Zevachim 95 - RETURNING A VESSEL THAT BECAME
1) RETURNING A VESSEL THAT BECAME "TAMEI" TO THE "AZARAH"
(a) (Mishnah): If a Kli Cheres left the Azarah...
(b) Question: If we puncture it, there is no Mitzvah to break it - the Torah commands about a Kli!
(c) Answer: We make a puncture the size of a small root (of a tree - therefore, regarding breaking it, it is still considered a Kli.)
(d) (Mishnah): If a copper vessel left...
(e) Question: If we make a hole, it ceases to be a Kli!
(f) Answer: After returning it, we pound on it to close the hole (Rashi; Tosfos - turn it inside out, it is considered a new Kli and therefore becomes Tahor.)
(g) (Reish Lakish): If (blood splashed onto) the Me'il (of the Kohen Gadol and it) became Tamei outside, we enter less than Shalosh by Shalosh of it at a time (Shalosh is feminine, it refers to three fingers; Bach changes this to Sheloshah (masculine, three Tefachim);
1. It may not be torn - "Lo Yikare'a".
(h) Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Thick or felt (unwoven) garments of three by three fingers (Bach - Tefachim) are not Mekabel Tum'ah (these materials are not fitting for a patch, only for a seat, and less than three Tefachim is not fitting for a seat - more could be entered at a time!)
(i) Answer: Even three by three of a big garment is important, it is Mekabel Tum'ah.
(j) Question: Rav Nachman taught that seven ingredients must be applied to where Dam Chatas was absorbed in a garment, and to a garment with Tzara'as (one of the seven is urine);
1. (Beraisa): We may not bring urine into the Mikdash.
2. (Rashi - this could have been asked on the Mishnah; Tosfos - the question is only against Reish Lakish (who discussed blood that splashed on the Me'il; the Mishnah does not specify which garment absorbed blood, other ingredients may be used for other garments.)
3. Suggestion: Perhaps urine can be absorbed in the other six (it is Batul, so it may be entered in this way), all seven will be applied at the same time!
4. Rejection (Mishnah): If the seven were applied in the wrong order or at the same time, it is as if they were not applied.
5. Suggestion: Perhaps urine can be absorbed in one of the others!
6. Rejection (Mishnah): Each of them must be rubbed three times.
(k) Answer: Urine can be absorbed in Tefel spit (i.e. of someone who did not eat all day);
1. (Reish Lakish): Tefel spit must be applied with each of the seven.
2) CONCERN FOR "ISURIM" ABSORBED IN A VESSEL
(a) (Mishnah): The same law applies to a pot in which Chatas was cooked, or into which boiling Chatas was poured;
(b) Merikah u'Shtifah applies to Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim Kalim alike;
(c) R. Shimon says, Kodshim Kalim does not require Merikah u'Shtifah.
(d) (Gemara - Beraisa): "Asher Tevushal Bo" this teaches about a pot in which Chatas was cooked;
1. Question: What is the source for a pot into which boiling Chatas was poured?
2. Answer: "Asher...*Bo Yishaver*" - if it absorbed Chatas (no matter how), it must be broken.
(e) Question (Rami bar Chama): If Kodesh meat was suspended (on a spit) in an oven and roasted, what is the law?
1. Perhaps Merikah u'Shtifah is required when Kodshim were cooked inside and the Kli absorbed - here, the meat did not touch the oven, there were no absorptions!
2. Or, perhaps it is required when Kodshim were cooked inside, even without absorptions!
(f) Answer #1 (Rava - Mishnah): The same applies to a pot in which Chatas was cooked, or into which boiling Chatas was poured.
1. Merikah u'Shtifah is required for absorptions without cooking - similarly, it is required for cooking without absorptions!
(g) Rejection (Rami bar Chama): I knew that it is required for absorptions alone, but we cannot learn from this whether it is required for cooking alone.
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): The oven in the Mikdash was made of metal.
1. Inference: If we are not concerned for cooking alone, it could have been made of earthenware (which is more standard for ovens), there would be no need to break it!
(i) Rejection: Shirayim of Menachos were cooked in the oven, there were absorptions, therefore it was made of metal.
3) WHEN CAN VESSELS BE "KASHERED" TO REMOVE THEIR ABSORPTIONS?
(a) An oven was smeared with lard of the tail, Rabah bar Ahilai forbade all bread that would ever be baked in it;
1. He even forbade eating the bread with salt (i.e. without substantial accompaniment), lest it be eaten with Kutach (a common accompaniment made with milk).
(b) Question (Beraisa): We may not knead a dough with milk; if this was done, all the bread is forbidden, lest it be eaten with meat;
1. We may not smear an oven with lard (and bake bread); if this was done, all the bread is forbidden, unless the oven was Husak (heated up) before this.
2. Rabah is refuted.
(c) Question (Ravina): Since Rabah was refuted, this should also refute Rav, who says that bowls may not be Kashered for use on Pesach, they must be broken!
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): Rav establishes the Beraisa to discuss a metal oven (but Kli Cheres cannot be Kashered, they must be broken.)
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa discusses an oven of Cheres - it can be Kashered, for it is Husak from the inside, where the lard was;
1. Rav requires breaking bowls on Pesach, for they cannot be Kashered by Hesek from the outside.
(f) Question: He should permit Kashered bowls through Hesek from the inside!
(g) Answer: We are concerned that the owner will not heat them up enough, for he is concerned that they will break.
(u) Corollary: Therefore, tiles (on top of an oven, pots are often placed on them, sometimes they are smeared with lard (of the tail) and bread is baked on them) may not be Kashered, for they are not heated from the side where the lard is.