Question: How is it a Mechitzah? He is not Mevatel it there!

Answer (Rivam): Since the figs became wormy, also the barrel was ruined, and he is Mevatel it.

Question (Ri): In Shabbos (157a), it says that they plugged up a Ma'or (hole in a wall for light) with a flask [to block Tum'ah, on Shabbos].

How did plugging help? He is not Mevatel it, so it does not block [Tum'ah]!

Suggestion: He was Mevatel the flask.

Rejection: If so, he transgressed building on Shabbos!

Answer (R. Tam): A Kli Cheres does not require Bitul. It blocks even without Bitul.

Implied question: Below, it says that a Kli Cheres diminishes a window. The Gemara asks that a Kli Cheres is proper for him (he will not leave it there. This shows that it requires Bitul!)

Answer #1: There we discuss when it diminishes the window from the Shi'ur, but it does not seal the entire window. Therefore we require Bitul;

However, when it seals the entire window, like here, that it taught "they block", which connotes that it totally seals, and also the case in which they plugged up a Ma'or, there surely we do not require Bitul for a Kli Cheres.

Answer #2 (R. Shmuel): Also a Kli Etz that is not Mekabel Tum'ah, e.g. it is made to be stationary, does not require Bitul.

Source: In Megilah (26b), regarding the Beis ha'Keneses of Yehudim open to a room with a Mes, Kohanim wanted to enter to pray. [Rava] said to move the Aron to the opening [for it is a Kli Etz made to be stationary];

If we require Bitul, why does it help? Presumably, they were not Mevatel the Aron there!

Also, they could not be Mevatel it, for the Sefer Torah was in it, and we may not change it (the Aron) to something else, for we ascend in Kedushah, and we do not descend.

Question (R. Tam): The barrel itself should bring Tum'ah to the other house, since through the Ohel, the metal becomes like a Mes to be Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah, like is clear from Maseches Ohalos;

It is like a Mes also to be Metamei others in an Ohel, for the entire verse "Kol Asher Yiga Al Penei ha'Sadeh ba'Chalal Cherev..." we expound in Nazir (54a) regarding Ohel.

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here we discuss when the figs stick outside the barrel all around, and totally cover it, so it is not seen at all;

Source: R. Tam derived this from the fact that it mentioned figs, and not Peros. Figs stick together even if they stick out of the barrel, and do not fall.

Support: The Gemara in Shabbos (146a) infers like this.

Answer #2 (Ri): Here we discuss when the barrel does not stick out from the wall;

Therefore, the Tum'ah does not go through the window to the house, for a Tum'ah Retzutzah (not contained in an Ohel) breaks through [what is above it] and goes up. It does not spread to the sides, for there is not an open Tefach.

Question: Why does this diminish the Tefach? A Mishnah in Ohalos (8:5) says "the following do not bring Tum'ah and do not block - vegetation and vegetables attached to the ground, except for the vegetables listed."

Explanation: Those listed above (8:1) bring Tum'ah and do not block - iris, ivy and Greek gourd.

Summation of question: If so, herbs that grew by themselves, why does it say that they block?

Answer (R. Tam): There we discuss Ohel. They do not become an Ohel to block Tum'ah from what is below or on them, or to bring Tum'ah, because the wind blows it and it does not stay in one place;

It is like a flying bird. It does not block or bring Tum'ah.

Question (Ri): Here in our entire Sugya, we do not require smoothing, not regarding herbs, and not regarding a barrel. We asked above that [the barrel] itself should block;

In Bava Kama (105a) Rava taught that if a barrel was punctured, and the hole was sealed with dregs, the barrel saves (blocks Tum'ah). If one plugged up the hole with a twig, he must plaster it on the sides.

Answer: There we discuss a Kli, which requires a Tzamid Pasil. Therefore, it must be plastered. Here, we do not need a Tzamid Pasil.

Assertion: This is even according to R. Meir, who holds in Eruvin (15b) that anything alive, one may not make it a Sukah wall, and not a Lechi for a Mavoy (a vertical post to permit carrying there)...

That is only regarding a Mechitzah 10 Tefachim tall. Here, to diminish a window, anything he is Mevatel diminishes it.

Explanation: A Nochri is not Mekabel Tum'ah, like we learn from a verse in Nazir (61b). It says "Ish Asher Yitma... mi'Toch ha'Kahal" - this excludes a Nochri, who has no Kahal.

Implied question: Chachamim made [Nochrim] like Zavim in every way (Shabbos 83a)!

Answer: Since mid'Oraisa they are not Mekabel Tum'ah, they block Tum'ah.

Question: In Nidah (43b), it says that a stringency of a Sheretz over semen is that a Sheretz has no division of Tum'ah;

We conclude there, what is the division of Tum'ah of semen? If it is between Yisre'elim and Nochrim, here there is the sea mouse and the land mouse!

Inference: Regarding a Sheretz there is no different between Yisrael and Nochri!

Answer: This is not difficult. Even though Nochrim do not receive Tum'as Sheretz, this is not a division of Tum'ah like that of semen, for in semen itself there is a distinction;

However, in the Sheretz itself there is no difference, only [there is a difference] in those who receive Tum'ah from it. Therefore, we must say that adopt [the distinction between] the sea mouse and the land mouse.

Question: Why do we need an exclusion (Shabbos 83a) that a Nochri is not Metamei b'Zivah? (He is not Mekabel any Tum'ah!)

Answer: It is because Zivah is not Tum'ah of touching. From this Tum'ah, we do not find that he is excluded.

Explanation: An eight-month baby (a Nefel, blocks Tum'ah because he) is not Mekabel Tum'ah when he is alive, for he is not called Adam.

Inference: This connotes that salt does not receive Tum'ah;

Distinction: However, snow [blocks] in a case that he did not intend to eat it. Then it is not Mekabel Tum'ah;

If he intended to eat it, we know [that it does not diminish] because it is Mekabel Tum'ah, like is proven in Nidah (17a)!

Comment: See there. This requires great investigation. Perhaps the text [of Tosfos] should say "however, snow discusses a case in which he did not intend to drink it, so it is not Mekabel Tum'ah." According to this correction, Tosfos is understood properly.

Note: This comment is based on our text in Nidah, which says that if one intended to eat snow, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah like a food. If one intended to drink it, it is Mekabel Tum'ah." If Tosfos had the Me'iri's text, which says "if one intended to eat it, it is Mekabel Tum'ah like a food", our text of Tosfos is fine!

Explanation: The reason is because they do not last, and they melt.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is because they harm the wall, and he will remove them!

Rejection: Also salt harms the wall, and the Beraisa says that it diminishes! We discuss when it is on a shard;

Also the others, we should teach that they diminish, i.e. when they are on a shard!

Conclusion: Rather, even if they are on a shard, and they do not harm the wall, they do not diminish.

Implied question: It says in Sukah (16a) and Shabbos (125a) that less than three by three [fingers] is not proper for poor or rich people. Surely it is not Mekabel Tum'ah, for people do not store it away!

Answer: In any case it does not diminish, for he is not Mevatel it. He will take it when he needs it for [patching] a tear in a garment.

Question: He will take the entire animal and cast it to dogs!

Answer: We discuss a monkey and everything similar. It is left there for amusement.

Support: This is why it discusses a limb and flesh, and did not mention the animal itself;

If it is proper for amusement, he will take it for amusement. If it is not proper for amusement, he will cast it (the entire animal) to dogs!

Explanation: We discuss a Goses. He will die before Shabbos ends. We say that he will be buried there. (Rashash - this connotes that there is no Mitzvah to bury Nefalim.

Explanation: The earthenware is not big enough to diminish the Shi'ur from a square Tefach.

The text does not say "like the Mishnah says", for there is no connection to Shi'urim of Shabbos. Rather, it says "and like the Mishnah says", with a Vov;

It means as follows. Why does salt diminish? When he takes the earthenware, when he needs it, he will remove also the salt, lest it harm the wall;

On this it brings "and like the Mishnah says." I.e. we discuss also when there is not enough [earthenware] to put between one pillar [in a window] and the next, so it is not useful for anything, and he will not take it.

Alternate text: Some texts do not say "the earthenware itself should block!", rather, it should suffice due to the earthenware!

Explanation: It should suffice that he will remove the salt when he removes the earthenware. We answer that it does not have a Shi'ur, like the Mishnah says, and he will not take it.

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): Regarding a Chamor mill, the land does not shake. A donkey does not grind;

Rather, the wood edifice that supports the mill is called Chamor, like we find that wood that supports is called Chamor, e.g. wood that the bed rests on;

Citation (Kelim 18:3 - Mishnah): The bed boards and the Chamor are Tehorim.

Also the wood that bears a chest, box or tower is called Chamor, like a [Tosefta] says "Chamor that is under the frame, and benches under the legs are Tahor.

Similarly, the wood that a smith's bellows rests on is called Chamor, like the Mishnah (14:3) says "the Chamor of smiths is Tamei.

The same applies to the mill. The edifice is made like a chair, and the mill rests on it. This is Itztrobal, and a person sits opposite it in a high place, and his legs are spread below, and he rotates the wheel with his legs and grinds;

There is no Tiriya (shaking of land). There is merely noise.

However, a mill in which a person grinds with his hands or body, it shakes. This is Tiriya.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Also a Chamor mill, a person grinds with his hands, but it is on an edifice, like the Mishnah (Zavim 4:2) "the Chamor of a hand mill..."

Implied question: A Tosefta (Bava Basra 1:2) says that for a hand mill, we distance the lower stone three Tefachim, and the upper stone is four Tefachim away. For a Chamor mill, we distance the Itztrobal three Tefachim, and the funnel is four Tefachim away. (This shows that a Chamor mill is not a hand mill!)

Answer: This does not mean that in a Chamor mill, one does not grind with his hands;

Rather, in a Stam hand mill, there is no Chamor. Rather, it is on the ground. Therefore, it teaches afterwards a Chamor mill. However, in both of them, he grinds with his hands.

Implied question: Why didn't we say also above that we infer that also the lower stone of a mill is (extends) a Tefach [past the upper stone]?

Answer: This was obvious to them (people at the time of the Gemara).

Explanation: Everyone makes his Tanur (oven) like he wants, big or small. However, all Kiros of bakers were the same, and they were experts about them;

This (all Kiros of bakers are the same) is relevant to commerce.

Explanation: Now we are thinking that in the Seifa, the children come to buy from the store. Therefore, we ask why it is different [from the Reisha];

We did not ask from a hammer and mill. This does not entail people entering and leaving. One who has wheat to grind gives it to the owner of the mill, and similarly regarding the hammer.