Question (R. Elchanan): We say in Nidah (71b) "at first, they used to say that one who is in the days of Dam Tohar (blood is not Metamei a woman on days 8-40 after giving birth to a boy, or days 15-80 after a girl. After immersing during these days, she is like a Tevul Yom until the end of these days) may pour water for Korban Pesach;

The Gemara infers that she may pour, but she may not touch. This implies that Chulin done Al Taharas ha'Kodesh are like Kodesh!

Why may we infer this? Perhaps they are like Terumah. A Tevul Yom disqualifies Terumah!

Answer (my Rebbi): If they were like Terumah, even if she would touch it, it would be only Pasul [but not called Tamei]. It would be a Shelishi, and a Shelishi of Terumah is not Metamei to make a Revi'i of Kodesh. The water would not make a Revi'i (and disqualify the Pesach).

Support: The Perushim of Rashi and R. Tam connote like this a little.

Question (R. Elchanan): How did the shovel become Pasul?

It was not from a Rishon or Sheni l'Tum'ah, for people and Kelim are Mekabel Tum'ah only from an Av ha'Tum'ah!

If it was from an Av ha'Tum'ah, it is not Pasul. It is Tamei! (It is a Rishon l'Tum'ah, and it is Metamei food.)

Answer (R. Elchanan): It became Tamei from liquids. Tamei liquids disqualify a Kli, like we say "the back of Kelim that became Tamei through liquids."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This was before I wove it. It was not yet proper for Tum'ah, and I was not careful about it. I had not immersed from being Nidah;

There is concern that when I wove three [by three fingers], the saliva was still wet on the garment, and it is an Av ha'Tum'ah to be Metamei.

Explanation #2 (Rashi's Rebbeyim): The concern is due to spit of an Am ha'Aretz, which is Metamei as long as it is wet.

Rebuttal (Rashi): You are forced to say that this woman was a Chaverah, since she came in front of R. Yishmael to ask! Also, [an Am ha'Aretz] would not be believed to say that she wove it in Taharah!

Support (for Rashi): The Yerushalmi brings all these episodes on our Mishnah in the other Perek, that Kelim finished in Taharah require Tevilah for Kodesh;

Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Yishmael): How great are Chachamim's deeds! They said that Kelim finished...

Inference: We discuss a Chaverah who wove. It requires Tevilah because they use it before it is fully woven, like Rashi explained.

Question (Rabbeinu Yosef): According to Rashi, it should have said "I was Nidah", like it said "a Nidah pulled" in the other episode!

Explanation #3 (Rabbeinu Yosef): (She was Tehorah.) Since she tied it with her mouth, there was wet saliva. When she wove it, she touched the saliva, and hands are Sheniyos;

In Eruvin (99a) it connotes that saliva is considered a liquid. The saliva is Metamei the cloth, like a Mishnah teaches "the back of Kelim that became Tamei through liquids."

Question: However, according to the Yerushalmi, which compares this to finished Kelim, and below we establish this due to spit of an Am ha'Aretz, why does it depend on this?

Even regarding spit of a Chaver, we can be concerned lest hands touch it!

Answer: We can say that below it did not give the primary reason. It gave one of them.

Inference: This shows that one does guard what is in another's hand.

Explanation #1: In Avodah Zarah (69a), Rashi explained regarding "what is the difference between the Reisha and Seifa", for we see that he touched, for it says that they were laden with Taharos;

This does not discuss barrels, which are sealed. Rather, it refers to food not in barrels.

Question #1 (R. Elchanan): We should establish it to discuss barrels, and then it will not be difficult!

Question #2: Here, when we ask, i.e. that [this shows that] one can guard what is in another's hand, how can he guard it, since it is not in barrels?!

Question #3: Why must we say that he ceased to see them in order to say that they are Temei'im? It suffices that he (the Am ha'Aretz) touches them!

Question #4: Even without the Seifa, this is difficult, what is the reason for the Reisha?

Explanation #2 (Ri): Here we discuss in barrels. However, they are open.

Proof #1: If they were sealed, they would not be considered Tamei due to ceasing to see them.

Proof #2: Also, [if they were sealed] we would not need to establish the Reisha to discuss one who is Metaher [the workers] for this, since he did not inform them that he will go far away.

Rejection (of proof #2): Since we establish it this way here (he was Metaher the workers) due to the answer we give (that really, one does not guard what is in another's hand), we establish it this way also there in Avodah Zarah.

We ask from it due to here. (Si'ach Yitzchak - it is as if we said there "we were pondering the Beraisa... and concluded that he was Metaher the workers." Therefore, we asked why the Seifa is different. If not, it would not be difficult, for we discuss sealed barrels.)

Suggestion: Perhaps we do not ask there due to here, rather, we ask from reasoning, that we should be concerned lest they touched in the Reisha [since the Makshan understood that the barrels are open - Si'ach Yitzchak]!

Rejection: If so, in our Sugya, when we ask "what is different in the Reisha", i.e. [it should be Tamei] because one does not guard what is in another's hand, [even according to the Makshan, who holds that one can guard what is in another's hand,] it should be difficult for him. [Since they are open] we should be concerned lest he touched them!

Explanation: Rather, surely from reasoning it is not difficult. They do not touch, for they fear, since he did not inform them that he will go far away. (Proof #2 is rejected, but Proof #1 stands. We must discuss open barrels.)

Observation: However, we could have asked "according to you (the Makshan, who wanted to prove from here that one guards what is in another's hand, and the workers did not immerse), in the Reisha itself we should be concerned lest he touched"!

Note: Above, Tosfos said that if in Avodah Zarah we asked from reasoning that we should be concerned in the Reisha, we should have challenged the Makshan "according to you...", for it is a strong question. Tosfos concludes that we did not ask from reasoning, rather, based on our Sugya. "According to you..." is not such a strong question, therefore we can say that we did not bother to ask it. (Based on Si'ach Yitzchak.)

Also in several places [we could ask "according to you..."], but we do not ask.

Version #1: This is written in Seforim. There is a Perush that says that it should not be in the text.

Version #2: In a Perush in front of me, I found written "really, one does not guard what is in another's hand;

Question: If so, why is the Reisha different?

Answer: He was Metaher his donkey-drivers and workers for this. Therefore, they are afraid [to touch].

Support: It is written in old texts, and so my Rebbi explained. This [text, i.e. "really..."] is like "and according to your reasoning..."

I.e. why do you prove from the Reisha that one guards what is in another's hand? The Seifa is difficult. This is like asking "what is the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa?"

If one guards what is in another's hand, why not [also] in the Seifa? Rather, he was Metaher them for this.

Explanation: Even so, we require that he was Metaher them for this, so they will fear to touch it. If not, they do not fear, since he hands over Taharos to them, and they consider themselves to be Tehorim.

Even if he warns them not to touch it, they are not particular about this;

However, regarding a Nochri it suffices that he can come [suddenly] on a crooked path, for he always knows that [the Yisrael] is particular about his touching, and he fears.

Observation: According to Rava, the Mishnah lists 11 stringencies [of Kodesh over Terumah], and according to R. Ila, there are 10.

Question (R. Elchanan): Why doesn't it list what was taught above (18b), that we wash hands for Chulin and Terumah, and we immerse them for Kodesh?

Also, if one immersed [with intent to eat Terumah], and was Huchzak for Terumah, he is not Huchzak for Kodesh?

Answer (my Rebbi): Our Mishnah lists only cases in which there is concern for some Tum'ah, even in the last cases (Onen and Mechusar Kipurim);

However, this (immersing hands, and becoming Huchzak for Kodesh) has no concern for Tum'ah.

Support: In Nidah (6a) we [say that our Mishnah] did not count me'Es la'Es of a Nidah (when a woman sees blood, she is retroactively Temei'ah 24 hours beforehand regarding Kodesh) because there is no concern for Tum'ah.

Implied question: What concern for Tum'ah is there regarding garments of those who eat Terumah, to make them Midras for Kodesh?

Answer: There is concern for Tum'ah even mid'Oraisa. Perhaps his wife sat on them when she was Nidah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [One who carries] a Zav's shoe, he may carry Terumah, as long as he does not touch it. He merely carries the barrel.

Implied question (Beraisa #1, in Toras Kohanim): One who carries a Midras is Metamei two foods and disqualifies one!

Explanation: He is Metamei two foods and disqualifies one, for he is an Av ha'Tum'ah. He makes [what he touches] a Rishon and [what touches it is] a Sheni in Chulin, and disqualifies Terumah [that touches the Sheni].

Answer: There, he touches it.

Reiteration of explanation #1 (Rashi): One who carries a Midras may carry Terumah in a barrel, but he may not touch the interior.

Question #1: Rashi considers one who carries [a Midras] to be an Av ha'Tum'ah, to be Metamei a Kli, like a Zav. If so, he should be Metamei the barrel and the Terumah inside, through Heset!

(Beraisa #2): If a Mishkav or Moshav is on one pan of a scale, and food and drink are in the other pan, if the Mishkav went down [and raised the food], it was Metamei the food. (Rashash does not know where this was taught. We hold that only a Zav (or similar Tamei people) are Metamei what they move!)

Question #2 (Beraisa #3, in Toras Kohanim) - Question: "One who touches his (a Zav's) Mishkav must wash (immerse) his clothes." This teaches about clothes that he is wearing. What is the source to include other clothes?

Citation (cont.) Answer: [The Torah did not write] Beged, [rather,] Begadav (plural, to include others' garments).

The Beraisa asks why it says Begadav (his garments), and says that this excludes, i.e. [he is not Metamei] people and Klei Cheres.

Inference: One who carries a Midras is not Metamei a Kli Cheres, even while carrying the Midras!

Conclusion: Rather, even if he touches the interior, there is no concern. (Maharsha - Tosfos explains that he is like an Av ha'Tum'ah only regarding food and drink that he touches.)

Explanation: [The Tana] used this expression because he explains many differences between them.

Question (R. Efrayim): In Chulin (24b), we expound from "Kol Asher b'Socho Yitma" to teach about a Kli Cheres, even if it is full of mustard seeds, they are all Temei'im (even though they are very small. If the Kli were not of Cheres, the seeds touching the Kli would be Rishonim, those touching the Rishonim would be Sheniyim, [and if the mustard was Terumah, those touching the Sheniyim would be Shelishim], and all the rest would be Tehorim.)

What is the source that a Kli Cheres is Metamei everything inside [even if it does not touch the Kli]? Perhaps there [all the mustard seeds are Temei'im] due to Tziruf!

Answer (Ri): We do not find Tziruf regarding Chulin.

Explanation (R. Elchanan): It says "finished", and not "made", because it is not normal to guard them in Taharah while making them, until finishing them, because they are not yet Mekabel Tum'ah;

However, once they are finished, they are Mekabel Tum'ah, so one is mindful to guard them in Taharah.