Question: Why does the Gemara not give the reason that 'One might carry from the R'shus ha'Yachid to the R'shus ha'Rabim?

Answer: Because there is a distinct demarcation line in the form of the doorway and the posts.

Implied Question: It is not a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah ...

Answer: Because Shabbos and Yom-Tov are one and the same.

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask why we do not decree that one may come carry four Amos in the street in order to make Hashakah?

Answer: By Toveling a vessel it is necessary to make a decree that one may come to carry ... , because one is keen to Tovel it ...

Answer (cont.): Which is not the case by Hashakah, where he is not quite as keen, seeing as it is possible to use other water.

Precedent: Likewise later, with regard to a V'lad ha'Tum'ah, the Gemara does not ask why we do not decree that one may come to carry ... . since there too, one is not so eager to Tovel the vessel, seeing as the Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Question: The question here is self-evident, in that our Mishnah specifically forbids Toveling a vessel via its water, in order to Tovel the vessel?

Answer: The Mishnah is speaking where the vessel is full of water, where it is obvious that he wants to Tovel, and it is forbidden to Tovel a vessel, since it looks like repairing (i.e. making the vessel fit for use).

Answer (concl.): Whereas in our case, not everybody knows that the bucket is Tamei, in which case those who see, will think that the owner is simply wants to draw water.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it speaks where it became Tamei on Erev Yom-Tov, because if it happened on Yom-Tov, then even if it became through an Av ha'Tum'ah one would be permitted to Tovel it.

Clarification: And when the Gemara said earlier that 'If it became Tamei on Erev Yom-Tov, one may not Tovel it on Yom-Tov

Clarification (cont.): That speaks where it became Tamei via an Av ha'Tum'ah.

Clarification: And the reason that one is forbidden to Tovel it is because it is Tamei d'Oraysa, which resembles repairing ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas what became Tamei via liquids (See Maharshal, Chidushim) is only Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan, and does not resemble repairing.

Explanation #2: And in a second explanation, Rashi establishes it where it became Tamei on Yom-Tov itself via an Av ha'Tum'ah.

. Explanation #2 (cont.): And one is nevertheless forbidden to Tovel it on Yom-Tov, since it requires Ha'arev-Shemesh (waiting for nightfall), and one is not permitted to Tovel for the needs of the night after Yom-Tov.

Explanation #2 (concl.): Whereas if it became Tamei via a V'lad ha'Tum'ah, it does not require Ha'arev-Shemesh, in which case one may Tovel it on Yom-Tov.

Clarification: And when the Gemara says 'Nitma be'Yom-Tov, Matbilin oso be'Yom-Tov ...

Clarification (cont.): It is speaking by a V'lad ha'Tum'ah.

Refutation: Rashi rejects this explanation however, since it is fit to be used with Chulin, since it is only for use with T'rumah that requires Ha'arev Shemesh?

Resolution: The Ri explains that the problem is solved according to the Maskana, which establishes it by T'rumah, which does require Ha'arev Shemesh.

Refutation: The Ri (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) disagrees with this that however - because who can say that Kohanim do not possess Chulin?

Question: How is one permitted to Tovel a vessel that became Tamei via a V'lad ha'Tum'ah?

Question (cont.): If one intends to use it with Chulin or Ma'aser, it does not require Tevilah; whereas if it is to use with T'rumah, it requires Ha'arev Shemesh and the Teviilah is for a weekday?

Answer: According to the other explanation cited by Rashi, the question falls away, since Tevilah de'Rabbanan such as this does not require Ha'arev Shemesh.

Source: As we learned in Maseches Parah (Perek 11, Mishnah 5) 'Whatever needs to go into water (only) mi'de'Rabbanan, is permitted immediately afterwards.

Question: It is applicable to a Yisrael too, seeing as 'Whatever invalidates T'rumah, renders Tamei liquid to become a Rishon le'Tum'ah'?

Answer: It is speaking about a K'li whose inside is unfit to be used with water, such as one which has a hole.

Question: This is soaking, which is forbidden because it falls under the category of Kibus (washing clothes) and Libun (bleaching) ...

Source: Since the Gemara says (in Zevachim) that 'Soaking is its washing'.

Answer: Since it is performed in a manner that is conducive with dirt (it is not the way that one normally washes clothes), it is permitted.

Proof: Otherwise, on what grounds is one permitted to dry one's hands on Shabbos, since it too, is considered soaking, and ought to be forbidden because it is Kibus and Libun?

Conclusion: The reason is because it is performed in a manner which is conducive with dirt; and the same applies here.

Clarification: Until Yom-Tov when one has more time, and one will come to a Takalah (sinning), by using them with T'rumah.

Reason #1: Whereas a person does not hold back from Toveling himself.

Reason #2: Moreover, the idea of Takalah is not so applicable.

Clarification: He retracted from the current answer 'One speaks before ... ' ...

Clarification (cont.): 'It doesn't come into question, since we learned in a Beraisa "All Chayvei Tevilos ... " '.

Question: How does the Gemara know that Rava retracted from that answer, perhaps he retracted from the answer of 'Ho'il' ...

Question (cont.): Because, what forces him to give the reason of 'Ho'il' - the answer that he gave previously 'Because it resembles Mesaken'. Perhaps he retracts from that answer and from 'Ho'il as well?

Implied Question: And the reason that Keilim are forbidden ...

Answer: Is either because of 'Shema Ya'avirenu', 'Shema Yashheh' or 'Shema Yischot', as the Amora'im explained earlier.

Answer to original question (Explanation #1): Better to erase one answer rather than two - (i.e. the current answer 'Ka'n Kodem Tevilah ... ' and not 'Mishum Mesaken K'li' and 'Ho'il').

Refutation #1: This explanation is not right however, seeing as the two answers are interdependent - since Rava only answered 'Ho'il ve'Shabbos ... ' in order to establish his previous answer of 'Nir'eh ki'Mesaken'.

Refutation #2: Moreover, the Gemara ought then to have said explicitly that 'We reject one before two'?

Explanation #2: We therefore need to say that the Gemara knew with certainty that it is not possible to erase the answer 'Mipnei she'Nir'eh ki'Mesaken', since Rava presented it to answer the Mishnah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara was only trying to erase the answer of 'Ho'il'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And it now proves that it is not possible to erase that either (See also Tosfos Shabbos, Daf 101. DH 'Lo').

Clarification: This Is confined to people who Tovel a Tevilas Mitzvah in its right time.

Halachah (Explanation #1): But nowadays, where all the Tevilos that our wives Tovel are not in their right time ...

Reason: Seeing as they count seven clean days, due to a Safek Zivus ...

Conclusion: They are not permitted to Tovel on Tish'ah be'Av or on Yom Kipur.

Refutation: It is possible however, to draw a distinction - based on the Gemara in Yoma (Daf 88.) 'Nidos and Yoldos Tovel by night; Zavin and Zavos, Tovel by day ...

Refutation (cont.): A Ba'al-Keri may Tovel up until Minchah (on Yom Kipur), in order to Daven Minchah in a state of Taharah'. After Minchah however, he may not Tovel.

Reason: And the Gemara explains that, in order to Daven Ne'ilah, he can wait until nightfall, and Tovel and Daven Ne'ilah then ...

Refutation (cont.): From the fact that he does not Tovel by day in order that the Tevilah should be in its right time ...

Explanation #2: We see that that Tana holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah La'v Mitzvah hi' - yet He is permitted to Tovel on Yom Kipur.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Nevertheless, one may not Tovel on Tish'ah ba'Av, like the opinion of Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, who says that 'The House of our G-d deserves that we negate one Tevilah a year in its honor' ...

Conclusion: And the Yerushalmi cites Rebbi Levi, who Paskens like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, and not like the Mishnah, which states that 'All Chayvei Tevilos Tovlin ke'Darkan ... '.

Explanation #3: Furthermore, says the Ri - nowadays Tevilah is prohibited both on Yom Kipur and on Tish'ah be'Av.

Reason: This is because specifically the people of those times, who dealt with Taharos, needed to Tovel immediately, in order not to be Metamei their Taharos ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Whereas nowadays, when the Tevilah comes exclusively to permit the woman to her husband, she can bathe and wash her hair (Chafifah) on Erev Yom Kipur, so that, on Motza'ei Yom Kipur, she will only need to comb her hair and wash it a little ...

Reason: Since Chafifah must be performed close to the Tevilah.

Conclusion: Because even if she were to Tovel on Yom Kipur or on Tish'ah be'Av, she would still be forbidden to her husband.

Clarification: But not in a wooden vessel, which can receive Tum'ah from liquid, and one will then be Toveling the K'li.

Question: Why can one not Tovel it, seeing as it has two points in its favor; one, that it became Tamei on Yom Tov; the other, that it only became Tamei via a V'lad ha'Tum'ah ...

Question (cont.): In which case everyone agrees that one is permitted to Tovel it, according to all the above explanations?

Answer #1: According to the opinion that establishes the Mishnah by Shabbos like the Rabbanan, the question falls away.

Question (concl.): But according to those who establish it by Yom-Tov like Rebbi, it is a Kashya.

Answer #2: It is nevertheless forbidden to physically render the vessel Tamei in order to Tovel it ...

Answer #2 (concl.): Because it is specifically if it already became Tamei via a V'lad ha'Tum'ah, that one is permitted to Tovel it, but not to ne Metamei it in order to Tovel it on Yom-Tov.

Text #1: This is Rashi's text - 'Hatbalah' before 'Hashakah', both in Rebbi and in the Rabbanan.

Text #2: However in other Sefarim, the text is inverted - 'Hashakah' before 'Hatbalah'.

Reconciling the two: There is no difference between the two texts however, since the Sefarim mention 'Shabbos' in the Reisha and 'Yom-Tov' in the Seifa, whereas according to Rashi's text mentions Yom-Tov first and then Shabbos.

Source of Text #1: In fact, Rashi changed amended the text based on the Tosefta.

Explanation: And according to the text of the Sefarim which places 'Hashakah' before 'Hatbalah', one cannot establish the Reisha by Shabbos unless it refers to our Mishnah, which says 'Mashikin Aval Lo Matbilin'.

Refutation: And that is a mistake, as Rashi explains.