Kodshim, no matter where the liquid touched, it makes the whole utensil Tamai.

18) If you carry a Medris, you shouldn't carry Kodshim at the same time. As it once happen that someone carrying Kodesh in an earthenware barrel carried a Medris shoe. The shoelace snapped off, so he took it off and placed it on the barrel, and it entered the airspace, so it made the Kodesh Tamai. [Tosfos says: even though the Gemara in Shabbos says that the strap is no longer a utensil when it snaps off and it shouldn't be Tamai anymore, as we see it's Muktza, (so you can't use it to wrap around the sandal to fasten to your foot to wear it home); we must say that it still retains an amount of lace on it that you can tie and a layman can fix it. However, the Yerushalmi implies that it completely broke.]

The Gemara has unresolved inquiries if they decreed not to carry a Tahor sandal when carrying Kodshim since you might come to carry a Tamai sandal? Do they allow carrying it with a close barrel?

However, if you transgressed and carried the Medris with the Kodshim, R' Ilay says that it becomes Tamai, and R' Zeira says that the Kodshim remains Tahor.

Daf 23

19) The reason why they decreed only on Kodesh and not on Trumah, we must say that they hold like R' Chanina b. Akavya that you never decree for a story but exactly in the way that the story happened. Therefore, he says: since there was a story when they transported the ash of the Parah Adumah and found a Kezayis of a corpse on the bottom of the boat and it was Tamai, so they decreed not to transport it in such a way. [Tosfos says: even though we see that Parah Adumah works even when it's Tamai, and therefore, you can sprinkle it on a Nidah; we must say that Tumah from a corpse is different than other Tumos and Pasuls it.] R' Chanina says that they only decreed exactly like it was, that you can't transport it in a boat crossing the Jordan river. (However, the Rabanan say: it's forbidden even to throw it from one side to the other, or to swim with it across, or even ride an animal across, or being carried on your friend's shoulder across. You can only carry it with your feet on the ground. (However, you can carry it over a bridge.) It doesn't matter if it's the Jordan or any other river. [Tosfos points out: still, they were only strict by the Parah Adumah and not by any other Kodshim. (See Mahrsha: since a Parah Adumah is very different than other Kodshim since it has many of its own Chumros that we don't do for other Kodshim. However, Trumah and Kodshim are not that different, so the Rabanan would hold that if we decree not to carry Medris with Kodshim, it would be forbidden with Trumah also.)]

20) The utensils that are guarded from Tumah once it's finished still need Teveila since the spit of an Am Haretz may have landed on it before it was finished (before he was guarding it), and when he finished making it, the spit may be still wet and make it Tamai without the Talmid Chachum realizing it. [Tosfos is in doubt if this is even the spit of somebody who eats Trumah, since he's considered Tamai to Kodesh. Alternatively, they only decreed a real Am Ha'aretz to be like a Zav.]

21) [Tosfos says: you can't establish the case that it's the spit of a Talmid Chachum, which has the status of liquid, that becomes Tamai if his unguarded hands touch it, and then it will make the utensil Tamai. After all, we can't say that the Tumah of unguarded hands has a connection to Torah Tumah. Also, since Tamai liquids making a utensil Tamai is only rabbinical, so from that angle it also has no connection to Torah Tumah.]

22) It seems that you only need Teveila for it, but you don't need to wait for sunset to be Tahor. This is not only true according to R' Yehoshua who says that, that the wooden pipe that was cut for gathering the Parah's ashes, you still need be make it Tamai before dealing with the ashes in order to show that you're going against the Tzidukim (who held that you can't deal with the Parah Adumah even after Teveila until he passes a nightfall). He holds that they can't rely that he's finishing the utensil that's Tamai, since all he needs is Teveila and never requires to pass nightfall to be completely Tahor. However, it's even true according to R' Eliezer who holds he doesn't need anything else besides that the pipe was finished, which would seem to say that you need it to pass nightfall to be completely Tahor. Really, you don't need it to pass a nightfall. However, since it makes people Tamai like if it would be something that touched a corpse on the seventh day [Tosfos explains: after sprinkling the Parah waters, when he needs Teveila] (and not like an item that touched a Sheretz that doesn't make people Tamai.), and also we count what it touches as a Rishon, and what the touched item touches as a Sheini, it looks like real Tumah and it will show off the Tzidukim even if it doesn't need an actual pass of nightfall.

[Tosfos says: the reason that they use a wooden pipe, although we regularly say that they only used utensils from stone or dung that can't become Tamai; that's only for the seven days that they seclude him.]

23) Even though we say that we never create a new Tumah for the Parah Aduma; that's only a Tumah that's impossible to be on such a utensil, like Medris on a utensil that's not designated to sit on. However, such utensils that's susceptible to corpse Tumah can be decreed to have such a Tumah.

24) (We make Tamai the Kohein that will burn the Parah in order to show off the Tzidukim. [Rashi says: we touch him with a Sheretz. Tosfos disagrees since the Tosefta implies that his fellow Kohanim touch him, and those who are Tahor for Kodshim are considered Tamai to those who are making the Parah. Although the Tzidokim don't hold that there's any Tumah here; still, since we consider it Tamai and the Tzidokim see that we make the Parah with someone who we considered Toiveled after he became Tamai, and before nightfall.])

25) A utensil combines all the items inside it for Kodesh (i.e., if you touched one item, it's as if you touched all items inside). R' Chanan understands this to be Torah law. As the Pasuk says “one spoon,” to say that all that's in the spoon is considered as one entity. The Gemara asks: R' Akiva seems to say it's rabbinic. (As we see that R' Shimon b. Beseira testified that if Tamai touches a side of the Parah ash, it makes all the ash Tamai. This must be only rabbinically Tamai, because Parah is not really Kodesh.) R' Akiva added that (they also decreed) that flour, incense, frankincense and coals that a Tvul Yom touched part of them, all of it is Tamai. The Gemara answers: we can say the flour refers to the leftovers of a Mincha after the Kemitza, that the utensil doesn't combine from the Torah since it no longer needs a Kli Shareis. We can answer the incense and frankincense that they're placed on a board, and from the Torah, a utensil only combines if it has a receptacle. [Tosfos asks: why not simply say that we refer to a case where it's not in a Kli Shareis, but some other utensil?] However, R' Yochanan argues and deduces from R' Akiva that this whole concept is only rabbinic.

26) [Tosfos asks: from here, it seems that coals are Kodesh in the shovel that scooped it. However, in Yoma, it implies that it's not Kodesh, and that's why, when you pour the coals from the silver shovel into the golden one, you can sweep the extra Kav of coals into the stream, which you wouldn't be able to destroy it if it was Kodesh. Tosfos answers: the Yerushalmi says it's only Kodesh by Yom Kippur where they kept all the coals, but not the rest of the year. The Ri explains the Yerushalmi that the point is that it's Kodesh when you keep all the coals. Therefore, even the rest of the year, the silver shovel didn't make the coals Kodesh, only the gold one that the coals were poured into. R' Nissan says that the shovel only made Kodesh the coals that you would use, therefore, the extra Kav was never Kodesh. Although the Gemara says (by the leftovers of the Mincha) that rabbinically, the Kli Sharies makes Kodesh what's inside it even if it doesn't need to be there; that's only according to the opinion that the Kli combines all that's in it from the Torah, but not according to the opinion that this Halacha is only rabbinical. However, you can't differentiate like R' Tam who says that, even when it's in a Kli Shareis, it only becomes Kodesh when you have intent, since this is an Amaraic argument in Sukka whether it's Kodesh or not.]

27) [Tosfos says: frankincense of Hekdesh becomes Pasul with Tumah from the Torah, as that's the implication in many places in Shas.]

Daf 24

28) Kodshim can become Tamai until a Revei. We learn this from a Kal V'chomer from Trumah. As we see that Truma, despite that someone who was Tamai and didn't bring his Korabanos of Tahara can eat it, becomes A Shlishi, of course Kodshim that the one missing bringing his Korbanos can't eat can become a Revei. You can't say that it's enough to say that it has the same Halacha as where you extrapolated it from, since that would not be necessary. After all, the Pasuk says explicitly that any Tumah that touches Kodshim becomes Tamai, and we find a Sheini explicitly in a Pasuk. Therefore, we know from that Pasuk that when a Sheini touches Kodshim, it becomes a Shlishi. Therefore, when there is nothing to learn from the Kal V'chomer when saying “it's enough etc.,” we don't say “it's enough etc.,” so it teaches us that it can become a Revei. [Rashi says: according to the opinion that we still say 'it's enough' even when you can't learn anything otherwise with it must hold that Kodshim only become a Revei rabbinically. The proof to this that it's listed among the things that doesn't have any connection to Torah Tumah. Tosfos disagrees. There is no proof from saying that it has no connection to Tumah. After all, combining all that's in a utensil is also classified as not having connection to Torah Tumah, yet R' Chanan holds that it's from the Torah. We must say that we're only saying that it has no such concept of this Tumah by Chulin that's kept as Kodshim from the Torah. Even according to R' Yochanan who says that combining all that's in a utensil is only rabbinical; that's only according to R' Akiva, and R' Akiva himself holds that Revei by Kodshim is from the Torah. As he says that Chulin can become a Shlishi, so when the Pasuk says that any Tumah that touches Kodshim makes them Tamai, it's a Shlishi making it into a Revei.]

29) [Rashi brings another proof that Revei here is only rabbinically Tamai: since there is an opinion that liquids can't make other foods or drink Tamai, and food can't make other food Tamai. According to that, you can't find a Revei (since the most you can have is an Av Hatumah touching a utensil to make it a Rishon, the utensil touches food to make it a Sheini, and the food touching liquid to make a Shlishi, and the liquid can't make anything else Tamai. However, R' Tam pushes off the proof, since it could touch items that are only Tamai because it's Kodesh, like wood and frankincense. However, R' Elchonon asks: if it can't make a Revei from Kodshim that can regularly become Tamai, how can you make it from items that can't become Tamai?]

30) One hand that touches Tumah that touches the other hand makes the second hand also Tamai. R' Shizbi says: this is only if they're touching each other at the time. [Rashi explains: when the Tamai hand touches the other hand, and at the same time, the second hand touches the Taharos. However, the second hand remains afterwards Tahor, and we only make the Taharos Pasul for, perhaps, he might touch it with his first hand. Tosfos asks: our Mishna requires Teveila for both hands, so how can you say it remains Tahor? Tosfos answers: it only L'chatchila needs Teveila just in case both became Tamai, but B'dieved, it doesn't Pasul any Tahoros. Alternatively, Tosfos explains: it's only Pasul when it touches the Sefer (that makes hands Tamai for Trumah and Kodshim) and at the same time touches his hands. So they made the second hand Tamai for, perhaps, the second hand will also touch the Sefer. Therefore, both hands need Teveila.]

31) The Gemara rejects it since we have a Braisa that says: the hands are Tamai even if they're dry. If they need to touch together, what's the Chiddush of them being dried. [Rashi explains: after all, since it's only a suspicion that he'll touch the Taharos straight from the Tamai hand, what difference would it make if the second hand was wet? Tosfos points out the Tosefta that also says that the second hand becomes Tamai and they don't need to touch together.]

32) We also see that R' Yochanan held one Tamai hand can make another hand completely Tamai, even if it's someone else's hand, as long as that first hand touched the actual item that makes Tamai.[Turei Even explains: if we're only worried that the first hand might touch directly, what difference does it make if the first hand touched the Tumah directly or from another hand. As long as it makes Taharos Tamai, we should worry that it might touch directly.]

33) Rebbi holds that they made that second hand like a Sheini. R' Yossi b. Yehuda held that it's Pasul like a Shlishi since it's only a strictness.

34) R' Yehoshua says: anything that Pasuls Trumah, makes a hand a Sheini, and a hand can make another hand Tamai. The Chachumim say: since a hand is a Sheini, it can't make another hand a Sheini. The Gemara is unresolved if the Chachumim held that it doesn't make another hand Tamai at all, or do they hold that it makes the other hand a Shlishi.

35) [Tosfos says: according to R' Yehoshua, anything that Pasuls Trumah makes hands Tamai is only by Kodshim, and not by Trumah (except hands that touched a Sefer makes another hand Tamai even for Trumah).]

36) You may eat Trumah that didn't become susceptible to Tumah (since it wasn't Muchshur) with Tamai hands, but you can't eat Kodesh. You can't say that it means that you ate it with your actual hands, since that's not a strictness by Kodshim, since Kodshim doesn't need Hechsher to make it susceptible to Tumah. Rather, it's saying that a friend can't feed it to you, nor that you can stab the food with a wooden utensil without a receptacle that's not susceptible to become Tamai [Tosfos: as long as it doesn't facilitate both people and their items], and he's trying to eat Chulin without Hechshur at the same time. We're afraid that, as he's putting Chulin in his mouth, he'll touch the Kodesh and make it Tamai. [Tosfos gives another explanation to the Gemara: the Chulin may touch his spit and become Muchsher. So, then, your hands will make the Chulin Tamai, which will make the Kodshim Tamai.]

Daf 25

37) The reason that someone who finished being an Onein, and someone who brought his Taharah Korbanos, needs Teveila for Kodshim, since they were forbidden to Kodshim until this point.

38) Trumah is more stringent than Kodesh that, in Judea, an Am Ha'artz is believed on the Tahara of wine and oil regarding Kodesh the whole year round, but is only believed by Trumah at the time of wine and oil pressing. [Rashi says: he's only believed about Kodesh if he made it Hekdesh when he harvested it. Tosfos says that it makes sense since; how a the grapes become Tamai because of the Am Ha'aretz, and then when he makes it Kodesh, it's Tahor? However, it's possible to say that, if he intends to make it Kodesh by the harvesting, we can rely on his guarding it from Tumah even if he didn't actually made it Kodesh yet. This is similar to what we say that, if the Am Ha'aretz has oil Trumah to give, he can wait until the next pressing to give it to the Kohein Chavar, and he may use it even if he knows it's not from this year. The Gemara even implies that the Chaver can accept the oil in middle of the year and then partake in it at the time of the press.]

39) Kodshim is only permitted in Judea, but in Galil, you can't anyhow transport Kodshim to the Mikdash without it becoming Tamai. After all, there was a strip of land that belong to the Kusim separating between Judea and Galil, so it can't be brought. [Tosfos says: although we learned that the land of the Kusim are Tahor; that was only before they strayed off from Judaism. When they did stray, they made their land like non-Jews' land, which are Tamai, as it implies in Chulin.] You can't bring it in a “thrown Ohel” (i.e., that moves, and will protect the Kodesh from the Tumah); since this Tanna holds like Rebbi that it's not an Ohel and doesn't protect.. (R' Yossi b. Yehuda held it to be an Ohel [Tosfos says: they only argue when it's dragged on the ground, but if it's thrown through the air, everyone agrees that it's not an Ohel.]) You can't bring it in tightly closed earthenware utensils, since it doesn't save the food for Kodshim. [Tosfos asks: if so, why don't we count carrying in a closed earthenware utensil as one of the items that Kodshim is stricter than Trumah?] (Although we have a Braisa that the closed earthenware utensils don't save by the Parah Aduma, it's not coming to exclude Kodshim that it saves, but it excludes the Parah water before you put the ash in it.) Although the people in Galil prepared Kodshim for the days of Moshiach, although it would seem impossible to transport; we must say that, perhaps, Eliyahu will come and reveal to us a path that's not under the Kusim that it could be transported over.

40) [Tosfos says: although we said that they bring the Parah's ash to Galil, that's because they have a narrow path that's Tahor that you can carry it, but it's not enough to transport a lot of oil and wine that's necessary unless you have a much wider path. Tosfos concludes with a question: how could the people of Galil go to the Mikdash by the Regalim if they need to have seven days to make themselves Tahor, with sprinkling on the third and seventh, since they traveled over Tamai lands.]

41) They're only believed during the days of wine and oil pressing of the early days of harvest since that's when most people press; but not in the later days, which is not considered to be “in the days of pressing” since most people already finished pressing. Rather, you must give the olives to the Kohein so he can inspect that it was never Muchshur. [Tosfos says: it seems from here, that the conclusion of the Gemara in Shabbos is that Beis Shamai didn't enact to harvest the olives in Taharah; or else it wouldn't help that the olives weren't Muchshur. The reason they only decreed it by grapes is because whatever leaks from the grape is liquid that can Machsher, but the initial leakage of the liquid of the olive is not oil, therefore, we don't need to worry that it became Muchshur.]

42) In Galil (and Transjordan), the Am Ha'aretz is believed by the wine and oil. [Rashi says: so we shouldn't say that our Mishna is only referring to Judea. Tosfos says: since they have plenty of oil, so they're pressing season last longer than other places. Therefore, I might say that the end of their season is no longer considered “the time of pressing,” so, we're taught otherwise.]

43) The Gemara has an inquiry if the Chaver B'dieved accepted the Trumah when it wasn't the pressing time, could he leave it for the next time of pressing to use it? The Gemara wanted to prove it from a case of an Am Ha'aretz and Chaver who were brothers and inherit their father. The Chaver may take the wheat that wasn't Muchshur, and the Am Ha'aretz will take against that wheat that was Muchshur, but if they inherit liquid, his share must be burnt. [Tosfos explains: since we say Briera by one type (like wheat against wheat), but not with two types (wheat against oil). Although this is an unnamed Mishna that there is Breira, and R' Yochanan always holds like the unnamed Mishna; R' Yochanan in Beitza Paskins that there is no Breira even by rabbinical prohibitions. This is because there are other unnamed Mishnayos that don't hold of Breira.] So, the reason the liquid must be burned, and you don't just wait until the next pressing time seems to be a proof that you can't wait until the next pressing time. The Gemara rejects that proof. After all, we can refer to liquid that doesn't have any pressing, like date beer.. He can't wait until the next Regel, when they suspend the Tumah of an Am Ha'aretz, and sell it, since it refers to a case where it won't last until the Regel.

44) Although Am Ha'aratzim are not believed on Trumah, but if, within the Trumah wine, he separates a Revious for Kodshim; once he's believed on the Kodesh, he's believed on the Trumah too. [Rashi says: it would be a disgrace to the Hekdesh that will be used as Nisuch on the Mizbeach to be attached to Trumah Tamai.] Therefore, similarly, this that we allow someone to pass through a Beis Hapras by blowing the dirt before him (to expose any barley-sized bones) in order to bring his Korban Pesach, but not to eat Trumah; if you pass it for a Pesach, you may also eat Trumah. (Also, if a Beis Hapras is trampled, (we assume that any bone is crushed) and is Tahor.)

45) An Am Ha'aretz is believed on the Taharah of his jug that he keeps his Kodesh in as long as there is still Kodesh in it, but not after it was emptied. He's not believed on the jug of Trumah even at the time of pressing. [Rashi says: don't be bewildered that the jug is Tamai and the Trumah inside is Tahor. After all, that's the way the Chachumim decide to do it, as we'll see later in number (49).]

46) An Am Ha'aretz is believed on the utensils at the pressing and seventy days before [Rashi: if it has Kodesh in it. Tosfos disagrees since that would be believed the whole year round. Rather, it refers to a case where he has in mind to make it Kodesh, but didn't make it Kodesh yet.] Therefore, we can glean that those seventy days are the time to deal with the utensils, so, if someone is hired to press, he needs to start seventy days before.

47) From Modian, (i.e., a place a little outside Yerushalayim), and within (towards Yerushalayim), you can believe an Am Ha'aretz that his earthenware is Tahor so that you can purchase them. This is because: they don't allow kilns in Yerushalayim, so it was hard to get earthenware there, so it's a decree that most of the community won't be able to keep, so they allowed it. However, this is only if you're buying it off the potter who made it, and he only has his wares (and not that some other potters wares are mixed among them). Also, only the buyer can rely on it. However, if the potter leaves Modian, he's no longer believed.

48) When the Chaver enters Modian, and the potter is leaving; then he can purchase it in Modian itself. After all, if he doesn't buy it now, he won't be able to acquire it again. However, if they're both entering Modian, you can't buy it then, but you need to wait until you both leave Modian to purchase. Also when the Chaver is leaving, and the potter is entering, the Chaver should return back with him to within Modian to purchase. Also, if they’re both leaving, he shouldn't buy it anymore since he should have bought it when they were both within Modian.

Daf 26

49) They're only believed on the small earthenware utensils for Kodesh (but the larger ones are only permitted to buy in Yerushalayim). Reish Lakish says: only if you can carry it with one hand and only if the utensil was empty. R' Yochanan says: even if it's too big to be held in one hand and even if it's full with the potter's liquid. Don't be bewildered; how can the liquid be Tamai and the utensil holding it is Tahor, since this is the way of the Chachumim. After all, we say that an Am Ha'aretz's earthenware vessel protects food and drink from Tumah from a corpse, but doesn't protect utensils and they're Tamai for seven days.

50) If a tax collector entered your house, he's believed to say which utensils he didn't touch. However, this is only if no non-Jew entered with him, but if one did, he's not believed to say he entered and didn't touch, but he can claim that he never entered the house. The reason is an argument between R' Yochanan and R' Elazar: one held because the non-Jew could punish him by beating him or confiscating his own money by not searching so well. The other held that the non-Jew might inform on the tax collector. The practical difference between them: if the non-Jew is not personally powerful.

51) Also, robbers who did Teshuva are believed to say which utensils they didn't touch. After all, if they did Teshuva, they wouldn't lie. However, if they didn't do Teshuva, you need to hold that all utensils in their path is Tamai, (but not more), and, of course, any utensil they took is Tamai.

52) [Rashi says: all these Heterim are only permitted by Kodesh, and not by Trumah since it's taught by the things that Trumah is more stringent than Kodesh. However, Tosfos brings a Tosefta that says it's applicable to Trumah too, (but not for the Parah ash).]

53) In Yerushalayim, they're believed by big utensils too. [Rashi says: there's a bigger need for smaller utensils since everyone needs them, to bring their Nesachim and to cook their Shlomim. Therefore, they extended the area that the potters are believed. However, the large ones are only needed for the public, so, they don't need to permit more than those that are brought into Yerushalayim.]

54) During the Regel, the Am Ha'aretz is also believed regarding Trumah, and we have a Pasuk as an Asmachta for it.

55) If somebody opened a barrel to sell wine during the Regel, or made a dough, it remains Tahor during the Regel no matter who touched it. After the Regel; R' Yehuda says that you can finish it, and the Chachumim say you can't finish it. The Gemara's conclusion is that they can be left until the next Regel and we don't say that it got the status of Tumah in between and it should remain Tamai forever. However, R' Yehuda allows finishing it right away since, if they didn't allow this at the end, he's afraid that they won't sell it in the first place since he's afraid he'll be left with Tamai wine. If that happens, the people coming up for the Regel won't be able to access food.

56) When the Regel is over, they Toiveled all the utensils in the Beis Hamikdash's courtyard because of Tumah of an Am Ha'aretz. If the Regel was over on Friday, they didn't Toivel until Sunday since the Kohanim need time to prepare for Shabbos. R' Yehuda says the same thing if it ends on Thursday, since the Kohanim are busy right after the Regel removing the extra ash that's on the Mizbeach from all the extra Korbanos.

57) They commanded the Kohanim Am Ha'aratzim not to touch the Shulchon [Tosfos: but the Yisraelim don't need this warning, since they can't enter where the Shulchon is.] After all, you don't have time to Toivel it since you need the Lechem Hapanim on it 'constantly.' There is a Braisa that they also warned them not to touch the Menorah. They argue in the explanation of the Pasuk “you should have the Menorah across from the Shulchon,” does the Menorah need to be constantly across from the Shulchon, just like the Shulchon needs to be constantly there, or is the Pasuk is just explaining the position of the Menorah, but not to tell us that it needs to be there as long as the Shulchon is there.

58) (Although the Pasuk also says that the Menorah light is constant, it's only every night, and they can Toivel it during the day. [Tosfos says: this is not referring to the “Western light.” After all, the Torah only requires to burn from night until morning, and the Chachumim gave the amount as a half of Lug. So, we must say that they didn't light the “Western light” to last twenty-four hours, but it was a miracle.]

59) The reason that the Shulchon was susceptible to Tumah in the first place, and wasn't just a wooden utensil that's made to be in one place: since they carried it out during the Regel to show the Jews how dear they are to Hashem that He does a miracle for them that the Lechem Hapanim were the same when they were removed on Shabbos as they were placed down on the previous Shabbos. [Tosfos explains: i.e., it was removed soft, but not hot. After all, it was baked on Friday and placed on the Shulchon on Shabbos, unless you say that they kept the breads insulated in the oven through Shabbos.

Tosfos concludes: don't say that the Shulchon was considered as a moving wooden utensil since the Jews carried it all forty years in the desert. After all, it was never carried by itself, but along with all the other utensils.]

60) We don't say that it's susceptible to Tumah since it was gold plated and we should follow the plating. As we see: a wooden table that's lined with marble has the status of a stone utensil (and is not susceptible to Tumah) unless there is a place not lined with marble to place a cup, (or, according to R' Yehuda, a place for a piece of bread and meat). It doesn't make a difference whether the marble can stand by itself, or not. [Tosfos says: like by the Aron Hakodesh, where there were three independent boxes, and I might consider the middle box as its own utensil. Alternatively, if the plating can't stand by itself, I would say that the middle is not Batul to it.] (It also doesn't make a difference if the trimmings are plated, or not.)

61) We can answer according to Reish Lakish who says that the wood is not Batul if it's very Chashuv; we can say the Shulchon's ceder wood is Chashuv and is not Batul to the plating. However, R' Yochanan says that it's always Batul to the plating. According to him, we need to say that the Shulchon is difference since the Pasuk calls it 'wood.'

Daf 27

62) All the utensils that were in the Mikdash had a double, or triple. Just in case one became Tamai, they can use the other in the meantime.

63) R' Eliezer says that the copper Mizbeach is not susceptible to Tumah since the Pasuk calls it a 'dirt' Mizbeach. He also holds that the golden Mizbeach is also not susceptible to Tumah since there's a Hekish between the Mizbeachs. However, the Chachumim responded: “it's plated.” The Gemara's first version: the Chachumim are arguing that they're susceptible to Tumah since they're metal plated. The Gemara's second version: the Chachumim are bewildered what was R' Eliezer's thought to say that it's Tamai? It can't be because of the plating since the plating is Batul to the wood.

64) [(According to the Mahrsha's explanation) The first Tosfos holds: even though the Pasuk in Yechezkel calls the Mizbeach 'wood,' but the Targum explains that it refers to the wooden Shulchon across to the Mizbeach. However, the Gemara's second version that the Chachumim hold that the plating is Batul to the wood, since the Pasuk referring to the Shulchon talks about the Mizbeach, it shows that the Mizbeach's plating is Batul to itself like the Shuchon's plating is Batul.

However, according to the second Tosfos: since the Pasuk calls the Shulchon 'Tahor,' which infers that it could become Tamai; teaches us that, even though a utensil has the status of wood, it can become Tamai because of the plating. Therefore, the Chachumim in the first version hold that the Mizbeach can become Tamai because of its plating, and R' Eliezer only disagrees because of the Hekish. However, according to the second version of the Chachumim; if it's called wood, it can't become Tamai because of the plating. The Shulchon is different since it's moved, but the Mizbeach is left in one place and is not susceptible to Tumah.]