Question: If he learns it from the Mishkan, then even if it is man-made, only flax ought to transmit Tum'ah? ...

Source: As we find in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos, Daf 27b & 28a), where the Mishnah says 'Whatever comes out from a tree is not subject to Tum'as Ohel, with the exception of flax' ...

Ultimate Source: And the Gemara there learns it with a Gezeirah-Shavah "Ohel" "Ohel" from Mishkan.

Answer: The Sifri in Parshas Parah learns all Ma'ahilim with a Kal va'Chomer from Metzora ...

Source: As the Beraisa states 'From where do we know to make all Ma'ahilim like the Ohel by a Meis? Just as a Metzora, which is lenient, they made all Ma'ahilim like an Ohel, how much more so in the case of a Meis!'

Answer (cont.): Since by Metzora the Torah writes "Moshavo", and the Toras Kohanim Darshen 'Moshavo Tamei'; From here they learn that if a Tamei person is sitting underneath a tree and a Tahor person is passing, the latter is Tamei.

Question: In that case, even if it is not man-made, let uis learn a Kal va'Chomer from Metzora?

Refuted Answer: And if you will ask in that case what purpose will the Gezeirah-Shavah serve? ...

Refutation: We need it for the D'rashah in Perek Bameh Madlikin (that Tisfos cited earlier) that 'Whatever comes out from a tree is not subject to Tum'as Ohalim'.

Answer: "Moshavo" implies neither a Ribuy nor a Miy'ut in connection with something that is not man-made.

Answer (cont.): So according to Rebbi Yehudah who who holds that the Torah precludes it with regard to Meis, we learn the more lenient Metzora is not subject to Tum'ah with a Kal va'Chomer from Meis ...

Answer (concl.): Whereas the Rabanan do not differentiate in either place.

Implied Question: And even though S'tam Sifra is Rebbi Yehudah (Yoma, 41a) ...

Answer: Nevertheless the case of 'Tree' can go like Rebbi Yehudah, who, according to our Sugya, agrees by the Shi'ur of a tight fist (that it is considered an Ohel even though it is not man-made).

Question: Since we learn other Ma'ahilim with a Kal va'Chomer by a Meis with a Kal va'Chomer from Metzora, why do we not apply 'Dayo', and those who are passing should not be Metamei? ...

Question (cont.): Such as where people who are burying a Meis are passing through a sun-porch in which there are Keilim ...

Question (concl.): Since when a Metzora is passing, he is not Metamei b'Ohel? ...

Source: As we learned in Toras Kohanim, and in a Mishnah in Maseches Nega'im (13:7), which the Gemara quotes in the first Perek of Kidushin (33b).

Answer: This Kal va'Chomer is merely a Giluy Milsa (n indication) - that we do not learn from Mishkan to preclude other Ma'ahilim.

Implied Question: Even though the children were Tamei via Nidah and Yoledes ...

Answer: The Chachamim were only concerned about Tum'as Meis, which requires Haza'ah (from the Eifer ha'Parah) and Tum'ah that comes from the body, such as Tum'as Keri.

Source: As the Tosefta states (in Parah, Perek 2) - 'They would rear them until they reached the age of seven or eight, but not more, so that they should not have seen Keri'.

Question: What was the point of this filling done by the children? ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as, when all's said and done, the 'Kidush' must be performed by 'a man' - either when placing the ashes in the water or when sprinkling, according to Rebbi Yehudah or the Rabanan, as is evident in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Yoma, Daf 43a).

Answer: What they were able to establish, they did - as a stringency, since the entire issue was merely a stringency, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of the last Perek of Zevachim (Daf 113a).

Implied Question: Those who hold - in Gitin (Daf 8b), in Nazir, Perek Kohen Gadol (Daf 55a), in Perek ha'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 30b) and in the last Perek of Chagigah (Daf 25a) 'Ohel Zaruk Lo Sh'meih Ohel' to form a Chatzitzah (a partition) before the Tum'ah ...

Answer: One can say that they hold like Rebbi Yehudah, who says in our Sugya that they brought, not doors but, oxen, which have wide stomachs (See Mesores ha'Shas) ...

Implied Question: And even though they too, fall under the category of 'Ohel Zaruk' ...

Answer: Nevertheless, the Torah reveals that they are considered an Ohel, as the Gemara Darshens (on Amud Beis) from the Pasuk in Iyov (10) "And with bones and sinews you covered me".

Question: However, there is definitely a Kashya on Rebbi Elazer, who explains later (in the Sugya) that the reason regarding the oxen is because they protect their shepherds ...

Question (cont.): And to answer the Kashya from a 'a bed' he says that it is an Ohel Arai ...

Question (cont.): According to that reasoning the Kashya remains 'What will we do according to the opinion that Ohel Arai is not considered an Ohel ...

Question (concl.): Seeing as even 'Shidah, Teivah u'Migal' (various kinds of boxes) do not form a Chatzitzah?

Clarification: The Tosefta in Parah (Perek 2) states that 'Everyone agrees that the children require Tevilah' (See Maharsha), in other words meaning both Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who argue over Haza'ah ...

Clarification (cont.): As we learned in the Mishnah in Parah (3:4) that according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, the children required sprinkling, whereas according to Rebbi Akiva they did not.

Explanation #1: According to Rashi, this Tana holds that the water must be filled by hand, and not by lowering the K'li with a rope.

Question #1: This is extremely difficult however, since all the S'tam Mishnah's (See Parah, 6:7) clearly state that they took with them a rope in order to fill it, and that it is Kasher even if the K'li is filled automatically? ...

Question #1 (cont.): As we learned in the Mishnah in Parah (5:7) 'One may not fill from the trough in a rock, unless one fixed it with cement after it was already a K'li' (See Tiferes Yisrael).

Question #2: Furthermore, the Tosefta in Parah (Tazri'a, 2:14) states 'He said before Rebbi Akiva in the name of Rebbi Yishmael "They hung stone cups on to the horns of the bulls, so that when they bent down to drink, the cups filled (with water) ...

Question #2 (cont.): To which he replied 'Don't leave the Tzedokim with the opportinity to indulge in their heresy!" '.

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that Rebbi Yossi and the Rabanan argue over (the distance between the ox and the water) - the Rabanan hold that we are not concerned over such a short distance, whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that we are.

Implication: This implies that it is a Beraisa ...

The Reality: Whereas it is really a Mishnah in Maseches Ohalos (Perek 3, Mishnah 7) - the Seifa of the Mishnah cited earlier ...

The Reality (cont.): Which reads 'Rebbi Yehudah says 'Any Ohel that is not man-made is not an Ohel; though he concedes by holes in rocks and rocks'.

Question #1: How can the questioner think that doors are not effective, since they are man-made, seeing as they were put there as an Ohel.

Question #2: Moreover, on what grounds are oxen more effective than doors?

Answer #1: Rashi explains the Gemara's Havah Amina to be that one does not generally make an Ohel in this way - Kal va'Chomer oxen.

Question: According to this one can ask on the statement itself.

Answer #2: We must therefore say that animals are more Chashuv to save (from Tum'ah) than doors - to be considered an Ohel - despite the fact that it is not the way to make an Ohel.

Conclusion: This reasoning is only applicable in a case which hinges on a S'vara, but not to something that we learn from the Mishkan.

Clarification: Rebbi Yehudah holds that 'A thrown Ohel is considered an Ohel' (Eruvin, 30b) ...

Reason: Since it implies that - if not for the fact that 'the child feels secure' they would have brought doors.

Implied Question: Even though this Pasuk is talking about a person ...

Answer: How much more so (will it apply to) an animal, whose stomach below is (shaped) like an Ohel.

Implied Question: Even though it is a Mitzvas Asei that is time-bound ...

Answer: The Mishnah needs to teach us that we should not say they are Chayav, since the Torah says 'Teishvu", 'ke'Ein Taduru' ...

Precedent: As the Gemara says later in this Perek (Daf 28b).

Clarification: According to this S'vara, one can say that they also argue over a Sukah on top of a wagon ...

Clarification (cont.): Thereby corroborating the text - above in the first Perek )Daf 7b) and later in the this Perek (Daf 23a) 'On top of a wagon', in connection with the Machlokes between Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Akiva in connection with (a Sukah) on top of a ship, since they also argue on top of a wagon.

Implied Question: And the reason that Raban Gamliel concedes that on top of a ship it is Kasher, as long as it can stand up to an uncommon wind on dry land - even though it moves with the ship, is ...

Answer: Because it is the norm to do so on a ship, and it is therefore considered 'K'va', even though it moves ...

Implied Question: And even according to the opinion that attributes the reason of the Mishnah to the fact that it is something that is subject to Tum'ah ...

Answer: He nevertheless agrees, since they also argue over the reason of a 'Diras K'va'.

Proof: Since the Gemara did not state that 'The difference between them is in a case where they supported it with a Shidah, Teivah or Migdol which hold forty Sa'ah of liquid, which is equivalent to two Kur (sixty Sa'ah) of solid ...

Proof (cont.): Because the one who holds 'because it is not fixed', here too, it is not fixed, seeing as it can be moved.

Proof (cont.): Whereas the one who holds 'because it is supported by something that is subject to Tum'ah, these too, which come in a large measure, are Tahor, as we learned in the Mishnah in Keilim (15:1).

Introduction to Question: There is a Kashya however, later (on Daf 23a) where Rebbi Yehudah declares Pasul a 'Sukah on an animal' - because the Torah writes "Chag ha'Sukos Ta'aseh l'cha Shiv'as Yamim" - 'It must be a Sukah that is fit to stand for seven days, which this one is not, since one is not permitted to enter it on Yom-Tov' ...

Question: Why is it not Pasul anyway, seeing as it moves with the animal and is therefore not fixed, similar to one that is supported by the bed-posts?

Answer: The Yerushalmi implies that it is considered 'not K'va' due to the fact that there is not a space of ten Tefachim between the bed and the roof, since the current Machlokes between Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Aba it learns using the names Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Aba ...

Yerushalmi: This is the wording of the Yeushalmi citing Rebbi Ami - 'Because there is not ten Amos between the bed and the S'chach'; whereas according to Rebbi Aba it is 'Because one may not support the S'chach with something that is subject to Tum'ah' ...

Yerushalmi (cont.): But the Beraisa cites a story in Yerushalayim where they lowered their beds in front of their windows and placed S'chach on top - a problem if one is not permitted to support the S'chach with something that is subject to Tum'ah'?

Yerushalmi (concl.): The reason must therefore be because there is not ten Tefachim between the bed and the S'chach'. Until here is the wording of the Yerushalmi.

Answer (cont.): And as for the Sukah of the men of Yerushalayim, there were more than ten Tefachim between the bed and the S'chach.

Implied Question: And when Rebbi Yehudah says in our Mishnah that 'If it cannot stasnd by itself it is forbidden, implying that if it can - if for example, it is standing on pegs - it is Kasher, even though there are less than ten Tefachim between the bed and the S'chach ...

Answer: It is not considered Arai, seeing as even if one were to remove the bed, there would be ten Tefachim of air and the Sukah would remain standing.

Support: As Abaye says in our Sugya 'According to the opinion that holds "It is not fixed", here it is fixed!' - meaning, if one were to remove the bed ...

Reason: Since the bed stands independently, and a Sukah does not become Pasul because bring into it a bed which detracts from its space ...

Precedent: Similar to cushions and covers, in the first Perek (Daf 3b) which detract neither with regard to a Sukah of ten Tefachim, nor to one of twenty Amos.