Question: According to the opinion that Ohel Zaruk Lo Shmei Ohel, how did it help to have doors under children, due to Kever ha'Tehom (Tum'as Mes under the ground. For Parah Adumah, children who never became Tamei Mes rode to the water on doors on bulls), like it says in Sukah (21a)? It is Ohel Zaruk!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): He holds that they did not bring doors. Rather, they rode on bulls with fat bellies, like R. Yehudah says there. The Torah called bulls an Ohel, like it says "uva'Atzamos v'Gidim Tesochecheni." (The verse discusses people, and all the more so animals, for their belly is below, like an Ohel - Tosfos Sukah 21b.)

Answer #2 (Rashba): All agree that doors on bulls are an Ohel, for a Mishnah (Ohalos 6:1) teaches that people and Kelim can become an Ohel to be Metamei, but not to be Metaher. I.e. they bring Tum'ah [to what is under them], but do not interrupt (block) between Tum'ah under them and Kelim above them.

[The Mishnah] does not discuss a person or Kli that themselves become Ohalim, rather, like it explains there, a tier of rocks or doors on a person or Kli, even Kelim of dung, stone or earth (which are not Mekabel Tum'ah);

[The Tana] holds that Ohel Zaruk Lo Shmei Ohel. If it were Shmei Ohel, when he puts the tier on Kelim, why is it not considered an Ohel to interrupt?

A Kli itself becomes an Ohel to interrupt when it is not Mekabel Tum'ah, e.g. a chest, box or tower, according to the opinion that Shmei Ohel!

The Seifa teaches that if [the tier] was on rocks that are not Kelim, or on something alive, similar to bulls in Sukah (21a), if there is Tum'ah under it, Kelim on it are Tehorim...

Inference: In such a case, it is an Ohel according to everyone.

Explanation: Granted, according to R. Yehudah, there is a solution even in a cemetery, through a chest, box or tower;

Also regarding a lone grave, which they decreed that it is [Metamei] four Amos around it, to distance [people from Tum'ah], all the more so one can go in a chest, box or tower.

Below, we ask what is Rabanan's reason regarding a lone grave. Granted, in a big cemetery, [Ohel Zaruk] is not a Chatzitzah. Here, it is only to distance [from Tum'ah], why do they argue? He can go in a chest, box or tower. There is no greater distancing [from Tum'ah] than this!

Alternative text: [Also] according to texts that say "or it was kneaded with fruit juice", it means that it was not Huchshar, e.g. he was Me'arev with Peros, or with bread kneaded with fruit juice.

Inference: They do not receive Tum'ah even mid'Rabanan.

Support #1: A Mishnah in Kelim (2:1), brought in Shabbos (16a), says that Kelim of wood and glass, Pashut Kelim are Tehorim, and those with a receptacle receive Tum'ah;

You are forced to say that Peshutim are Tehorim even mid'Rabanan, for glass Kelim, even with a receptacle, receive Tum'ah only mid'Rabanan, like it says in Shabbos (16a).

Support #2: It connotes in several places that Pashut Klei Etz are Tehorim even mid'Rabanan.

Question: In Bava Basra (66a), it says that Pashut Klei Etz are different. [Their Tum'ah is] mid'Rabanan, regarding a baker's board;

Implied suggestion: Perhaps we discuss [Pashut Klei Etz] proper for Midras.

Rejection: Those receive Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, for whatever receives Tum'as Midras, receives Tum'as Mes, like we learn in Bava Kama (25a) from a Kal v'Chomer from small flasks.

Answer #1 (Rashba): There, there is no concern [if it says that Pashut Klei Etz receive Tum'ah mid'Rabanan], for the conclusion is unlike this. We establish it to discuss a metal board.

Answer #2 (Ri): Klei Etz that are wide like a board, and proper to put Kelim on them, Rabanan decreed Tum'ah on them, for they resemble Klei Etz with a receptacle;

However, Pashut Klei Etz that are not wide are Tehorim even mid'Rabanan.

Answer #3: A baker's board and similar Kelim, which serve man and things that serve man, Rabanan decreed Tum'ah on them, like is proven in Toras Kohanim in Parshas Shemini;

It excludes a ladder and hanger from "mi'[Kol] Klei Etz", and not all Klei Etz. It includes a table, table top and small table from "Kol";

It says 'why [do you include these and exclude these]? It says "Sak" - just like Sak serves man and things that serve man...'

You are forced to say that they are not proper for Midras, since it did not mention a chair and bed.

You are forced to say that they are not proper for Midras, since it did not mention a chair and bed.

We discuss when they do not have a receptacle, since it does not say "just like Sak is moved empty and full..."

Inference: They receive Tum'ah mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: [Toras Kohanim] expounds a verse!

Answer: It is a mere Asmachta. The primary Drashah [of the verse] is "just like Sak is moved empty and full..." Many Drashos in Toras Kohanim are only Asmachtos.

Proof: In Menachos (96b), R. Yochanan said that according to the opinion that the rim [around the Shulchan in the Mikdash] was below, i.e. on the legs, and not on [the surface of] the Shulchan, a reversible tabletop receives Tum'ah, like we expound "Al ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor", that [such a table] can be Tamei;

According to the opinion that the rim was above, we cannot resolve whether a reversible tabletop receives Tum'ah. [The Shulchan] of the Mikdash received Tum'ah because it had a receptacle;

We need the verse "ha'Tahor", which implies that it can be Tamei, to teach that they lifted it up to show Olei Regalim [that the Lechem ha'Panim was still steaming, like when it was removed from the oven days earlier], lest we say that it is made to be stationary [and is not Mekabel Tum'ah].

Question: Why is there a question about a reversible tabletop? We should resolve this from the Drashah of Toras Kohanim!

Summation of proof - Answer: The Drashah is a mere Asmachta, like I explained.

Implied question: Why does it connote there that a reversible tabletop is more liable to receive Tum'ah than other Peshutei Klei Etz?

Answer: It is like Rashi explained, because it is proper to use it from both sides.

Assertion: We ask only according to Sumchus. According to Rabanan, even though it is not proper for him, it is proper for Aniyim.

Question: According to Sumchus, it is proper for him, for he can separate [Ma'aser] from it itself, even according to Rabanan of Rebbi (who forbid Shevus Bein ha'Shemashos), for when it is Safek dark, one may tithe Demai!

Answer: It connotes to him that our Mishnah is even when there are precisely two meals. Presumably, our Mishnah discusses every case (both a minimal Eruv, and a large Eruv).

Support: Also above (30b), it asks "why do you assume [that it is a minimal Eruv]?", because it connotes to him that our Mishnah discusses [every case, i.e. both a minimal Eruv, and] even when there are more than two meals.

Implied question: However, also in Shabbos (127b) it asks like this regarding why one may move [Demai], and answers like here, since if he would make his property Hefker... There, we could have said that it is proper for Aniyim!

Answer: There, he wanted to answer like here, and like in Pesachim (35b) and Brachos (47a).

Correction: The Rashba's text is "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu", which discusses Terumah Gedolah;

However, "mi'Kol Ma'aseroseichem Tarimu" discusses Terumas Ma'aser.

Explanation (Riva): Why do you distinguish between taking early from the stack, or taking sheaves early? You should say that also when taking early from the stack, it is exempt from Terumah Gedolah, since it was not yet fixed for Ma'aser!

The verse "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu" comes to obligate when it entered the house.

Implied suggestion: [Perhaps the Gemara asks] why do you say [that taking early from the stack is obligated, and taking sheaves early is exempt]? You can say oppositely, that taking early from sheaves is obligated, and taking early from the stack is exempt!

Rejection: This is unreasonable. (There is more reason to obligate when it was in a stack.)

Question: Why don't we resolve from here in Bava Metzi'a (54a) that the Chomesh is not Me'akev?

Implied question: If so, this is obvious! What is the Chidush [that one may be Me'arev with it]?

Answer: Ma'aser Sheni was taught Agav (along with) Ma'aser Rishon.

Explanation (Rashi): Asimon is a coin without a form.

Implied question: according to R. Dosa, why may we redeem Ma'aser Sheni on an Asimon, but not on coins given for a Siman in the bathhouse?

Answer: This is because an Asimon is made with the proper weight and width. It is missing only a form. It is easy to stamp many of them.

Question (R. Tam): in Shabbos (65a), it says if [a coin in the shoe helps heal a foot wound] due to the form, he could make a Pulsa! This implies that [Pulsa] has a form, and in Bava Metzi'a (47b) it says that an Asimon is a Pulsa!

Answer: According to Rashi, anything not made properly is called Asimon - either it is of silver but does not have a form, or it is of wood and it has a form.

Implied question: Normally, Shaveh Kesef is like Kesef!

Answer: Here there is an exclusion. We expound this verse through Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal.

Support: It connotes like this in Bechoros (51a). We do not redeem with slaves... or Hekdesh. The Gemara explains that Hekdesh is not redeemed with all of these.

Regarding Bechor (Pidyon ha'Ben), we expound Klal u'Ferat.

Question: We say in Me'ilah (14a) that we build [the Mikdash] in Chol, and afterwards we are Makdish. This shows that we profane Hekdesh coins on what was built (which is like land)!

Answer #1: Regarding this (redemption), what was detached and later attached is considered detached.

Answer #2: There it is considered detached more [than here], for if it will not be Kadosh, it would be destined to be dissembled.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Eruvei Techumim is acquisition of Shevisah. A minor is not strong enough to acquire.

Question #1: In Me'ilah (21a), it says about one who sent [Hekdesh] with a Cheresh, lunatic or child, if they did the Shelichus, the sender transgressed Me'ilah. It asks that they cannot be a Shali'ach;

It answers that [Chachamim] made this like one who put [an Eruv] on an elephant, and it carried it, or on a monkey, and it carried it. It is an Eruv. This shows that it did the Shelichus. Also here, [the Cheresh, lunatic or child] did the Shelichus!

Inference: Even on a monkey or elephant, it is an Eruv. Also here (through a Cheresh, lunatic or child), it is an Eruv!

Question #2: Rashi's Perush connotes that if [a minor] were strong enough to acquire, we would believe him, and it would be an Eruv. If so, what was the question below "perhaps he did not bring it! Perhaps [the one who was told to take it from the minor] did not take it!"? Since [a minor] is believed, he takes it to him. If [the recipient] does not take it from him, [the minor] will return it!

Explanation #2: Eruvei Techumim, since they have an Asmachta from a verse, are more stringent, and Rabanan did not believe [a minor about them], so it is not an Eruv unless he saw [the adult take it from him].

The case in Me'ilah, in which he put it on a monkey, and it is an Eruv, is when he sees it. When he does not see it, it is not an Eruv, like a Beraisa in our Sugya teaches "if he put it on a monkey, and it carried it, it is not an Eruv";

This is why it taught in Me'ilah "on a monkey." This connotes that he does not rely on [the monkey's] understanding. In our Sugya it teaches "he gave it to a monkey, which connotes that he relies on [the animal's] understanding.

Implied question: In Pesachim (4b), it says regarding Bedikas Chametz that Rabanan believed [minors] about a Rabanan law!

Answer: That it is their own house, for it is incumbent on them [to check]. However, regarding Shelichus, we can say that they despair (decide not to do it).

Support: Rashi explained like this below regarding the Chazakah of a Chaver (he does not let anything leave his Reshus without tithing it).

Question: What was the question, and what was the answer?

We can infer from our Mishnah the Chazakah that a Shali'ach does his Shelichus, for it taught "in the hand of a Cheresh, lunatic or child, it is not an Eruv. This implies that in the hand of a Pike'ach (one with understanding), it is an Eruv!

Answer: There, he totally relies on the Shali'ach to do his mission. Here, he told [others] to receive from [the Shali'ach], he does not rely on him for the entire Shelichus, the [first] Shali'ach refrains and does not fulfill his Shelichus;

This is why it asks. It answers that even so, there is a Chazakah that a Shali'ach does his Shelichus.

Question: Why weren't their teachings said regarding our Mishnah? We need to give these answers also for our Mishnah!

Answer: They hold that in our Mishnah, the reason it is not an Eruv is not because they are not believed, rather, because they are not strong enough to acquire Techumim.

Support: Now our Mishnah is not difficult at all, for they are believed. The Beraisa in Me'ilah, which teaches even [if he gave it] to an elephant, it is an Eruv (i.e. the Shali'ach need not have any power), they had not heard it;

Our Mishnah in Me'ilah, we can answer the other answer given there, that they made them like a Ma'atan of olives (the Kli in which they are placed to get soft before pressing them). Since he is pleased, it is considered like an action.