Explanation: These are forbidden to a Mudar Hana'ah, and permitted to one who is Mudar Ma'achal, in a place where such Kelim are not rented;

However, in a place where such Kelim are rented for [at least] a Perutah, it is forbidden even to one who is Mudar Ma'achal, for the Perutah can be used to buy food.

However, Kelim used to make food are forbidden even [if they are rented for] less than a Perutah, since this is [included in] Ochel Nefesh.

Question - Citation (Bava Basra 57a): These matters have no Chazakah, and these matters have Chazakah... leaving one's animal in a Chatzer is not a Chazakah...

The Gemara establishes this to discuss partners. They are not particular about merely leaving an animal.

Citation (57b) Objection (Mishnah): If partners (in a Chatzer) vowed not to benefit from each other, they may not enter the Chatzer. (This shows that partners are particular about temporary uses!)

The Gemara answered this. However, we learn from there that people are particular about Drisas ha'Regel!

Implied question: Also the Sugya in Beitzah (39b) opposes the Sugya in Bava Basra! (It cites a Mishnah about people who vowed from each other. They may benefit from a well on the road for Olas Regalim. It asks from the Mishnah that forbids partners from entering their joint Chatzer.)

[In Bava Basra,] we answer that really, people are not particular. The Mishnah [about a Chatzer] is R. Eliezer [who forbids Vitur, i.e. things that people freely give or allow, to a Mudar Hana'ah]. (If so, what was difficult in Beitzah? Perhaps the Mishnah about a well is unlike R. Eliezer!)

Answer: Perhaps there (in Bava Basra) we discuss partners, but other people are surely particular!

Summation of question (a): However, here it is difficult. We discuss Stam people, and even so we say that they are not particular!

Answer (R. Tam): Here we discuss a valley. People are not particular about anyone [who walks there].

Support: It is reasonable to say so, like the Seifa, Kelim not used for Ochel Nefesh;

This discusses when such Kelim are not rented. In Nedarim (32b) we establish this like R. Eliezer.

Question: Why didn't the Mishnah teach that one may bring a Nedavah from Ma'aser [but not a Neder]? It says "vZavachta Shelamim" regarding Ma'aser. A Neder may come only from Chulin!

Once he said "Harei Alai (it is incumbent on me), it is a Neder!

Answer #1: It was proper not to teach this, for we discuss a Korban that was already separated;

The Mishnah teaches that there is no distinction in their Avodah. However, for a Korban that was not yet separated, obviously there are many differences!

Answer #2: The Tana omitted some differences.

Implied question: It says "Ein Bein", which connotes Davka (these are the only differences), like it says in Bava Kama 62b!

Answer: This is not difficult. In Ta'anis (13b), we find a Mishnah that says Ein Bein, and it omitted cases;

Citation (13b) (Mishnah): Ein Bein the three middle fasts [due to lack of rain...]

Citation (continued): Do not say that Tana v'Shiyer. He taught Ein Bein!

Citation (continued) Objection: You cannot say that Ein Bein is precise. The Tana omitted the Aron (taking it outside)!

Citation (continued) Answer: The Aron is not a Shiyur.

Conclusion: In any case, if the Tana was Meshayer, it would not have been difficult at all, even though he taught Ein Bein!

Contradiction (Toras Kohanim): He is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav.

Answer (Rashi Pesachim 67b DH Zav): He is Metamei [Mishkav u'Moshav] to be Metamei food and drink, but he is not Metamei them to be Metamei people and Kelim, the way a Zav is.

Observation: Below, we establish this to discuss a Megilah.

Question: We say below (18a) [if one read the Megilah] in Giftis for Giftim (people who speak that language), or in Ilmis for Ilmim, he (the listener) was Yotzei.

Surely, it was written in the language he reads. If not, he reads by heart, and he was not Yotzei!

If so, this is difficult. Why isn't it (a Megilah written in another language) Metamei the hands, since it was given to read and be written in any language that people know?

Answer: Since it is Kosher to read only for people who know it (the language in which it is written), it is proper that it is not Metamei the hands;

However, when it is written Ashuris it is Kosher even for people who do not know [Lashon ha'Kodesh]. Therefore, it is proper that it is Metamei the hands.