Eduyos, Chapter 3, Mishnah 9. We continue our walk among the great Tannaim, and now we arrive at Rabban Gamliel. In that era Rabbi Yehoshua was the leader of the generation, and Rabbi Tarfon was an elder, senior and advanced in years. Rabban Gamliel was of course the Nasi, but we must remember that our Mishnah was said during the period when Rabban Gamliel had been removed from the presidency and Rabbi Elazar was appointed in his place. He therefore appears here on equal footing with the other Tannaim rather than as the acting Nasi, and he too had testimony and opinions of his own in certain matters: he ruled that certain items are tamei, while the Sages were lenient and said they are tahor.
Before us are four cases in which Rabban Gamliel said that the utensil is susceptible to tumah, and the Sages say it is tahor - and the halachah follows the Sages.
"Kisui tani shel matachos shel ba'alei batim":
In the time of the Mishnah metal was very expensive and hard to come by. If a person's utensil that contained a metal part broke, he would save the metal for reuse in a small basket - this is the 'tani' - whose volume was about three kav, roughly six liters, and it had a cover. This cover was concave, that is, it has a receptacle: you can place something inside it and it stays in place and does not roll out, like a marble resting in the cover. It is not clear why the cover of the metal basket was made this way, but so it was.
The main novelty of the Mishnah: even though the cover can hold something, it is not intended to hold anything at all, but only to cover the basket, and covers are not susceptible to tumah. The basket is susceptible to tumah, and the cover is not. The question, then, is how to regard it: as a mere cover that is not susceptible to tumah, as the Sages hold, or perhaps, since it can hold things, it is susceptible to tumah, as Rabban Gamliel holds. And this is the meaning of the wording: "kisui tani shel matachos" - the cover of the basket designated to hold metal; "shel ba'alei batim" - the basket found in the homes of householders.
"V'tolei hamagredos":
The scraper (strigil) was an important utensil in the time of the Mishnah and in the Roman era: a person bathing in the bathhouse would sweat, rub oil on himself, and then scrape his skin with it in order to remove the oil, the skin and the dead flakes all at once and clean his body. These were important personal items, and museums display scrapers that belonged to particular individuals.
Since the scraper served as a private item, and one does not use someone else's scraper, each person would hang his own on his own hook in the bathhouse - similar to a personal locker at the gym - and it waits there for him until he arrives. The hook itself is nothing more than a metal pin, and a metal pin is not susceptible to tumah, except that this hook is bent slightly so that the scraper will hold onto it well. The question is whether the slight bend designates the pin for a particular use to the point that it becomes a utensil susceptible to tumah, or whether that is not enough, and it is nothing more than a bent pin, not developed and designated sufficiently to be considered a utensil. Rabban Gamliel rules that the scraper hooks are susceptible to tumah, and the Sages rule that they are tahor.
"Golmei klei matachos":
This refers to metal utensils, such as cutlery. Generally people used wooden utensils - an ordinary spoon was made of wood, since metal was very expensive and difficult to work with - and metal spoons were made only for prestige, like elegant silverware. And an elegant utensil is not merely functional: it has the owner's initials or some decoration engraved on it. The question, then, concerns a spoon that already serves its function well, but whose work has not yet been completed, since the initials or the decoration have not yet been engraved on it - is it susceptible to tumah?
The rule is that a utensil is not susceptible to tumah until the completion of its work, that is, until the labor of making it has been finished. This metal utensil is not finished at all, since the decorative elements still need to be added to it, but practically speaking it is one hundred percent functional, and that is the usual rule for a utensil - that it be fit for its use. However, the buyer of this expensive utensil wants the decorations added to it. Is it already susceptible to tumah now? Rabban Gamliel says yes, and the Sages say no. This is a "golem" - a product whose work has not been completed with the engraving and the decoration.
"Tavla shenechelkah lishnayim":
We are dealing with an earthenware tray. It is susceptible to tumah because it has a receptacle: this is a tray with a rim around it, so that things can be placed on it and it holds them. If the tray broke in two, everyone agrees that the larger piece is still susceptible to tumah, since the majority is intact and it still functions as a tray, even though it is a broken tray - three rims out of four are enough for it to be useful, and it never loses its status of tumah. The smaller piece, however, loses its status, and if the owner wishes to keep it, he can designate it anew and start over.
The question is what the law is when the tray broke exactly half and half, and we have before us two pieces that look identical. All agree that a piece is not susceptible to tumah unless it is more than fifty percent; the question is whether it is possible at all for a break to be exactly half and half, and this is the root of the dispute: is there such a reality as a precise half, or must every break necessarily leave one piece larger than the other, only that the eye cannot detect it?
Rabban Gamliel says: it is impossible for a break to be exactly half and half. True, we have no way of knowing which of them is the larger, but the difference exists in reality, and therefore each of the two halves must be treated as though it were more than half, and both are susceptible to tumah. The Sages say: it is entirely possible for the break to be exactly half and half, and it is just as it appears - neither piece is a majority, and therefore both are tahor.
The language of the Mishnah: their dispute concerns a tavla (from the word for table, meaning the tray) "shenechlekah lishnayim" - that was broken into two halves. "U'modim chachamim l'Rabban Gamliel b'tavla shenechlekah lishnayim, echad gadol v'echad katan - hagadol tamei v'hakatan tahor" - when one piece is large and one piece is small, the Sages agree that the large piece is susceptible to tumah, while the small one is tahor and is not susceptible to tumah, since it is less than half, and it is no longer a usable tray but a broken tray.