Question: This is difficult, as in Pesachim (19b) Rebbi Akiva states that we merited that there was not impurity of the hands in the Mikdash. The Gemara asks, why didn't he say that there was no impurity of the hands and of vessels in the Mikdash? The Gemara answers that Rav Yehudah says the impurity of the hands came before the decree regarding vessels. Rabah asked him, weren't they both decreed on the same day, as the Mishnah states, "The holy writings, hands, and vessels etc.?"

Question (cont.): What is Rabah's question? The impurity of hands regarding Kodesh was decreed by Shlomo, and vessels were only decreed on the day that the eighteen decrees were made!

Answer: Rebbi Akiva was referring to the new decree of hands instituted by the eighteen decrees. He meant as follows. We merited that when hands were discussed when the eighteen decrees were made, they did not want to decree that there should be a law of impurity of hands in the Mikdash. (The Maharam explains that Tosfos understands that the decree of Shlomo was not regarding hands in the Mikdash, but regarding hands outside the Mikdash that dealt with Kodesh. When the eighteen decrees were made and they added impurity regarding Terumah, Rebbi Akiva remarked that they did not add hands in the Mikdash that dealt with Kodesh.)

Answer (cont.): When Rav Yehudah answered that hands were decreed before vessels, he is referring to the decree that hands outside the Mikdash cause Kodshim to become impure instituted in the time of Shlomo.

Answer (cont.): This is why Rebbi Akiva only discussed hands, as even in the times of Shlomo they merited not to worry about the hands touching the Kodesh.

Answer (cont.): Even so, Rabah asked this question that didn't both of them etc. because he did not think this was the intent of Rebbi Akiva.

Implied Question: According to this answer the Gemara no longer needs to answer that they decreed and it was not accepted. Rather, the Gemara entertains that they decreed that it causes Terumah to be possibly impure, while Ilfa says that Shlomo decreed that hands cause the Kodesh to be burned. (Why doesn't the Gemara say this?)

Answer: The Gemara understands that Ilfa is discussing the eighteen decrees (not a decree made by Shlomo) [Tosfos Yeshanim].

Observation: The Yerushalmi explains that the reasoning of Shamai and Hillel. An Eifah is eighteen Kavim. If one takes an external tenth of this amount (meaning a ninth), it is two Kav. This is the amount from which one must take Chalah according to Hillel.

Observation (cont.): Shamai understands that two Chalos were required for the Omer, as they ate twice from it, once in the morning and once at night. Shamai therefore looks at the amount used for one meal in the desert.

Explanation: He understands that "the first of your dough" implies that after Chalah is taken there will remain an amount of dough eaten in the desert.

Observation: Rabeinu Tam says that one should not erase the text later (77a) and in Pesachim (48a) that says on five fourths (of a Kav) and more one must take Chalah, as it is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

Question: This is difficult, as we derive in Sanhedrin (14b, 87a) from the Pasuk, "And you will get up and go up to the place" that this teaches that the place is essential, but only regarding a Zaken Mamrei. Even regarding a Zaken Mamrei, this is only regarding the law that his rebelling against the Sanhedrin must be done there. However, they can judge him even if the Great Sanhedrin is not in the Lishkas ha'Gazis!

Answer: It does not appear correct to say that they must be in their place when the sin is committed, just as this is true regarding a Zaken Mamrei. (Why not?)

Question #1: A Zaken Mamrei is not liable solely for his rebellious words to the Sanhedrin, but also because he went back to his town and maintained his ruling. It does not say that the Sanhedrin must be in their place when this happens.

Question #2: Additionally, we do not find anywhere that they checked if the Beis Din was in the Lishkas ha'Gazis when the sin was done.

Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara does not answer the question regarding glass vessels at all, even according to its conclusion.

Implied Question: One cannot say that they originally decreed that an impure glass vessel causes doubtful impurity, and they later decreed it should be considered certain impurity that causes Terumah to be burned, as the Gemara concludes regarding earth of Chutz la'Aretz. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because we do not burn Terumah due to the impurity of glass vessels, as stated later that the Rabbanan made a sign (that it is Rabbinic impurity) by stating that one should not burn Terumah or Kodshim that comes in contact with impure glass vessels.

Answer #1: The Gemara later that says we do not burn Terumah or Kodshim that comes in contact with impure glass vessels is specifically regarding the impurity of the outside of the vessel. This is because a glass vessel should only be impure if we compare it to metal vessels (that do not become impure from the outside of the vessel).

Answer #1 (cont.): However, if it becomes impure in other ways that an earthenware vessel would become impure, one would burn Terumah or Kodshim that came in contact with it, as it is very similar to an earthenware vessel. This must be the explanation of the Gemara later.

Answer #2: According to the Sefarim that have the text in our Gemara, "Rather, originally they decreed and it was not accepted, and the Rabbanan eighty years before the Churban made this decree, and it was accepted. This implies that this is one decree to burn. Didn't Ilfa say etc." this is understandable, as glass vessels are answered in the first answer. (See Maharshal, Maharsha, and Maharam regarding how this is answered in the first answer.)

Question: This is difficult, as the Mishnah states in Ohalos (2:3), "These are impure by touch and by carrying, but not through an Ohel (ha'Mes): A bone of a dead person the size of a barleycorn, and the land of the nations."

Answer #1: The case there is when he brought the earth from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael.

Answer #2: Alternatively, this is according to Rebbi Shimon who says that graves of Nochrim do not cause impurity of Ohel. They were not more stringent regarding the land of Nochrim than they were regarding their graves.

Answer #3: He also answered that this Mishnah was taught before the decree regarding the air of Chutz la'Aretz, when there was only a decree regarding the land.

Proof: This is implied from the teaching, "regarding the earth it causes doubtful impurity, and regarding the air there is no impurity." Why did it say that the air does not cause impurity? It should say that originally they decreed that both of them create doubtful impurity and they eventually decreed that earth of Chutz la'Aretz causes Terumah to be burned and they did not change the decree regarding air!

Proof (cont.): The reason this was not said was because it is apparent from the Mishnah in Ohalos that when they made the decree regarding earth of Chutz la'Aretz, they did not make a decree regarding its air.

Implied Question: When the Gemara asks in Nazir (54b) whether earth of Chutz la'Aretz is impure due to the air or because of the earth, it is clear that they also had made a decree regarding the air as stated here. (This implies that the decree regarding the air was made at the time that the earth of Chutz la'Aretz was declared impure!)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara there means as follows. Did they make the decree because of the air, meaning that a person should not enter the airspace of Chutz la'Aretz at all even while in a carriage, box, or closet (elongated box)? Or is because of the earth, meaning because he is hovering over the earth? This latter possibility would mean that if he is in a carriage, box, or closet he is still pure.

Explanation: The Ri says that even though there are more doubts that cause Terumah to be burned, such as overhangs or things that jut over graves or anything similar, our Gemara only counts those that were instituted in Usha.

Explanation: The Ri understands that this is referring to a field in which a grave was plowed over, as it is pure according to Torah law. We do not suspect that a bone the size of a barleycorn still remains, and therefore it is only impure according to Rabbinic law. However, a field where a grave was lost is considered a Torah doubt of impurity, as is apparent in Moed Katan (5b).

Question: If so, according to the Chachamim, why did the Mishnah say that even doubtful touching in the private domain is reason to make something possibly impure? Doesn't the Mishnah say in Taharos (6:1) that all doubts in the private domain are ruled impure?

Explanation: They decreed that Amei ha'Aretz are like Zavin, and that even his spittle is impure. This is as the Gemara says in Chagigah (23a) that it is a decree due to the spittle of an Am ha'Aretz. This is despite the fact that even the spittle of a person who is impure from contact with the dead is not considered impure. Rather, they made him have the status of a Zav.

Explanation (cont.): This is besides his sitting and lying on things, as they did not decree that this causes impurity like a Zav.

Proof #1: This is evident from the Mishnah in Taharos (7:6) that says regarding thieves that entered a house, "Only the area where they stepped is deemed impure. What do they make impure? They make the food and drink impure. However, earthenware vessels that are sealed, mattresses, and chairs are pure. If there is a Nochri or woman that is known to be with these thieves, everything is impure." (This clearly implies that they do not cause mattresses or chairs to be impure, even though they are clearly Amei ha'Aretz.)

Proof #2: The Gemara also implies this in Gitin (61b). The Gemara asks, "Why don't we suspect his wife who is a Nidah sat on them?" This implies that he does not cause impurity in this fashion.

Explanation #1: This is also why the Mishnah says that spittle is impure (and we even burn Terumah), because we suspect that it belongs to an Am ha'Aretz, as his spittle is impure as I have explained.

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi who says that the clothing of an Am ha'Aretz is impure because we suspect that his wife who is a Nidah sat on his clothing.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is a Sfeik Sfeika (doubly doubtful).

Question: This is difficult, as in Nidah (33b) the Mishnah states that one does not burn Terumah due to these things, as they are only doubtfully impure. The Gemara asks, the Mishnah in Taharos (4:5) says that due to six doubts we burn Terumah etc. The Gemara answers, the Mishnah in Nidah is regarding a Sfeik Sfeika, and this is why the Mishnah says not to burn the Terumah.

Question (cont.): According to Rashi this is difficult, as we burn Terumah due to contact with possible urine, even though it is a Sfeik Sfeika!

Explanation #2: The Ri understands that this is why the Mishnah in Taharos (ibid.) discusses urine that is opposite the urine of an animal, because when they are next to each other it is obvious that the human urine is from a urine. There is therefore only one doubt.

Implied Question: One cannot say that this immersion is referring to the immersion of new vessels acquired from Nochrim, as stated in Avodah Zarah (65b) that they require immersion. (Why not?)

Answer: This is as the second part of the Mishnah in Mikvaos (2:5) states that regarding a table, small eating area, and on a small bed there would be a Chatzitzah (and all of these do not require immersion as new vessels if purchased from a Nochri).

Implied Question: The Gemara later (59b) states that Rebbi Nechemiah used to say that the impurity status of a ring is decided by its signet, the status of a yoke is decided by its , the status of a ladder is decided by its rungs etc. The Chachamim say that everything is dependent on what supports it. This is not quoted in our Gemara. (Why not?)

Answer: Our Gemara uses the word "its support" to mean what is put inside of it, and the Gemara later (ibid.) understands that "its support" is what makes the vessel stand, such as the two sides of the ladder which are connected by the rungs.

Question: How is it apparent from here that Rebbi Meir understands that everything is decided by etc.? Perhaps Rebbi Meir rules it is impure because it is considered closed well, and is therefore impure because of the laws of a glass vessel and not the laws of a metal vessel? The Chachamim do not hold it is closed well, and therefore they say it is pure.

Answer: It is logical that everyone agrees that closing it with lead is considered as if it is closed well. The argument is that Rebbi Meir holds it is impure according to Torah law like a metal vessel, as he understands we go by what it is made of. The Chachamim say it is pure according to Torah law, but it is impure according to Rabbinic law because a decree was made regarding glass vessels and it is a good closing.