(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 16


(a) Min ha'Torah, earthenware utensils receive and pass on Tum'ah through their insides exclusively . This applies also to 'me'Achoreihen' (possibly only mi'de'Rabbanan). What does 'me'Achoreihen' mean?

(b) Since Tum'ah cannot be transmitted to earthenware utensils via their outsides, why *does* Tum'ah apply via contact with the outside of *glass* utensils, which, as we have just learnt, are subject to Tum'ah only because of their similarity to Klei Cheres?

(a) Metal vessels which broke, lose their Tuma'h. When they are repaired, they regain it, retroactively - mi'de'Rabbanan. What is the Din by vessels made of wood, leather, bone and glass?

(b) Then why are glass vessels (which we have compared to metal ones - as well as to earthenware ones) not Tamei retroactively, when they are repaired?

(c) What else do glass vessels have in common with vessels of wood, leather and bone?

3) From where do we know that
1. flat vessels made of wood and leather:
2. vessels made of bone - do not receive Tum'ah min ha'Torah?
Answers to questions



(a) How can *Shimon ben Shetach* have decreed Tum'ah on metal vessels, when everyone knows that their Tum'ah is d'Oraysa?

(b) Who was the first person to be effected by the decree, and what was the occasion?

(c) The Gemara initially explains the reason for the decree as being in order to ensure the continuity of the ashes of the Parah Adumah. Now that a way had been discovered to circumvent the need of the Eifer ha'Parah, there was a real danger that, in order to avoid having to wait for seven days, everyone would simply break their metal vessels, and then have them repaired. Shimon ben Shetach was afraid that the whole institution of the Eifer ha'Parah, at least as far as Tamei vessels was concerned, would now become obsolete, and why does the Gemara then reject it?

(d) Abaye ultimately attributes the decree to the fact that he may not break the vessel properly (a hole at least the size of a pomegranate). What reason does Rava give for the decree, and what is the difference between Abaye and Rava's reasons (according to Rashi's second explanation)?

5) 12. (of the eighteen decrees - continued from 13b)
(a) 'ha'Meni'ach Kelim Tachas ha'Tzinor Lekabel Mehem Mei Geshamim ... Poslin Es ha'Mikvah' (Mishnah - Mikva'os). How was the pipe fixed in place? Why does *it* not invalidate the Mikveh?

(b) How are the vessels placed there, on purpose or inadvertently?

(c) Why does the Mishnah mention 'even small or large vessels' and 'vessels made of earth or stone or marble'? What is their significance?

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, Beis Shamai concede that if the water fell into vessels lying in the courtyard, the Mikvah is not Pasul because of 'Mayim She'uvin (though Rebbi Yossi does not differentiate).
Why not?

(b) What will be the Din if he placed the vessels ...

1. ... be'Sha'as Kishur Avim?
2. ... be'Sha'as Pizur Avim?
(c) What then, is the case under discussion, and what is the reason of Beis Hillel's original lenient opinion?
7) Which case does Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion, Beis Hillel did not concede to Beis Shamai in the previous case, add to the eighteen to replace the previous number 12?

Answers to questions
Next daf

For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,