Daf 9

56) Before Davening Mincha, someone shouldn’t sit before a barber, or go to the bathhouse, or go to a tannery, or to eat, or to judge, until he Davens Mincha. [Tosfos says: the reason we need to say in Pesachim that you can’t eat Friday afternoon, or Erev Yom Tov until nightfall so that you eat the night meal with gusto, and we don’t say it’s forbidden anyhow because of Mincha; it refers to a case where he already Davened Mincha.] However, if he already started [even if he wasn’t allowed to] he doesn’t need to stop [as long as there will be time left to Daven afterwards].

57) We can’t say that it refers to Mincha Ketana (i.e., nine and a half hours in the day), since you would need to stop if you started. Like R’ Yehoshua b. Levi says; once it becomes time for Mincha, you can’t eat anything. [Tosfos says: even though we Paskined not like him in Brachos, our Gemara must hold that’s only regarding eating fruit; but we agree with him that you can’t eat a meal.] We also can’t say it refers to Mincha Gedola (six and a half hours in the day) since there is still many hours left to Daven.

58) The Gemara answers: we refer to Mincha Gedola and we only forbid by longer versions of those chores, like taking the intricate haircut of Ben Alasha (who got the Kohain Gadol’s haircut, which the top of one hair ends exactly by the root of the hair after it); or you’re going to get the whole works by the bathhouse; or taking care of a gigantic tannery; or to eat a big meal [Tosfos: like one that commemorates a Mila or a wedding]; or, you can’t start a court case which can take a lot of time to resolve.

59) R Acha b. Yaakov says: we refer to Mincha Gedola and by the regular version of these chores. However, you can’t take a regular haircut since the scissor may break (and you will be delayed). You can’t go to the bathhouse since you might become faint. You can’t even go to a tannery just to inspect it since you might find a loss, and you’ll be too upset and forget to Daven. You can’t eat a small meal, since it might extend to a larger meal. You can’t even finish off judging a case, since you might find a reason to uproot everything you said until then, and you’ll be again at the starting point of the judgment.

60) [Tosfos Paskins like the first answer; since that’s the assumed answer by the Gemara, (and not just of a single Amorah), which seems to be supported by R’ Ashi who composed the Gemara, and the Halacha is like him since he’s a later authority.]

61) The beginning of a haircut (that you don’t need to stop) is from the time they place the barber’s cloth on your lap. The beginning of the bathhouse is when you remove your turban (which is the first item of clothing removed). The beginning of the tannery is when you tie the apron on your shoulder. The beginning of eating; to the Babylonians, who usually have their belts on too tight, and they remove it to eat, it’s when they remove their belts. However to the people in Eretz Yisrael who don’t need to remove their belts, it’s from when they wash Netilas Yadayim. The start of judgment; by the first case of the day, from when the judges don their Talaisim. However, by the other cases, when the judges are already wearing their Talaisim; it’s when a litigant start stating his case.

Daf 10

62) They can’t just get up and Daven without their belts, since we say you need a belt to Daven because of ‘prepare yourself to meet Hashem.’ [Tosfos says: from here we say that you need to wear a belt for Davening. However, the Machzor Vitri says the reason for the belt is so that your heart shouldn’t ‘see’ (i.e., be exposed) to your Ervah, and we, who have already a belt on our underpants, don’t need to gird ourselves with another belt.]

63) Once you removed your belt at night [Tosfos; and you already read Shma, and you don’t have any obligation besides Davening Shmona Esrei], you don’t need to bother to gird yourself again with your belt to Daven Maariv before eating, since Maariv is voluntary. Although we don’t require you anyhow to gird yourself with a belt again by Mincha before eating, even though every one holds it to be obligatory; we must say that there is a bigger problem for Maariv, (which you would need to gird yourself if it would be obligatory), since it’s common for people to get drunk at night. [Tosfos says: even though we’re also worried about people drinking during the day, and that’s why Kohanim don’t Duchen at Mincha, since it’s common for them to get drunk; that’s not a true drunkenness, but it’s forbidden to Duchen once you drank a Revious of wine.] Alternatively, by Mincha, since there is not that long until the end of the time to Daven, the person is worried about it and won’t forget to Daven. However, by Maariv, since he has the whole night to Daven, he’s not too afraid to miss it, so he wouldn’t take the proper precautions. Therefore, the Chachumim are more worried that he’ll miss it.

64) R’ Kahana, when there was pain in the world, used to take off his outer-coat (which was a distinguished garment), and Daven with his fingers clasped like a slave begging before his master. However, when there was peace in the world, he would dress himself properly because of the Pasuk “prepare etc.”

65) There were some Amoraim who held that; if you get up too quick from learning in order to Daven, you’re abandoning “preparing for the next world” in order to work for this world. However, other Amoraim held that there is a time to learn and a time to Daven.

66) [Tosfos says: even according to the opinion that Maariv is voluntary, you shouldn’t skip it for no reason. Only, like in our case, when it’s a great bother, or if there is another Mitzvah to do, even if its time is not passing and you can do it later, are you allowed to skip it. After all, Yaakov enacted to say it. Also, it’s based on the burning of Korbonos’ limbs that, although the lack of it doesn’t prevent the Korban from being Kosher, still, it’s a Mitzvah to burn them, so it’s important to Daven Maariv too.]

67) [Tosfos says: you shouldn’t Daven barefoot (because you need to prepare to Daven for Hashem) besides on Tisha B’av and Yom Kippur.]

68) Anyone who didn’t eat his meal before the seventh hour is compared to someone throwing a stone into a barrel (that you don’t get anymore wine that way, so too here, you don’t get anymore nutrition). However, this is only if you didn’t taste something earlier in the day.

69) In the outer chamber of a bathhouse, where everyone is dressed, you can put on Tefilin, and you can learn Torah and Daven there. In the inner chamber, where everyone is naked, not only must you not put on Tefilin but, even if you have Tefilin on, you must remove it. Not only can’t you learn and Daven there, you can’t greet someone with Shalom (which is Hashem’s name). However, in the middle chamber, where some people are clothed and others are naked, you can’t put on Tefilin, but, if you have it on, you don’t need to remove it. You can’t learn or Daven, but you can greet someone with Shalom.

70) It’s forbidden to do these things in a bathhouse, even if there isn’t any naked people presently there. You can’t do them in a bathroom even if there isn’t any dung presently there.

71) You’re allowed to Daven in a new (unused) bathhouse since the designation is not enough to give it its status as a bathhouse. However, it’s an unresolved inquiry whether you can Daven in a new (unused) bathroom, since it’s worse than a bathhouse, since bathrooms are more disgusting than bathhouses.

72) You can’t greet people with Shalom in a bathhouse, but you can say ‘Neman’ (believed), since it’s not Hashem’s name, but His attribute.

73) If you give someone a gift (not in his presence), you need to inform him of it. [Tosfos qualifies: only if you’re giving it for friendship, but if you’re giving it for Tzedaka, it’s always best to give it quietly without him knowing, as it cools Hashem’s anger towards you.] 

74) [Rashi says: it’s our custom not to give the Kohanic gifts of the animal’s forearm, cheeks and fourth stomach in Chutz L’aretz.]

75) [Tosfos says: although these gifts are permitted to non-Kohanim to eat, still we say that it’s a sign that he’s a Kohain by receiving them. However, that’s only if it’s known that he received it because of a Kohanic gift, but not that he just received it, since a Kohain might have given it to him).]

Daf 11

76) You’re not allowed to lift the height of houses above the height of a Shul. This is only the height of the actual house, but not for turrets that’s made for appearance and not to live in.

77) Fasting destroys the results of a bad dream like fire burns flax. However, it’s only if he fasts that day, even if it’s Shabbos, (and he can’t ‘borrow’ the day to eat, and pay back the fast on a later day).

78) Someone who Torah is his trade (i.e., doesn’t stop learning for anything), doesn’t need to stop learning to Daven, however, he needs to stop to say Shma. However, people like us, (who are not as dedicated to learn), need to stop learning to Daven. Those who are in the midst of calculating if we should have a leap year don’t stop even to say Shma. [Tosfos explains: since it’s very important that the Yomim Tovim shouldn’t be ruined (by falling out in the wrong season).]

79) A tailor can’t go out on Friday right before nightfall with his needle since he might forget and carry it on Shabbos.

80) A person could be in a Reshus Hayachid and he can drink in a Reshus Harabim, or vice versa, if he has his head and most of his body in the place where he’s drinking. [Tosfos says: this only applies to items that need to be by you, like here where he needs the water to drink. However, if you don’t need the item by you, the Rabanan at the end of Eiruvin held that you can stand in one Reshus and move an item in the other Reshus. Tosfos concludes: even though R’ Meir argues with the Rabanan and forbids moving items in the other Reshus, and we usually Paskin like R’ Meir when he makes a decree; however, the Gemara there implies that the Halacha is like the Rabanan, like Rav said there, “how can you leave the Rabanan and teach like R’ Meir?”

Tosfos is bothered by the question; why isn’t the drinking itself considered as you’re bringing the water from the Reshus Harabim into your stomach that’s in a Reshus Hayachid? He answers: you don’t need to say that he needs to have his stomach in the Reshus Harabim too, but the Hanacha is done by the swallowing. This is similar to carrying out ink, that it’s considered making the Hanacha when writing it on a paper even if he does it while walking. Since the writing is placing it where it will permanently remain, it’s considered a Hanacha. This fits well why R’ Meir says that you can be Chayiv multiple Chatos for swallowing food that has multiple eating prohibitions on it when you carried it out on Shabbos. After all, if the Hanacha is in the stomach, how can he say that carrying is included with the prohibitions to eat since the others are Chayiv for the swallowing? However, according to what we said, you’re Chayiv for carrying by the swallowing too.]

81) Abaya held that the same way they forbade this from a Reshus Harabim and Reshus Hayachid, they forbid it by a Karmulas. However, Rava permits it since it’s a double Gezeira (perhaps you’ll bring it in from a Karmulas, and that’s only forbidden for perhaps you’ll do it from a Reshus Harabim too). [Tosfos points out: Abaya only holds to make a double Gezeira by carrying out, but not by all other Shabbos prohibitions. As we see he asks in Mesechta Beitza why did they decree to forbid an egg since it’s similar to fallen fruit on Shabbos, which is only forbidden that you might come to pluck it yourself, and it’s a double Gezeira.]

82) Abaya brought a proof from the end of the Mishna; that we have the same Gezeira by a vat. We must say that the vat is a Karmulas, since we already said explicitly they enacted this by a Reshus Hayachid and a Reshus Harabim. [Tosfos says: although we say that vessels can’t be a Karmulas, this vat is different since we refer to a case where it’s attached to the ground.] However, Rava established the case of a vat regarding Maasar, (and not regarding Shabbos). Since you can eat untithed foods before you finish processing them, thus, as long as someone drinks the wine over a vat, it’s permitted. (According to R’ Meir, even if you mixed the wine with hot water. According to the Chachumim, only with cold water, since you can return the leftovers to the vat, but not with hot water, since you can’t return the leftovers to the vat, since it will ruin the wine. R’ Elazar b Tzadok forbids in all cases.) However, he needs to have his head and most of his body over the vat so he shouldn’t accidentally take it away from the vat, which would be considered finishing the process for this cup of wine, and he’ll be drinking Tevel.

83) Therefore, according to Rava, that, which we forbid a tailor from walking out with his needle before Shabbos, must refer to him carrying it in his hand. After all, if it was stuck into his clothing it’s not carrying it out in the regular way and is only rabbinically forbidden, and we wouldn’t make a Gezeira on it not to go out right before Shabbos with it. [Tosfos says: we can’t say the Gezeira is that you’ll forget that you’re holding the needle and carry it on Shabbos. After all, we say that, by Shabbos, if you originally realized that an item was in your hand, and then forgot about it, you’re Patur. Rather, we must say that we’re afraid that you’ll know that you’re carrying the needle, but momentarily forget that it’s Shabbos.]

84) Although there is a Braisa that says that a tailor can’t walk out Friday with a needle stuck in his clothing, Rava must establish its author as R’ Yehuda who says that, if a tradesman carried out an object in a way that those craftsmen carry it out, (though it’s considered irregular for the rest of the populace), he’s Chayiv. (However R’ Meir holds he’s Patur.) [Tosfos says: although a woman is Chayiv when she goes out with a sewing needle stuck in her clothes, that’s because she’s putting it in a way were it’s completely regular to place it. That’s why someone is Chayiv for carrying out food in his mouth, although carrying other objects there are Patur, since it’s regular to carry food in that fashion.]

85) We have contradictory Braisos whether a Zav is Chayiv if he carries out a pouch (on his male appendage to see if more Ziva came out, since he needs to count seven clean days without Ziva, he wants to know if he could count this day as “a clean day.”) You can’t make it dependant on the above argument between R’ Yehuda and R’ Meir if the craftsman is Chayiv for carrying like a craftsman (and here, the Zav is carrying the way as a Zav, but not like the rest of the populace). After all, only there R’ Meir holds you’re Patur since even the craftsman usually carries it in his hand. It’s just that, once in a while, (when he wants to advertise himself), he would place it in his clothes. However, here, the Zav always carries the pouch this way. After all, if a non-craftsman carves into a log to make a vessel, we don’t consider it as doing it in an irregular way because he doesn’t make it like a craftsman. Rather, it’s considered regular since this is the way he always carves. So too, the Zav carrying is regular since this is the way he always carries it.

86) You can’t answer: you’re only Chayiv if you need it to count the Zivos, like if you only saw two, and perhaps you will see a third one. Or, you saw three times, but not today, and you need to see if today was a clean day. However, if it’s the day you saw three times, and you don’t need any knowledge of the emitting Ziva at all, and you’re only carrying it so that it shouldn’t dirty your clothes, your Patur, since saving from dirtying is not important to consider it as regular carrying. Like we see that, if there is a drip falling on your wall, and you turn over a bowl over the wall to protect the wall from damage from the drip, the water doesn’t Machshir food (make it susceptible to Tumah by having liquid on it) since you didn’t want the contact with the bowl, it’s not wanted water (so it can’t be Machshir). [Tosfos explains: even though, by placing the bowl, you willed the water to splash far away from the wall, however, just by willing water to go someplace to save from dirtying is not important. So, we don’t consider carrying the pouch for that reason an important task to consider it a normal carrying.]

The reason we can’t answer it that way. After all, there, you don’t want the water at all, and the bowl is only there to save from dirtying. However, here you want the pouch (so that it will save from dirtying). So, this would be compared to the other case, when the bowl is turned upwards and collects the water. Although your main concern is to save the wall from damage, still, you want the water. Here too, you want the pouch, so it’s important and is considered carrying regularly.

Daf 12

87) Rather, Abaya and Rava reconcile the Braisos: the one who says you’re Chayiv is like R’ Yehuda who says that a Melacha Shein Tzricha L’gufo is Chayiv; and the one who’s Patur is like R’ Shimon who says that a Melacha Shein Tzricha L’gufo is Patur. [Rashi: since the pouch is only coming for the Ziva, and you don’t want the Ziva at all, you’re just trying to get it away from you, it’s not needed for itself, since you don’t need what’s being carried.]

88) Someone may wear Tefilin late Friday afternoon, and he doesn’t need to worry that he’ll forget it and leave it on; since someone is constantly obligated to touch his Tefilin so that he doesn’t lose focus that they’re on him.

89) Someone is obligated to check his clothing (if there are items in the pockets) on Friday; and this is a great Halacha of Shabbos.

90) Someone can’t check his clothing for lice or to read by the light of a lamp since he might tilt the lamp (to feed it more oil) if the flame would start dimming.

91) Therefore, you can’t look by the light of the lamp for your clothes if it’s among your wife’s clothes. This only refers to elder people from Mechuza. Since the males don’t do manual labor, so they’re clothes are wider, and it’s hard for the elder women to wear very wide dresses; therefore, their clothing are similar. However, for those who have shorter clothes, since they do manual labor; or younger couples, where the wife has wider dresses; since they’re clothing are very different, he may look for his clothes by the light since it doesn’t take much to differentiate between them. [Tosfos says: therefore, you can’t check for your clothing among a male friend’s clothing since they’re very similar.]

92) The Chachumim say that you’re Patur for killing Kinim (lice) on Shabbos since they’re not similar to what they killed in the Mishkon, the rams, that reproduce through mating. However R’ Eliezer says you’re Chayiv since they’re similar enough to rams that they lose their lives when you kill them. [Tosfos concludes that Kinim are the creeping white bugs, (lice), and Parush are the black jumping bugs, (fleas); and not like Ri from Orleans who says that it’s the opposite.]

93) You can’t check for lice in the street because of the honor of the public the same way you can’t make yourself throw up in middle of the street.

94) Tanna Kama says: if you’re checking your clothing for lice, you could rub the lice (to weaken them) and throw them away, but don’t kill them. Abba Shaul says you shouldn’t even rub them, but just throw them away. [Rashi says: he holds like R’ Eliezer that you’re Chayiv for killing them. Tosfos says: he can even hold like the Rabanan. You shouldn’t rub the lice since you might come to rub a flea, and by rubbing the flea, you may come to kill it. This is not a double Gezeira, since we view it as one long Gezeira.]

95) R’ Huna says that you should rub them and throw them away, but not kill them even during the week, since this is a dignified way to do it. Rabbah killed them, [Rashi explains: even on Shabbos. Tosfos: we rely on this explanation to kill them on Shabbos, and not like the Riva who explains that he killed them during the week and argues with R’ Huna who says that it’s not dignified to do so.]

96) Beis Shammai forbids on Shabbos to make Shidduchim, getting your sons in a Yeshiva or in a trade school, to console mourners and to visit the sick. However, Beis Hillel permits all of them.

97) If you visit a sick person on Shabbos, you should say “It’s Shabbos that you shouldn’t cry out, and your healing is soon to come.” R’ Meir adds “it (Shabbos) could have mercy on you.” R’ Yehuda adds “Hashem should have mercy on you and all the Jewish sick.” R’ Yossi says “Hashem should have mercy on you with all the Jewish sick,” (since you need to combine your needs with the community’s so that your Tefila be accepted easier). [Tosfos asks: how can R’ Meir and R’ Yehuda pray for the sick, since they hold that someone’s judgement is finished on Yom Kippur. It’s only R’ Yossi who says that you get a new judgement every day; and the Gemara says that we only pray for the sick according to R’ Yossi (since, according to the others, his fate is sealed)? Tosfos answers: they’re referring only to a Shabbos during the Aseres Yimai Teshuva. Alternatively, like the Gemara’s conclusion there that, according to the other opinions, we can Daven for the sick all year round like R’ Yitzchok says; a crying out helps after the finishing judgment.]

98) They only allowed consoling mourners and visiting the sick on Shabbos with great difficulties since it causes pain.

99) Someone shouldn’t request anything in Davening in Aramaic since the ministering angels don’t deal with it, since they don’t understand it. [Tosfos asks: how can they not know Aramaic if they even know people’s thoughts?] However, you may pray before a sick person in Aramaic, since the Shechina is there on top of the sick person’s head. Therefore, you can’t visit him sitting on a bed [Tosfos: and the sick is laying on a lower surface, so that you shouldn’t be sitting higher than the sick person’s head]; rather you wrap yourself in a Talis and sit before him in fear of the Shechina.

100) You may not read by the light of a lamp even if it’s ten stories high (and you can’t reach it to tilt). However, this is only when an individual is reading, or even if two people are reading in the same scroll, but in different areas. However, it’s permitted when two people are reading the same thing since one would remind the other if he’s about to tilt the lamp.

101) However, this doesn’t help by a bonfire even if you have ten people there, since they sit around it with some distance from another, plus the stokers are always close to the people; someone can come to stoke the flames without others noticing.

102) An important person may read by the lamp. Since it’s not dignified for him to tilt a lamp during the week, he won’t come to do it on Shabbos. However, it’s forbidden for any important person who carries himself like a layman regarding Torah study, that he doesn’t mind tilting a lamp himself if it helps him learn.

103) We have contradicting Braisos whether a waiter can inspect the cups and plates or not. The Gemara reconciles: one refers to an established waiter and the other to a temporary one. [Rashi says the established waiter needs to be more careful that they should be clean, since he’s afraid to upset his boss, so we’re afraid he’ll tilt the lamp to have a better look. However, the temp doesn’t have much to lose if it’s not truly clean, so we’re not worried he’ll come to tilt the lamp. Tosfos learns the opposite; the established waiter doesn’t have much to worry about since he’s secured at his job, but the temporary one has to worry that he’ll get fired if it’s not clean, so he’ll be more tempted to tilt the lamp.] Alternatively, both Braisos refer to the waiter that’s the most worried for his job, [according to Rashi, the established one, according to Tosfos, the temp]; he’s only tempted by an oil lamp, but not one fueled by Nefet (which is disgusting, and he doesn’t want to get too close).

104) [Tosfos explains this as a second version], we have an inquiry if the waiter with the least to worry about [according to Rashi, the temp, according to Tosfos, the established one]; if he can inspect by an oil lamp? The conclusion is that he may. However, Rav says that you shouldn’t practically Paskin it for people, but R’ Yirmiya b. Abba says you may even Paskin this way.

105) A Chazon may listen to kids reading by the light, and figure out the chapter heads that he must read in the Torah the next day. That, which we allow the children to read by the lamp; we must say that they also didn’t actual read everything, but they’re just glancing at the chapter heads. Alternatively, the children are allowed to read since they won’t come to tilt the lamp since they fear their teacher, they won’t lift their hands to do something without his permission.

Daf 13

106) A Zav can’t eat together with a Zava since they might come to have relations (and a Zava is forbidden like a Nidda). We didn’t frame the case of a Tahor eating with a Zava, since the Tahor will avoid her anyhow so that he, and his food, won’t become Tamai.

107) A Zav Talmid Chachum shouldn’t eat with a Zav Am Ha’aretz (although he’s anyhow Tamai, and the Am Ha’aretz can’t make him anymore Tamai). Abaya says because we’re afraid that the Am Ha’aretz will give him something that wasn’t properly tithed. Rava held that to be too much of a stretched decree. Although we decreed their produce to be Damai, but that in itself was based on a weak suspicion to start with because most Am Ha’aratzim tithe properly. [Tofsos asks: why did they decree to forbid Damai more than other cases where there is only a minority of cases that are prohibited? After all, regularly, we don’t worry that it’s from the minority, but we assume that it comes from the majority of cases that are permitted. Tosfos answers: since there was a large minority of Am Ha’aretzim who didn’t tithed, and many people ended up eating Tevel.]

Rather, Rava explains: so that he shouldn’t be used to hanging around the Am Ha’aretz, and he’ll eventually give the Talmid Chachum Tamai food after he became Tahor.

108) We have an inquiry whether someone could lay in a bed with his Nidda wife if they’re both in their clothing. This is not similar to the prohibition to eating chicken with cheese on the same table. We can say it’s only forbidden there since there is no other person there to stop you from eating the cheese. Not only that, it’s not even similar to the case that a Zav can’t eat with a Zava, or two people who know each other can’t eat at the same table when one eats chicken and the other cheese, even though there is another person to remind you, that’s because there is nothing different when they’re eating to remind them not to do the sin; but here, since it’s a strange situation that they’re laying with their clothing, perhaps it will remind them not to have relations.

109) The Gemara resolves that it’s forbidden since we have a Hekish between a Nidda and a married lady. Just like someone can’t lay with a married lady even if they’re both in their clothing, so too a Nidda. [Rashi says that we know it’s forbidden by a married lady since they’re in seclusion. Tosfos asks: if so, we should learn from the Hekish that it’s forbidden to seclude with your Nidda wife, which we learn from the Pasuk “they are guarded like rose thorns” that it’s permitted. Rather, it’s logically forbidden, since the desire is so great in that case, that we’ll say it’s forbidden even without seclusion, like when the front door is open to the street.

However, Tosfos concludes with a question: it would seem that seclusion, which by most Ervos is a Torah prohibition, is more stringent than laying in a bed with a married lady with the front door open, since it’s only a rabbinic prohibition. Therefore, logic should dictate that we should use the Hekish to forbid seclusion with your Nidda wife, and the Pasuk that they’re “guarded like thorns” should teach us that they may lay in bed together with their clothing.]

110) This argues with R’ Padus who says that the Torah only forbids doing relations with the Ervah. [Rashi explains: therefore, the rabbis wouldn’t enact a decree to forbid anything more than when their skin touches, and not when they’re in their clothing. However, Tosfos asks: it doesn’t seem that R’ Padus would argue with our Mishna that forbids a Zav to eat with a Zava, even though there is no skin touching. Rather, Tosfos explains: the rabbis would only enact similar to relations where you have two people there without something distinctive there to remind them, which a Zav and Zava eating together would be included. However, laying together with their clothes on wouldn’t be included since there is something distinctive there.]

111) Ulla, on the other hand, forbade any intimate contact with an Ervah, since, as the expression goes; we tell a Nazir to go around and avoid a vineyard. This seems to contradict himself who kissed his sister. [Tosfos reconciles: Ulla is different since he’s a complete Tzadik, so he won’t come to have any improper thoughts.]

112) [Tosfos says that Rashi was accustomed not to hand something to his Nidda wife, but there is no proof for this to be prohibited. Although the Seder Eliyahu brings that Eliyahu derided someone for passing a jug to his Nidda wife, that’s because, as he ended up saying to this person’s wife, “and by this, he touched your finger.” Also, there’s no proof from Kesuvos that the wives of Amorayim served their wine by placing them down that she can’t pass an object to his hands; that could only be a problem by serving wine that shows extra endearment, but not by other objects.]

113) You can’t lay in one bed with the Ervah. [Tosfos asks: we saw that Palti b. Lish slept in the same bed with Michal, even though he never had relations with her since he felt that she was really Dovid’s wife? Tosfos answers: he slept on the opposite side of a big bed and had the door open to the street (so it shouldn’t be seclusion). Alternatively, he held like Shaul that she wasn’t really married to Dovid since his Kiddushin wasn’t valid. Still, he was stringent on himself regarding relations (though he wasn’t stringent regarding laying in one bed).]

114) There were eighteen enactments made in the second floor of Chananya b Chizkia’s house, when Beis Shammai had more representatives than Beis Hillel, so they enacted their decrees. (At the end, Beis Hillel agreed to those enactments.)

Daf 14

The first: if you ate Tamai foods, you become Tamai. R’ Eliezer says: (that you get the Tumah status as the food you ate.) If you ate a Rishon, you get the status of a Rishon. If you ate a Sheini, you get the status of a Sheini. If you ate a Shlishi, you get the status of a Shlishi. R’ Yehoshua says: you always become a Sheini, however, when you ate a Shlishi, you’re only a Sheini regarding Kodesh foods, but not regarding mundane foods (Chulin); since a Shlishi doesn’t affect Chulin unless it’s purposely kept to the standard of Trumah. [Tosfos says: the Gemara in Chulin says the reason is; since a Sheini can make other foods a Sheini by touching liquids that automatically become a Rishon and, when the liquid touches the next food, it becomes a Sheini. However, without that, you can’t decree this (although it would seem like a proper decree because he’ll come to drink Trumah), since it would look like a joke that a Sheini makes a Sheini.] 

The reason they made this decree; maybe, while eating Tamai food, he’ll drink some Trumah drink and make it unfit Trumah. [Tosfos explains this expression ‘unfit’ as opposed to “Tamai,” as the last in the line of Tumah that can’t make any other food Tamai (since it’s a Shlishi). However, after the rabbis enacted that liquids automatically become a Rishon, we can call the liquid ‘Tamai.’]

115) [Tosfos explains: this is not the famous “Tumas Giviya,” that someone becomes Tamai by eating Tamai foods. After all, he’s only Tamai then when he ate a half of “Pras,” and not a Ke’beitza like here. Also, there it only makes him unfit to eat Trumah, and here we decreed that he will make Trumah Tamai by touching it. Rather, it’s an earlier decree that they were afraid people will say that Tamai food can touch Trumah, just like they’re touching in this guy’s stomach. Therefore, they only decreed not to eat Trumah, but they didn’t prohibit touching it. Also, they didn’t decree on a Ke’beitza, the Shiur that food can make other food Tamai, since a whole Beitza of the food is not in his stomach, since some is caught in his teeth or is already digested. therefore, they decreed on the next level Shiur. However, here we’re afraid that they will touch in the mouth, that’s why they decreed on eating a Beitza (since the whole volume is there in the mouth), and to make Tamai through touching. A proof to that, the Gemara in Yuma mistakenly thought that Tumas Geviya is from the Torah, and they wouldn’t make such a mistake if it was part of the eighteen decrees, since they were all experts in these decrees.]

116) They also decreed that; if someone drinks Tamai drinks, he will make Trumah unfit by touching it. [Tosfos explains: they didn’t differentiate between drinking a Rishon or Sheini, even though at this moment they didn’t decree all liquids to be a Rishon; since they intended to decree it by the end of the day.] They decreed this because; perhaps, he’ll be drinking Tamai liquids and he’ll then put Trumah food in his mouth, (which is a bigger Chiddush it is not as common as the first decree, since it’s more apt to drink while your eating than to eat while you’re drinking). [Tosfos says: but they couldn’t have just decreed this one, and we would know the first decree; since, if they only decreed this, I might say they only decreed by liquids since they can become Tamai easier than foods.]

117) They also decreed that a T’vul Yom (who went to the Mikva this day) whose head and most of his body went into drawn water (that’s Pasul for a Mikvah), makes Trumah unfit with his touch. [Tosfos explains: this decree is only needed for after nightfall. After all, before nightfall, a T’vul Yom makes Trumah unfit from the Torah.] The reason they decreed this: it used to be that, after people Toiveled in smelly Mikvos, they would pour clean drawn water over themselves to clean them up. Eventually, people thought that, not only was the water pouring part of the ceremony, they said that it was the only true part, and they stopped Toiveling. Therefore, they needed this decree to stop them from pouring the water, and realize that only Tevila makes them Tahor.

They also decreed that, even someone completely Tahor, if three Lugim of drawn water fell on him, he makes Trumah unfit. They needed to decree this for even Tahor people, or else they wouldn’t keep the other decree for a T’vul Yom at all. [Tosfos says: they were more strict by pouring the water over them than they were for going into drawn water, since they decreed the former on a Tahor person and the latter only on a T’vul Yom. The reason they were more strict; since the pouring the water over them is similar to what the decreed for, which was pouring water on them after they left the Mikvah.]

118) [Rashi says: all these rabbinical Tumos only needs Teveila, and they’re completely Tahor. You don’t need to wait until nightfall like Tumos from the Torah.]

119) They also decreed that Sefarim make Trumah unfit. This was because; they used to store Trumah next to Sefarim since they’re both holy. Then, when mice came and ate the Trumah, they would damage the Sefarim. So they decreed this to prevent them from storing the Trumah near Sefarim.

120) They also decreed that hands that touched Sefarim make Trumah unfit. After all, R’ Yochanan says: if someone holds a Sefer Torah with his bare hands, you get buried bare without that Mitzva. [Tosfos explains: without the Mitzvah that you were doing with the Torah, like learning or doing Gelilah. Tosfos adds: the same prohibition would apply to other Sefarim as well, since we see that they also make hands Tamai.]

121) [Tosfos asks: why do you need this decree since it seems to be extra? After all, we have a rule that; all that makes Trumah unfit makes hands a Sheini (Tamai). Thus, since we had a decree that Sefarim make Trumah unfit, automatically hands that touch it are a Sheini. Tosfos answers: that rule was only said regarding Kodesh, but it’s not automatically Tamai regarding Trumah.]

122) Afterwards, they decreed that all hands, (if they weren’t washed and guarded), make Trumah unfit. However, you can’t say that they decreed this one first, for, if they first decreed this by all hands, why would they need to decree it explicitly on hands that touched Sefarim? [Tosfos says: even though there is a practical difference, if you just washed your hands and then touched a Sefer; still, this is an uncommon occurrence so they wouldn’t need to make a decree on it. However, now since the Sefer decree is now in the books, if you touch a Sefer after you washed your hands, your hands are Tamai.]

123) The reason they decreed on all hands, since hands are always busy, they touch many things. [Rashi explains that we assume the hands are dirty and will make Trumah disgusting. However we can’t explain that we’re worried that he’ll touch Tumah because, if so, it wouldn’t help to wash your hands, but you would need Tevila. Also, even if you touch the Tumah with any part of the body besides hands, you’ll become Tamai.]

124) They also decreed to make food Tamai when it touches liquids that touched unclean hands so that you wouldn’t be lenient too when they touched liquids that was touched by a Sheretz. [Tosfos says: this applies by any rabbinical Tumah, as this is where they decreed that liquid that touches an item that makes Trumah unfit becomes a Rishon (just like liquids that touch a Sheretz).

Tosfos asks: we already quoted the Gemara in Chulin that the rationale that someone who ate a Sheini becomes a Sheini is because; a Sheini food can make another food a Sheini if the original Tamai food touches liquid and becomes a Rishon, and then makes this second food a Sheini; and since that decree was decreed first, it was before the time they decreed that liquids are a Rishon. So, if it wasn’t decreed yet, how can you use it as a rationale? Tosfos answers: still, since they had intention to make this decree later in the day, they considered it as if it was already decreed.]

125) They also decreed that liquids that touched a Sheretz, (which is a Rishon, which shouldn’t be able to make vessels Tamai since they can’t become a Sheini), will make vessels Tamai so that you wouldn’t be lenient by a Zav’s spit (that’s an Av Hatumah, that will make vessels a Rishon.) [Tosfos says: this decree is applicable even by liquids that touches someone’s unwashed hands. As we see in Brachos that Beis Shammai said to wash your hands before drinking wine, since, if your hands are unwashed, there might be some wine spilled on the outside of the cup and your hands will make that wine Tamai, which will make the cup Tamai.]

126) Although we see that Shlomo, (long before), decreed that unwashed hands are Tamai; he only decreed it by Kodshim, and then Beis Shammai came along and decreed it also by Trumah.

Daf 15

127) Shammai says that you need one Kav of dough to be Chayiv to separate Challah and Hillel says you need two Kavs. [Tosfos quotes Yerushalmi: they learn it from the tenth of an Eifa that was the amount of Mon they received in the desert, as the Pasuk says by Challah “your dough,” (the one you received). Therefore, since there are eighteen Kavs in an Aifa, and a tenth of an Eifa from the outside, (i.e., if you would add the tenth to the Eifa, and then take a tenth of the sum), is two Kavs. Shammai held that it’s for two meals, one at night and one at day, each one was a Kav.] However, the Chachumim say that it’s not like either, but a Yerushalmis Kav and a half (which is a tenth of an Eifah, since the Yerushlmis measurements were a sixth extra than it was in the desert) which is a Tzipori’s five Lugim (which is an extra sixth from the Yerushalmi’s measurements).

128) R’ Yossi holds that five Lugim is exempt from Challah, and you’re only obligated if it’s more than five Lugum. [Rashi explains; since you need to add a little bit for the Shiur. As Rebbi in Eiruvin added a twentieth of an egg for every egg in a Shiur. Tosfos explains: he needs a Shiur of “your ,” (five Lugim), after the Challah was removed.]

129) Regarding how much drawn water is needed to invalidate a Mikvah that doesn’t yet have forty Sa’ah; Hillel says a Hin (twelve Lugim), Shammai says nine Lugim. However, the Chachumim accepted the testimony of two weavers at the Dung Gate that Shmaya and Avtalyon said it’s three Lugim. (However, if the Mikvah has a full forty Sa’ah, it can’t become invalid no matter how much drawn water was poured into it.)

130) Shammai holds that a woman is only Tamai after she actually sees blood (and we don’t worry that the blood already left the uterus before that). Hillel is worried, so he says that she’s retroactively Tamai from the last time she checked herself and found herself Tahor. However the Chachumim say that the most she’s Tamai retroactively is twenty four hours, but if she checked herself within that time, she’s only Tamai from after that checking.

131) They decreed that the ground of Chutz L’aretz makes items Tamai (perhaps there’s an unknown grave there) in order to burn Trumah; and the airspace above it makes objects like if it’s Safeik Tamai (i.e., you can’t burn the Trumah, but you can’t eat it either). [Tosfos asks: the Mishna in Ohelos says that they didn’t decree that the ground of Chutz L’aretz is Tamai through an Ohel, so why do we say that the airspace above the ground makes Trumah unfit to eat? Tosfos answers: the Mishna in Ohalos refers to a clump of earth that was imported to Eretz Yisrael, and here we refer to where it stays in Chutz L’aretz. Alternatively, the Mishna’s author is R’ Shimon who holds that non-Jew’s graves aren’t Tamai through Ohel, and we don’t enact the ground to be better than graves themselves. However, our Gemara is following the Rabanan who say they make Tamai through Ohel. Alternatively, since the Gemara says that the decree was made a step at a time; this Mishna was taught before they enacted Tumah on the airspace. Although the Gemara in Nazir has an inquiry if they decreed Tumah in the airspace of Chutz L’aretz; that’s whether the actual airspace is Tamai, and if something in the airspace is Tamai even if it’s protected from the Tumah coming from the ground by placing it in an Ohel, like a closet or box, to block the Tumah. Our Gemara refers to an unprotected airspace.]

132) Once Beis Din was exiled from the Lishkas Hagazis, (their chambers in the Mikdash), there was no more capitol cases, since the Sanhedrin being in the Lishka causes the ability to judge capitol cases.

133) [Tosfos: the Beis Din in Usha] enacted to burn Trumah for six Safeik Tumos. The Safeik of a Beis Hapras, [Tosfos: where they plowed a field that had a grave within it, and we’re afraid that they uprooted a bone the size of a barley which makes people Tamai, which is only a rabbinical decree to worry about it, but the Torah never required to suspect this. However, if you don’t know where a grave is in a field and you pass through it, the Torah requires you to suspect that you might of passed over it, and you should be definitely Tamai if it’s in a private domain (like the rule by all Safeik Tumah).] Also, on a Safeik of the clothing of an Am Ha’aretz. [Rashi says that we’re afraid that his Nidda wife sat on it. Tosfos explains: but it’s not because he sat on it since the rabbis only decreed for him to be Tamai like a Zav even to make his spit Tamai, but they didn’t make Tamai what they sat on (i.e., Medris) and what they moved without directly touching (i.e., Heset).] Also, on a Safeik of found vessels (that we don’t know if they’re Tamai). Also, on a Safeik that you found spit on the floor [Tosfos and you don’t know if it’s from an Am Ha’aretz or not.] Also, the Safeik of human urine next to animal urine. [Rashi explains: even if this makes a double Safeik (Sfeik Sfeika), since being next to definite animal urine might tell us that it’s also animal urine, and even if it’s human urine, perhaps it’s not from someone Tamai. However, Tosfos disagrees since the Gemara in Nidda says that these cases are only if they’re one Safeik, and not a Sfeik Sfeika. Rather, Tosfos explains: since you can tell it’s different than the animal’s urine shows that it’s definitely human urine, so it’s only one Safeik.] Also, on the Safeik of the ground of Chutz L’aretz. All these refer to definitely touching the item, but it’s a Safeik whether the item is Tamai or not.

134) R’ Yossi says that you also burn Trumah for a Safeik if you touched it in a private domain. The Chachumim say that it’s even considered as a Safeik in a private domain (and you can’t burn Trumah), but it’s Tahor in a public domain.

135) They decreed that glass vessels are susceptible to Tumah. Reish Lakish explains: since it’s made from sand, the rabbis gave it the status of an earthenware vessel. The Gemara asks: if so, it shouldn’t be able to become Tahor through Tevila, and yet we have a Mishna that describes what will make a Chatzitza by glass. [Tosfos says: you can’t say that it’s only referring to Toveling new vessels bought from a non-Jew, since it refers to utensils that don’t need Tevila for that reason, like a table and a tablet.] The Gemara answers: that Mishna refers to a case where you have a hole in a glass, and you plugged it with lead. It’s authored by R’ Meir who holds that we follow ‘the Mamud’ and holds such a glass is susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos explains ‘Mamud’: the material that you placed inside the broken utensil. This is not like the argument in a later Perek between R’ Nosson and the Rabanan whether we follow the Mamud, since that refers to what holds the utensil together (like screws).] However, the Rabanan don’t follow the Mamud and hold that the utensil is not susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos explains: although a glass vessel is susceptible to Tumah, they mean it’s not susceptible from the Torah like R’ Meir holds, but only rabbinically. R’ Shmuel had the text: both agree that you follow the Mamud, and the only reason the Rabanan say that it’s not susceptible to Tumah since the lead is not an adequate plug. However, you can’t explain the argument if it has the status of metal that can be fixed, or glass, which is earthenware, that can’t be fixed so that it will become susceptible to Tumah again. After all, R’ Meir could always hold it’s earthenware, and he would be consistent to his opinion that holds you can fix earthenware that it will become susceptible to Tumah again. (It’s only everyone else’s opinion that earthenware can’t be fixed)]

Daf 16

136) The Gemara asks: if so, why do glass vessels become Tamai from their outsides? After all, earthenware can’t become Tamai from their outsides, and the Braisa doesn’t include glass among the material that its vessels have earthenware’s attributes, and the only attribute that it could be unlike earthenware is regarding the outside of the vessels. So, the Gemara changes their theory, and say they enacted Tumah on glass since they’re similar to metal vessels since you can melt them down and recast them. [Tosfos explains: even though it’s not so similar to metal to actually enact Tumah on glass in the first place; but once they enacted it because it’s similar to earthenware, they extended the Tumah to also be like metal vessels to become Tamai from the outside of the utensil.] The Gemara asks: if so, why don’t glass get back their old Tumah if they break and was fixed the same way they enacted that by metal? The Gemara answers: since getting back the old Tumah is only a rabbinical decree, they didn’t enact it on the rabbinical Tumah on glass vessels. [Tosfos explains: this is only because there is no concept of Tumah from the Torah on glass. However, we see they did enact it on rabbinical Tumah on metal vessels, like if it was touched by an idol.]

137) The Gemara asks: if so, flat glass vessels should be susceptible to Tumah, and we learned that they’re not. The Gemara answers: they left out a Tumah to make a distinction that it’s only a rabbinical Tumah so you won’t come to burn Trumah and Kodshim on it. [Tosfos says: the fact that it doesn’t get its old Tumah when it gets fixed is not a good enough distinction since it’s not a Tumah from the Torah. Tosfos concludes: perhaps they only said that you don’t burn them over Tumos that are similar to metal Tumos, like from the outside, since it’s not so similar to metal. However, if they become Tamai in a way similar to earthenware, since glass is very similar to earthenware, the rabbis even enacted to burn Trumah for it. After all, we see that there was two decrees to make glass Tamai just like by Chutz L’aretz; and we need to explain like they did by Chutz L’aretz; one was to make it like a Safeik, and you shouldn’t burn Trumah over it, and the second one to burn Trumah over it. Therefore, we need to say there is Tumah on glass that they burn Trumah for. Also, this is why the Gemara held simply that they decreed that glass is Tamai from their airspace like earthenware and the reason they’re not mentioned with earthenware since it’s Tamai from the outside. Why not say that they’re different because glass is not Tamai from its airspace so not to burn Trumah and Kodshim? So, we must say that they decreed to burn by any Tumah that applies to earthenware.]

138) [Rashi has the text that earthenware are susceptible to Tumah from its concave base. Tosfos says: perhaps it’s only rabbinically Tamai. Alternatively, it’s from the Torah, however, it only makes that part of the utensil that touched the Tumah Tamai, but not the rest of the utensil. If so, if Tumah touched the base, only the base is Tamai and not the inside. Therefore, you can still use it for a Tzamid Pasul (if you fasten the opening of the earthenware, it can’t become Tamai from a corpse in the room since the outside is not susceptible to Tumah, so it protects from Tumah). Although the outside base is susceptible to Tumah, but since it can’t pass through the whole utensil, it still protects from Tumah.

However, the Ri’s text is that it can’t be Tamai from it’s concave base. However, if the utensil is Tamai, not only does the base make other things Tamai if it touches them, but even if they’re in its airspace (like they can become Tamai in the airspace of the inside of the vessel).]

139) R’ Ashi answers: really, glass was enacted because it’s like an earthenware utensil. The reason it’s susceptible to Tumah from the outside is; because it’s transparent, the outside looks like the inside. [Tosfos says: although R’ Ashi doesn’t hold that glass has anything to do with metal regarding Tumah, and he doesn’t say that they decreed it to be like metal because you can melt it down; still, in Mesechta Avoda Zara, R’ Ashi says that you need to Toivel a glass vessel bought from a non-Jew because glass is similar to metal since you can melt it down.]

140) Shimon b. Shetach decreed “old Tumah” by a metal Vessel. (I.e., if you break a metal vessel to the point that it’s no longer susceptible to Tumah, and then you fix the vessel, it gets the original Tumah that was upon it before you broke it.) [R’ Shimon b. Gamliel] says that this was only if it was Tamai from a corpse. We’re afraid that everyone will break it and recast it in order to get it Tahor right away, and they’ll bypass the seven day process to make it Tahor, and they’ll forget the Halachos of sprinkling with the Parah Aduma waters. [Tosfos explains: he only decrees this by a corpse’s Tumah since there is a strong need to break it instead of going through the Tahara process, so that you don’t need to wait seven days.]

[The Rabanan] say that they decreed this by all Tumos. Abaya explains the concern is that you might not break it enough and it would still be susceptible to Tumah, and you’ll think it’s not. Rava says: we’re afraid people will no longer think that you have to wait until after nightfall after Tevila for it to be Tahor for Trumah. The practical difference between them: if you totally destroy it. [In Rashi’s first explanation: since it’s totally broken, we’re not worried that you didn’t break it to the point that it’s still susceptible to Tumah, but we’re still afraid that you’ll think it’s Tahor right away after Tevila. According to Rashi’s second explanation, which he feels is the most correct: you don’t need to worry that you’ll think that Tevila doesn’t require to wait to nightfall since it’s obvious to all that this is a new vessel which starts out Tahor, and it’s not similar to Tevila. However, no matter how much you break it, you need to worry that the next time it won’t be broken enough.]

141) R’ Meir held: part of the eighteen decrees was the decree of someone putting a barrel under a gutter. If he puts it there when it’s not cloudy, we don’t say that his intention is to collect the rain water, and if it eventually rains, everyone holds that the water is not considered as intentionally drawn water to Pasul a Mikvah. If he places it their when it’s cloudy and it rains, everyone holds your intention is to collect the water and it Pasuls a Mikva, even if the barrel is not considered a vessel regarding being susceptible to Tumah, like if it’s too big, or made out a material that’s not susceptible to Tumah.

The argument between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel is when the barrel is put there when it’s cloudy, and then the clouds disperse leaving a clear sky. When it eventually rains, Beis Shammai holds that the cloud dispersion doesn’t make null his original intention and it’s still there to collect water, and the rain water Pasuls the Mikva; and Beis Hillel holds that it makes his original intention null and void and the rain doesn’t Pasul the Mikva. Like the rest of the eighteen decrees; Beis Hillel eventually agreed. However, R’ Yossi holds it’s not one of the eighteen decrees and Beis Hillel continued to hold that his original intent was null and the rainwater doesn’t Pasul the Mikva.

142) They also decreed that young Kuti girls are Tamai like a Nidda from their cribs (since they don’t believe in the Drasha that they’re Tamai if they see when they’re children, we need to worry that they saw and they’re just not telling us.) [Tosfos explains: however, according to R’ Yossi who holds that Kutis are “converts for lions,” (i.e., not true converts, but just acted that way to save themselves from being attacked by lions) and they’re really non-Jews who are never Tamai Nidda; they decreed them to be Niddos in order that Jews shouldn’t mingle with them (and intermarry them). Although R’ Yossi in Nidda brings a proof to decree this that there was a baby who had seen menstrual blood; that’s not saying that the real decree is because she might really be a Nidda. Really, it’s because we don’t want them to intermingle, however, since they based it on a Tumah like Nidda, if it’s totally uncommon for babies to have menstrual blood that it never happens, the decree would look like a joke.]

143) [Tosfos says: the Gemara in Nidda says; R’ Meir holds the reason to make them Tamai since she might have seen blood. Even though it’s quite uncommon; R’ Meir is consistent to his view that we’re worried about a minority occurrence. (However, those who are not worried for a minority occurrence, they hold the reason for this decree is like how we explained earlier according to R’ Yossi.) Tosfos asks; if so, why does R’ Meir need this to be a separate decree, since they should anyhow be considered a Nidda by the regular rule that we’re worried for minority occurrence. Tosfos answers: since they have a Chazaka that they were born Tahor, when you combine it with the fact that it’s only a minority occurrence; we consider it like a super minority which even R’ Meir is not regularly concerned over.]

Daf 17

144) R’ Akiva held that they also decreed that a shepherd’s staff (or any other movable object) that’s not a Tefach wide, but has a Tefach circumference, has a status of an Ohel for the one carrying it, (and he becomes Tamai if it passes over a grave), and not for other objects underneath it (i.e., if one side of the staff is over a grave and the other side is over vessels). This is because they decreed by a staff that has a Tefach circumference to be an Ohel, for you might mistake it for if it’s a Tefach wide. [Tosfos explains: however, if you have a protrusion from something attached to the ground, it doesn’t have this decree, since there is nothing carrying it. However, if it’s a Tefach wide, it’s definitely an Ohel, like we say trees are an Ohel. Although grain or vegetable stalks aren’t an Ohel, that’s because they don’t have much of a substance existence, just like we say that snow and ice can’t be an Ohel.]

145) [Rashi explains: since the staff becomes Tamai for seven days because it’s hovering over a grave, so the person touching the staff becomes Tamai for one day since he’s touching the staff, and people will mistakenly believe that he’s Tamai because of Ohel, and they’ll believe that an Ohel only makes someone Tamai for one day. However, if it’s less than a Tefach circumference, people won’t think it’s an Ohel. Also, they didn’t enact it for other utensils that’s under it, since they’re not even Tamai for one day, people won’t make that mistake. However, Tosfos asks: everyone knows that someone is Tamai when he touches something hovering over a grave, so, why should we worry about a mistake here? Also, he should be Tamai for seven days since he was touching the staff when it hovered over the grave, and any direct contact with something that’s becoming Tamai by a corpse becomes Tamai for seven days too. Rather Tosfos explains: we refer to a case where he’s holding the staff with a handkerchief, so the handkerchief is Tamai seven days, and he’s Tamai for one day. However, since everyone is not an expert in things becoming Tamai through this attachment, they’ll think that the handkerchief should be a Rishon, which can’t make the person Tamai. Thus, he’s only Tamai because of an Ohel, and thus, and Ohel only makes him Tamai for one day.]

146) [Tosfos is bothered: why is this staff, which seems like a flat wooden utensil, susceptible for Tumah in the first place? You can’t say that there is a metal piece stuck in at the end (to poke the flock), since, then, it would have the status of a metal vessel that becomes the same Tamai as the corpse to make another item Tamai seven days.

Tosfos answers; we must say that it has a hole to place the metal tip in, but the metal tip wasn’t in at the moment. We need to say that the hole doesn’t have the status of “a hole that’s made to be filled,” which is not considered to be a receptacle since it’s not meant to be filled and left there, but it’s made to constantly having the tip come in an out.]

147) However, R’ Tarfon argues with R’ Akiva and held that they didn’t make such a decree. The observer thought they did make such a decree since they made the shepherd Tamai, but he was anyhow Tamai for another reason. [Rashi says that the shepherd touched what hovered over the grave. Tosfos disagrees, as we explained; that he was Tamai seven days since he was directly touching the staff as it hovered over the grave, and the observer wasn’t aware that you can become Tamai seven days for being attached to the item hovering over the grave.]

148) They also decreed to consider grapes by the harvest as if they were already Muchshur (i.e., as if liquid touched it, which makes it susceptible for Tumah). Although any grape juice that may come out inadvertently goes to waste as they leak through the wicket baskets and shouldn’t be Machshir; however, it fits well according to those who hold that a Tamai vessel makes liquid able to be Machshir without intent or benefit from the liquid (since the Hechshir and Tumah comes together at the same time), so, we’re worried that they’ll harvest in Tamai baskets. According to those who don’t hold like that; R’ Chanina says it’s a decree that he might harvest them in pitch-lined baskets where the grape juice won’t leak and won’t go to waste, so you’re happy with having the liquid there, so it Machshirs. Rava says: it’s a concern that he’ll find clusters that their grapes are growing into each other. Since he intentionally pulls them apart with his hand, and it’s impossible to do so without letting out liquid; it’s like he’s intending for the liquid, and it Machshirs the grapes. R’ Ashi explains; it’s a concern that he might have squeezed a grape earlier in anticipation for the harvest to see if they’re ripe enough, and the liquid might still be on the fruit when it’s harvest, which is Machshir since you squeezed it on purpose.

149) [Tosfos explains: the reason they didn’t have a similar concern by olives and they don’t consider them as they’re Muchshur because of these problems: as we say towards the end of the Mesechta, that the initial liquids coming out of an olive is not really oil, but ‘Mohel,’ a very dilute liquid which is not considered to be a liquid that Machshirs.]

150) They also decreed that Trumah grains that were replanted remain Trumah. You can’t say that this is to prevent Yisraelim from replanting Trumah so that they would be Chulin. After all, if they wanted to bypass Trumah, they could have just separated one grain that, technically, exempts the whole crop. [Tosfos explains: although this wouldn’t help to save him from taking off Trumas Maasar, since he needs to take off an actual tenth; but since they decreed this on the Trumah Gedolah too, there must be a different reason.]

Rather, we must say the reason is: perhaps a Kohain with Tamai Trumah may replant it, and in the meanwhile, before planting season, it might bring to him to stumble (by eating it). [Tosfos says: although, in Pesachim, Beis Hillel allows keeping Tamai Trumah wine to pour on the floor (to give a pleasant smell while keeping down the dust of the dirt floor), and we’re not worried that he’ll stumble to drink it in the meantime; that’s because it’s not so prevalent that he’ll drink some, since he doesn’t leave it for so long. However, by planting, it might take almost a year until the planting time.]

151) [Rashi says that they decreed that the grown grain should be Tamai Trumah. However, Tosfos says that the Gemara in Pesachim says explicitly that it wouldn’t be Tamai, however, it will still prevent planting them to make them Tahor. Since it would still be Trumah, he won’t gain much by planting them.]

152) They also decreed that, if someone was traveling on Friday and it’s almost night; he should give his money to a non-Jew that’s traveling with him rather than to rely on carrying it less than four Amos at a time.

153) They also decreed to forbid the bread and oil of non-Jews because you might come to drink their wines. They decreed not to drink their wines because you might come to marry their daughters. [Tofsos explains: they decreed that their wine is forbidden to have any pleasure from, which they didn’t decree by their bread. The reason they were so strict by their wine; since people make them libations even if they’re not in front of idols, they gave it the strictness of actual idol wine libations.] They decreed not to marry their daughters because it might bring to worshiping their idols. (The Gemara in Avaoda Zara explains this is according to the Rabanan who hold the Torah prohibition not to marry non-Jews only refers to the seven nations who lived in Eretz Yisrael.)[Tosfos says there is an argument in Avoda Zara if they decreed here to forbid secluding with them, or if they decreed that they are Tamai like a Nidda (to make sure that people wouldn’t mingle with them for, perhaps, they’ll be touched and become Tamai).]

154) They also decreed that non-Jewish children are Tamai like a Zav so that Jewish children shouldn’t hang out with them, which may eventually lead to homosexuality with them.