(Mishnah): Nothing from a tree is Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim (i.e. when it is an Ohel over Tum'as Mes, it becomes Tamei), except for linen.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (R. Elazar): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Ohel-Ohel" from the Mishkan (the bottom curtains, made of wool and linen);

It says "Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel", and it says "Va'Yifros Es ha'Ohel Al ha'Mishkan" - just like the latter Ohel had nothing from a tree except for linen, also the first verse does not apply to anything from a tree other than linen.

Suggestion: Just like the latter Ohel was twined and each thread was six-fold, also the first verse applies only to such an Ohel!

Rejection: "Ohel" is repeated [in the Parshah of Tum'as Mes] to include an Ohel without these.

Question: If so, we should include an Ohel from any material!

Answer: We cannot learn to include an Ohel from any material, for then the Gezerah Shavah would not teach anything.

Question: We should say, just like in the Mishkan there were beams with the linen, also Tum'as Ohalim is only when there are beams with the linen (Tosfos; Rashi - we should say that beams are also Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim)!

Answer: "V'Asisa Es ha'Kerashim la'Mishkan" - the beams are for the Mishkan, they themselves are not called Mishkan (Ohel).

Question: (On top of the bottom curtains of wool and linen were curtains of goat's hair, and on top of them one or two curtains of skins of rams and Tachashim, as we will explain.) If so, we should expound "V'Asisa Michseh la'Ohel" - the covering [of ram and /or Tachash skins] is for the Ohel (of goat curtains), they themselves are not called Ohel!

But R. Elazar asked whether or not skin of a Tamei animal is Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim - if even [the Michseh, made of] skin of Tahor animals is not Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim, all the more so skin of Teme'im is not! (Our only source for Tum'as Ohalim is the Mishkan - if the Tachashim were Tehorim, no Tamei skins were in the Mishkan!)

Answer: Another verse teaches that they are called Ohel - "V'Es Ohel Mo'ed Michsehu u'Michse ha'Tachash Asher Alav" - the upper covering is equated to the lower one;

Just like the lower covering (of goat curtains) is called Ohel, also the upper covering [of skins over it].

Question (R. Elazar): Is skin of a Tamei animal Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim?

Question: Why does he ask (Tum'as Ohalim applies only materials used for an Ohel in the Mishkan, only Tahor animals were used)!

Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): He asks whether or not the Tachash in the days of Moshe was Tahor or Tamei.

Question (Rav Yosef): He should know this from a Beraisa!

(Beraisa): Only skin of Tahor animals is Kosher for Meleches Shamayim (i.e. the Mishkan).

Objection (R. Aba - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): There were two covers [over the goat curtains], one of [skin of] red rams, one of Tachashim.

R. Nechemyah says, there was one covering (half of ram skins, half of Tachash skins), it was like a squirrel.

A squirrel is Tamei! (R. Nechemyah argues with Rav Yosef's Beraisa, therefore it is reasonable that R. Elazar was unsure!)

Answer: [R. Nechemyah means,] it was multicolored like a squirrel, but it was Tahor, unlike a squirrel, which is Tamei.

Support (Rav Yosef): The Targum (translation) of Tachash is Sasgona - it Sas (rejoices) over its many Gavanim (colors).

Answer #1 (Rava): (We learn Tum'as Ohel from Tzara'as.) A Beraisa teaches that skin of a Tamei animal is Mekabel Tum'as Tzara'as:

(Beraisa): Regarding Tzara'as it says] "O b'Or" to include skin of a Tamei animal, or a garment that developed a Nega while the Kohen was looking at it;

Question: What is the source to include a garment made of pieces of all of the materials [mentioned in the verse]?

Answer: "O b'Chol Meleches Or" includes this.

Objection: We cannot learn from Tzara'as, even Shesi or Erev (threads) are Teme'im (even though they are not Mekabel other Tum'os).

Answer #2: We learn from [Tum'as] Sheratzim:

(Beraisa) Question: "Or" - perhaps only skin of Tahor animals is Mekabel Tum'ah (from a Sheretz) - what is the source to include skin of a Tamei animal?

Answer: "O Or".

Objection: We cannot learn from Tum'as Sheretz, even k'Adashah (the size of a lentil) is Tamei (but Tum'as Mes requires a k'Zayis)!

Answer: Tzara'as Yochi'ach (shows that this is not the determining factor) - we learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah:

Each has its own stringency; the Tzad ha'Shavah (common side) of them is that skin is Mekabel Tum'ah, even skin of a Tamei animal - the same applies to Tum'as Ohalim!

Objection (Rava of Barnish): We cannot learn from them, neither requires a k'Zayis for Tum'ah, unlike Tum'as Mes!

Answer #3 (Rava of Barnish): We learn from a Kal va'Chomer from goats' hair - it is not Mekabel Tum'as Tzara'as, yet it is Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim - skin of a Tamei animal is Mekabel Tum'as Tzara'as, all the more so it is Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim!

Question: Rav Yosef's Beraisa taught that only skin of Tahor animals is Kosher for Meleches Shamayim - if this does not Metaher skin of a Tamei animal from Tum'as Ohalim, what does it teach?

Answer: It is Posel skin of a Tamei animal for Tefilin.

Question: A verse explicitly teaches that!

"Lema'an Tihyeh Toras Hash-m b'Ficha" - Tefilin must be made from something permitted to your mouth, i.e. skin of a Tahor animal!

Answer #1: [The verse only discusses the parchments, on which Divrei Torah are written -] the Beraisa is Posel Teme'im for the boxes.

Objection: Abaye taught that a tradition from Moshe from Sinai mandates that [head] Tefilin have [a protrusion on the box shaped like] a Shin (it is part of 'Shakai', a name of Hash-m, so the verse also teaches about the boxes)!

Answer #2: Rather, it teaches that hair [and sinews] of Teme'im may not be used to wrap the parchments [and sew the boxes].

Objection: Also this we know from tradition

(Beraisa): A tradition from Sinai teaches that Tefilin must be square, and [the parchments must be] wrapped with 'their' hair (i.e. of animals Kosher for parchments), and [the boxes must be] sewn with 'their' sinews!

Answer #3: Rather, it is Posel Teme'im for the straps.

Question: But R. Yitzchak taught that a tradition from Sinai requires the straps to be black! (Tosfos - if the Torah mandates what color they must be, all the more so it mandates that they be from a Tahor animal, just like the boxes.)

Answer: The tradition requires them to be black, it does not require them to be from Tahor animals [nor can we learn from a Kal va'Chomer]. (On 62A, it says that a tradition from Sinai requires the straps to form a Dalet and Yud to complete 'Shakai'; Tosfos deletes this from the text, for our Gemara finds no source to require straps from Tahor animals other than the Beraisa. Rashba defends the text - since these letters are not written, merely formed, this would not mandate being from Tehorim.)

Question: What was the conclusion about the Tachash in the days of Moshe?

Answer (R. Ila'a): It was a species unto itself; Chachamim did not determine if it is a Chayah or Behemah;

It had a horn on its forehead, it existed only at that time, for the sake of the Mishkan, afterwards it was hidden.

Inference: Since it had a horn, it must be Tahor!

(Rav Yehudah): The ox that Adam offered had one horn on its forehead - "V'Sitav la'Shem...Makrin".

Question: "Makrin" is plural (suggesting at least two)!

Answer: It is written missing the 'Yud', suggesting the singular (mi'Keren).

Question: Since it had a horn, it must be a Behemah!

Answer: A Keresh (giraffe) has a horn, it is a Chayah - perhaps also the Tachash was a Chayah.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If one twined a garment to make a wick but did not singe it, [if it is three fingers by three fingers] it is Tamei, one may not light with it;

R. Akiva says, it is Tahor, one may light with it.

(Gemara) Question: We understand the argument regarding Tum'ah - R. Eliezer holds that twining does not Mevatel it from being a garment, R. Akiva holds that it does;

What is the argument regarding lighting?

Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The case is, the garment was exactly three by three, Erev Shabbos was Yom Tov;

Both hold like R. Yehudah, who says that we may light with a Kli, but not with a Kli that broke [on Yom Tov, for it is Nolad];

Both hold like Ula, who says that [before removing his hand] one must light the majority of the Yotzei (the part of the wick outside of the Ner);

R. Eliezer holds, the wick is still considered a garment - once a bit burns, it is a broken Kli, it is forbidden to continue to light the majority of the Yotzei;

R. Akiva holds, the garment was Batul was it was folded, it is like a piece of wood.

Rav Yosef: I had heard that a Mishnah discusses exactly three by three - I did not understand this until now.

Question: Presumably, Rav Ada explains that all hold like R. Yehudah because he holds like him - but this is not so!

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): A Yisrael may burn his log on Yom Tov, even if a Nochri carved out a [cavity holding a] Kav in it [that same day].

Summation of question: This is Nolad (firewood became a Kli)!

Answer: Indeed, Rav Ada explains that R. Eliezer and R. Akiva hold like R. Yehudah, but he himself does not.