(a) The difference between Rava (who gives the reason for the prohibition of Toveling one vessel inside another by Kodesh as a decree, in case one comes to Tovel in a vessel with a narrow mouth), and Rebbi Ila (who ascribes it to Chatzitzah), manifests itself in a case of a Sal or a Gargusni. What is a 'Gargusni'?

(b) What is now the difference between the two opinions?

(c) Rava in fact, follows his own ruling elsewhere. What did he say about someone who ...

1. ... filled a basket or a Gargusni with vessels and Toveled them?

2. ... divided a Mikvah with a basket or a Gargusni?

(a) Why is someone who Tovels in a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah which is divided by a basket or a Gargusni not Tahor?

(b) Why is the Tevilah nevertheless valid, if he Tovels pins and needles of Hekdesh in a vessel whose mouth is less than a 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod' which itself requires Tevilah?

(c) The Mishnah in Mikva'os states 'Kelim she'Mil'an, Kelim v'Hitbilan, Harei Eilu Tehorin'. The Tana is referring to Terumah, and the vessels are Tahor even if the mouth of the outer vessel measures less than a k'Shefoferes ha'Nod'. What does the Tana mean when he continue 'v'Im Lo Taval Mayim ha'Me'uravim, ad she'Yih'yu Me'uravin k'Shefoferes ha'Nod'?

(a) In fact, Rava and Rav Ila is a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa (with whom Rava conforms) learns that 'Sal v'Gargusni she'Mil'an Kelim v'Hitbilan Bein l'Kodesh Bein l'Terumah, Tehorin'. Rebbi Ilya holds like Aba Shaul. What does Aba Shaul say?

(b) Seeing as Aba Shaul is talking about Chaverim, why is he worried about Chatzitzah? Surely, the Chaver will lift up the inner vessel so that it should not be Chotzetz?

(c) Then why does he permit it with regard to Terumah? Why is he not also concerned that the Am ha'Aretz will see him and learn from him?

(d) What does this mean? Why will we accept Kodesh from Am-ha'Aretz any more than Terumah?

(a) The Tana who holds of 'Eivah' is Rebbi Yosi. What does Rebbi Yosi say about accepting wine for the Nesachim and oil for the Menachos all the year round?

(b) Why is that?

(c) What does Rav Papa say about accepting testimony from Amei ha'Aretz nowadays, based on Rebbi Yosi's opinion?

(d) We learned earlier that it is permitted to Tovel one vessel inside another by Terumah, since one does not accept Terumah from an Am ha'Aretz. Based on the Mishnah in Eduyos (which we are about to cite), we ask on this 've'Nichush li'She'eilah?' What does this mean?

(a) In the Mishnah in Eduyos, Beis Hillel maintain that sealed earthenware vessels save anything from Tum'ah. This Halachah incorporates two possible cases. It might be speaking about an earthenware vessel in a room in which a dead person is lying. What is the alternative case?

(b) What do Beis Shamai say?

(c) Beis Shamai declare only food and earthenware vessels Tahor. Why is that?

(d) Why are other vessels not Tahor?

(a) Why did Rebbi Yehoshua consider Beis Shamai's opinion a farce?

(b) How did he compare it to a case of a Tamei woman kneading dough in a dish, and to a jug which is Tamei Mes that is full of liquid?

(c) He changed his tune however, when a Talmid of Beis Shamai presented him with Beis Shamai's reason. What is Beis Shamai's reason? Why is the food Tahor?

(d) What would the Am ha'Aretz probably tell you if you informed him that it was Tamei?

(a) How did Rebbi Yehoshua react to that Talmid's explanation?

(b) What happened to his teeth? Why was that?

(c) What do we learn from Beis Shamai's response 'she'Taharaso Lecha v'Lo'?

(d) So why do we permit vessels that were Toveled inside other vessels? Why are we not worried that an Am ha'Aretz will subsequently Tovel his vessels inside a vessel with a mouth that measures less than the Shi'ur of 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod' and a Chaver will borrow it from him?

(a) If we assume that the borrower Tovels the vessel, then why did Beis Hillel not counter Beis Shamai in the same way (by declaring all vessels inside the earthenware Tamei vessels should be Tahor, since the borrower will Tovel them anyway)?

(b) To reconcile the fact that we do not believe Amei ha'Aretz regarding Tevilah, with the Beraisa 'Ne'emanim Amei ha'Aretz al Taharas Tevilas Tamei Mes', Abaye differentiates between Tevilas Gufo and Tevilas Kelim. What does he mean by that? Which one is believed and which one is not?

(c) Rava establishes both Beraisos by Tevilas Kelim. How does he then resolve the discrepancy? When is one believed even by Tevilas Kelim and when is one not?

(d) What precedent do we have for this distinction from a Beraisa regarding Amei ha'Aretz with regard to fruit that is Muchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah?

(a) If a Chaver claims that it is the third day since his Tum'ah, he is sprinkled immediately. What happens to an Am ha'Aretz?

(b) How do we reconcile Abaye, who just said that an Am ha'Aretz is believed on Tevilas Gufo, with this Beraisa, from which we see that he is not even believed when he says that today is his third day?

(a) In light of what we learned in our Mishnah (regarding 'Achorayim, v'Toch u'Beis ha'Tzevitah'), what will be the Din of a vessel which besides the inside and the bottom, also has a lip, or a handle, if ...

1. ... the back became Tamei through a Tum'ah d'Rabanan? Do the other sections require Tevilah?

2. ... the inside became Tamei?

(b) We explained in our Mishnah that 'Beis ha'Tzevitah' means the handle (like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains). How does Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan interpret 'Beis ha'Tzevitah'?

(a) According to a Beraisa quoted by Rav Bibi in front of Rav Nachman, there is no difference between one part of the vessel and another, neither as regards Kodshei Hamikdash nor as regards Kodshei ha'Gevul. What do Kodshei ha'Gevul normally mean?

(b) This cannot be the case here however, seeing as our Mishnah explicitly does differentiate between the parts of the vessel with regard to Terumah. So how does Rav Nachman interpret Kodshei ha'Gevul?

(c) What did his Rebbe, Rabah bar Avuhah say that will now corroborate Rav Bibi's Beraisa?