Implied Question: One cannot explain that the Rabbanan say it is completely pure because it is considered an earthenware vessel, as the Tosefta says that an earthenware vessel that became pure for one moment does not become impure anymore. (Why not?)

Answer: If so, how do we know that Rebbi Meir understands the main factor is what it is made of? Perhaps it is not impure due to the law of glass vessels, rather it is impure based on Rebbi Meir's reasoning as found in the Tosefta in Keilim that an earthenware vessel that becomes pure can become impure again.

Proof: This is as the Tosefta says that the bottoms of certain vessels and their walls etc. that were shaped and made into vessels can be used to fill etc. and they can become impure from now on. These are the words of Rebbi Meir. The Chachamim say that any earthenware vessel that was made pure for one instant (i.e. it was broken) cannot become impure again.

Text: Rabeinu Shmuel says that the proper text is, "It is Rebbi Meir who understands it is a proper seal." He does not have the text, "Who says that its status depends on what it is made of."

Explanation: He explains that Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan argue regarding this. Rebbi Meir considers it a good closing, and the Rabbanan do not consider it a good closing. Therefore, they say it is completely pure. Everyone agrees that if it was a good closing, we would say that its status is decided by what it is made of. Therefore, according to Rebbi Meir it can become pure in a Mikvah.

Explanation: It is also possible to say that they should be impure due to their air. When the Gemara answers that they are impure from their back because it appears that their inside is like their outside, it cannot ask that they should still become impure due to their air.

Explanation (cont.): This is because it would be possible to answer that this is indeed true.

Implied Question: It (glass) is not listed together with different types of earthenware vessels. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because its back makes it impure.

Question: The Rashba has difficulty with this, as the Gemara should have quoted the Beraisa in the Tosefta in Keilim that says, "A needle, ring, the bottom of a wooden vessel, a glass vessel, and a vessel made of bone can be filled or used to make it (the water of the Chatas) holy. They also do not save what is inside of them from the impurity of the dead if they are in an Ohel ha'Mes. This implies that they become impure from their outside walls.

Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara instead quote a Mishnah in Keilim (2:1) that can only be used as a proof through deduction that only these types of earthenware vessels are considered to have similar laws of impurity etc.?

Question (cont.): Additionally, regarding this Mishnah (ibid.) one can say that it only listed these types of earthenware vessels because they are stated in the Torah. This is because we even derive vessels of Neser (a type of earth) from a Pasuk in Vayikra that says, "All earthenware vessels" and we derive that this includes vessels of Neser.

Explanation #1: The explanation of "Mitamin" is that it can become impure where the bottom of it is carved out. It certainly can make other entities impure in this fashion.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Chulin (118a) that the attribute of making other things impure is greater than becoming impure. If something becomes impure in a certain fashion, certainly it can cause impurity in that same fashion!

Implied Question: The Mishnah does not say that they cause impurity and become impure from the back of the vessels as it does regarding impurity from their airspace. (Why not?)

Answer #1: This is because regarding their airspace there is a novelty in both of these issues, as opposed to other vessels that do not cause impurity or become impure from their airspace. However, regarding the fact that they cause impurity through the bottom of the vessels, this is not a novel law. They even cause impurity from the back of the walls of the vessels as do all vessels, and certainly these do as they are carved out on the bottom.

Answer #1 (cont.): However, the Tana wants to teach that they become impure from the bottom of the vessel, even though they do not become impure from the back of the vessel. This is why the Tana did not make one sweeping statement that they cause impurity and become impure from their airspace and their bottom. This is because there is a novelty in this law in both categories regarding the airspace, but only in the category of becoming impure regarding the bottom of the vessel.

Answer #2: Alternatively, causing impurity due to airspace is according to Torah law, while causing impurity from the bottom of the vessel is only from Rabbinic law.

Answer #3: Additionally, becoming impure from the airspace refers to the entire vessel. However, becoming impure from the bottom of the vessel can mean that only the back of the vessel becomes impure.

Implied Question: The Beraisa states in Toras Kohanim that causing impurity is more stringent than becoming impure, as an item can cause impurity from its bottom but it cannot become impure from its bottom. (Doesn't the Mishnah we are discussing say that this is incorrect?)

Answer #1: We can say that when the Toras Kohanim says, "Achorav" it means the backs of the walls of the vessel, not the carved out part on the bottom of the vessel.

Answer #2: Alternatively, this impurity is not a Torah law, but rather a Rabbinic law.

Answer #3: Alternatively, even according to Torah law it becomes impure from the bottom. When the Toras Kohanim says that it does not, it means that the entire vessel does not become impure from the bottom. The bottom causes the back of the walls to become impure, but not the inside of the vessel.

Observation: The Gemara in Bechoros (38a) is now understandable when it says that if the back of the walls of an earthenware vessel become impure, the inside of it does not become impure. This implies that the back of the walls are still considered impure. This is in a case where the bottom became impure in the area that is carved out.

Observation (cont.): The Mishnah/Gemara sometimes calls this "the back" and sometimes calls it "the bottom."

Implied Question: An earthenware vessel still saves items from becoming impure. (Does this even apply to a case where it has a carved out bottom, as we see it can become impure very easily?)

Answer: This is even where it is carved out. If the back of it becomes impure, the inside of it is still pure.

Implied Question: The Tosefta in Keilim says that an earthenware vessel only becomes impure from its airspace and when it is sat upon. (This seems unlike the sources we have quoted in this Tosfos.)

Answer: The Tosefta is not excluding impurity through the bottom of the vessel, but rather impurity through the back of the vessel. The carved out area in the bottom of the vessel is included in the category of airspace.

Question: Rebbi Eliezer ha'Zaken asks a question on Rashi. The Tosefta in Keilim says that the rule is that any part of an earthenware vessel that is used when it is covered is pure. The bottom of a vessel is always used when it is covered! (How can the Mishnah in Keilim (2:1) say it is impure?)

Answer: Rabeinu Shmue answers that the Tosefta is referring to covers of earthenware pots and pans that are discussed earlier in that Tosefta. This is as the reason is given in Toras Kohanim as follows: "Perhaps I will include the covering of the vessel? This is why the Pasuk states, that work is done with them. This excludes the cover of the vessel that is not used for work. However, sometimes the bottom of the vessel is used, as it is flipped upside down and the carved out section on the bottom is used.

Explanation #2: The Ri explains that the text should read as follows. "They cause impurity from their bottom" from the air of the bottom, if the inside of the vessel became impure. "They do not become impure from their walls." This means that they do not accept impurity even from something touching the back of their walls, and certainly they do not become impure from the airspace on the bottom of the vessel. Similarly, something that touches the bottom of the vessel does not make it impure.

Implied Question: The Mishnah (ibid.) did not say that they do not become impure from their bottom. (Why not?)

Answer: This is in order that we should not make a mistake that this is referring to the airspace of the bottom of the vessel, but impurity that touches the bottom of the vessel does cause impurity. This is why it says that they do not become impure from the back of their walls, where there is only touching (airspace is inapplicable).

Implied Question: The Mishnah does not mix them and say, "They cause impurity but do not become impure from their bottom or back of their walls." (Why not?)

Answer: This is because there would be no novelty in either case. However, now that it says, "it causes impurity from the bottom" it includes that even from the airspace in the bottom of the vessel it causes impurity. "It does not become impure from the back of the walls" implies that even through touching it does not become impure.

Text: The text should not contain the word, "Ela" - "rather." This is because the Gemara is not retracting what it said previously that the Rabbanan equated glass with earthenware vessels. The reason that if they are broken they can be fixed is not a reason that they should not become impure.

Explanation: Rather, the reason is because they are compared to earthenware. Since they should not become impure because the Rabbanan compared them to earthenware, the reasoning "if they are broken they can be fixed" only caused the Rabbanan to equate them with metal regarding becoming impure from the back of the vessel.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (52a) asks, what is the law if someone fixes a vessel in the name of idolatry? Rav Hamnuna says that the question is regarding old impurity. This is as the Mishnah states, if they went back and made vessels out of them, they revert to their old status of impurity. This implies that even regarding Rabbinic impurity there is a concept of reverting to a previous status of impurity!

Answer: Even though the Gemara (ibid.) discusses Rabbinic impurity, the vessel becomes impure according to Torah law. However, in our Gemara there is no impurity of glass according to Torah law. Since this is only Rabbinic in nature, it is obvious that the Rabbanan did not say the old status of impurity comes back.

Explanation: There is nothing noticeable if it does not have its previous status of impurity, as metal vessels also only regain their previous status of impurity according to Rabbinic law. There is nothing noticeable according to Torah law.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. Perhaps glass vessels are like earthenware vessels that they do not cause impurity from their backs? The reason that this is not stated when different types of earthenware vessels are discussed is because they become impure from their airspace. However, glass vessels do not become impure from their airspace, as the Rabbanan made it noticeable that they are not earthenware, in order that people should not burn etc.

Question (cont.): We similarly find later (48b) that an oil container and a spice container become impure if they are touched by something impure but not if something impure enters their airspace, as the Rabbanan made a sign that it is not exactly like an earthenware vessel.

Answer: Ri ha'Bachur answered that glass vessels clearly become impure from the back of their walls, as stated in the Tosefta in Keilim quoted earlier (Tosfos #4) that they do not save items from Tumas Mes if they are sealed inside of them in an Ohel ha'Mes.

Answer (cont.): We explained earlier that specifically regarding the back of the walls becoming impure we do not burn Terumah, as the only reason it is impure is because it is similar to metal vessels. However, it is understandable that when it is impure in a similar manner to earthenware vessels we also burn Terumah.

Observation: Rav Ashi does not hold of the reasoning that since when they break they can be fixed, the Rabbanan etc. regarding impurity.

Observation (cont.): However, regarding requiring Tevilas Keilim for new glass vessels bought from Nochrim, Rav Ashi does hold of this reason as explicitly stated in Avodah Zarah (75b).

Explanation: He quotes a proof that during the days of Shimon ben Shetach they decreed impurity regarding metal vessels, that they should regain their impure status when they are put back together.

Explanation (cont.): This is apparent from the fact that he lived during the time of Queen Shal Tzion, as stated in Ta'anis (Tosfos quotes this as being on 23b, but we do not have it in our edition of the Gemara) that there was a story during the days of Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach and Queen Shal Tzion that rain used to rain every Erev Shabbos etc.

Explanation: This is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in Keilim (ch. 11) regarding the case quoted earlier. He argues on the Tana Kama who says that in general they revert back to their original status of impurity. The reason is because impurity from a dead person is present for a long time, and he will therefore break it instead of waiting.

Explanation: Since they are very large they do not become impure. This applies, for example, to large wooden vessels that contain more than forty Sa'ah and are not carried when full and when empty. Even so, water inside of them is called Mayim Sheuvim.

Explanation (cont.): This also applies to very small vessel, as stated in Keilim (2:2) and quoted in Chulin (54b) that very small earthenware vessels, the bottom of the vessel, and their walls that can sit upright without having to lean on anything else become impure if they can hold the amount of oil used to smear on a minor until a Lug. However, if they cannot hold this amount, they are considered pure.

Question: This is difficult to the Ri, as in Nidah (32a) we establish this as being according to Rebbi Meir who suspects a minority. This is only applicable according to the opinion that Kusim are indeed converts. Therefore, if she saw something that would make her impure, she is indeed impure according to Torah law.

Question (cont.): However, according to the opinion that Kusim are not real converts this does not apply. Even if she would see something that would make her impure according to Torah law if she is Jewish she is considered pure, as Nochriyos are not impure due to Zivah. In our Gemara, it is apparent that according to everyone the impurity of Kusi women is one of the eighteen decrees.

Question (cont.): According to the opinion that does not suspect the minority or the opinion that they are not true converts, how can this be included in the eighteen decrees?

Question (cont.): Additionally, Rebbi Yosi understands that they are not real converts, as stated in Menachos (66b) where he states that one can take Terumah from the produce of a Nochri on that of a Kusi, and visa versa. In our Gemara, the Gemara understands that he holds the decree of Kusi women is one of the eighteen decrees!

Answer: The decree regarding Kusi women is according to everyone, and they decreed that they should be Nidos in order that people should not become impure from them (i.e. also that the Jewish men should not have relations with them).

Answer (cont.): The Gemara in Nidah (ibid.) establishes the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi Meir because the second part of the Mishnah indicates the reason is not solely because we do not want them to marry into regular Jewish families.

Proof: This is as the Mishnah states that the Kusim cause impurity to the bottom layer of what they are laying on just like the top layer, as they are considered to have relations with possible Nidos. The Mishnah concludes that they do not cause Terumah to be burned, because their impurity is doubtful. This implies that it even refers to Kusi girls who are minors.

Implied Question: When Rebbi Yosi says in Nidah (32a) that there was an incident in Inbul and they immersed a baby girl before her mother, it is not because he is supporting his position to suspect a minority. It is a common problem, as according to Rebbi Yosi the reason is due to marriage.

Answer: Rather, the reason that he brings a proof is in order to say that if it was uncommon there should not be a decree that they should be Nidos from the day they are born due to marriage, in order that it should not look like a silly decree.

Question: How can Rebbi Meir consider this one of the eighteen decrees? Rebbi Meir always suspects a minority suspicion even without making a decree!

Answer: They needed to make a decree regarding Kusi women because it is similar to a Chazakah and Rov that she did not see blood, as we can assume that when she was born she did not see menstrual blood. This would mean that a Chazakah is joined by a Rov to say that this extremely infrequent case is considered a minority of a minority of cases, and therefore Rebbi Meir would not suspect she should be considered impure if it were not for the fact that it was one of the eighteen decrees. This is apparent from the Gemara in Yevamos (119a).

Question: According to the opinion in Avodah Zarah (36b) that they decreed that their (Nochri) daughters are forbidden due to "something else," meaning that they are considered Nidos from when they are born, why are Nochri women and Kusi women considered two separate decrees?

Answer: These decrees are both necessary. If they only made this decree regarding Nochri women, I would think that this is because they cling to idolatry. However, daughters of Kusim that do not cling to idolatry should not be included in this decree. If they only decreed this regarding Kusi women I would think that this is because they are commonly in contact with Jews, much more so than Nochrim have contact with Jews. However, perhaps they did not make this decree regarding Nochrim. (This is why both decrees are necessary.)

Explanation: It states "movable objects" because they did not decree Tumas Ohel should apply if the object is as thick as a plow (a string the length of a Tefach can circle it) besides for the person carrying them. However, if there is an object that is the size of a Tefach, even if they are objects that are connected to the ground they bring impurity.

Explanation (cont.): Specifically regarding seeds and vegetables that are not significant does it say that they do not bring in or block impurity. This is because it is like a bit of hail, snow, frozen water, frozen water from a river, and salt. However, the Mishnah states that a tree that hovers over the ground does bring in impurity.

Explanation: This is a term used when swearing, as if to say, "I will bury my son if this is incorrect as this law is buried." We similarly find the expression, "Chai Paroh if you will get out of this," (Bereishis 42:15) meaning you will not get out of this.