Clarification: The Gemara does not want to establish it like Rebbi Elazar above ...

Reason: because Ula would not call Rabah bar bar Chanah his colleague, since he was his Rebbi ...

Proof: As we learned in the first Perek of Bava Kama (11:) and in 'Yesh Nochlin' (Bava Basra 128.) where Ula quoting Rebbi Elazar, says 'Halachah Govin min ha'Avadim'.

Question: The question arises however, why Ula did not then say 'Rabosai Omrim?'

Answer: It therefore seems that all Rebbi Elazar said above was 'Here we are speaking about 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh', and it is the Gemara S'tam that concludes 'and not like Rebbi Yehoshua'.

Implied Question: Even though, as Rabeinu explains, one of the 'eighteen decrees' (in the first Perek of Maseches Shabbos) was that a person who eats a k'Beitzah is already Tamei ...

Answer: Answer: Nevertheless, the Gemara brings a proof from 'P'sul Gevi'ah of a Chatzi P'ras, which was an earlier Takanah.

Question: We find that the Neveilah of an animal renders Tamei, yet a person who eats it remains Tahor, a proof that the food is stricter than the one who eats it?

Implied Question: Even though it is feasible to issue a decree in case, whilst eating Tamei food, one may come to throw Terumah liquids into one's mouth ...

Answer: Nevertheless, if we would not find elsewhere that a Sheini makes a Sheini, we would do so, in order not to turn the words of the Rabbanan into a laughing stock.

Question (Part 1): Why did the Gemara not say that a Sheini makes a Sheini via a Seifer-Torah, which, as the Gemara explains in Shabbos, is one of the 'eighteen decrees'.

Question (Part 2): And even hands that come from a Seifer render Terumah Pasul, as the Gemara explains there.

Answer #1: The Gemara is concerned primarily with a food that reenders a food a Sheini, similar to food that renders a person a Sheini.

Answer #2: And besides, the fact that a Seifer-Torah renders hands a Sheini and Terumah is not on account of Tum'ah, but merely a Chumra.

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara is not coming to ask that liquids should render a person a Rishon like themselves, because why should they?

Clarification (Part 2): What it therefore means is it only renders the person a Sheini is specifically via the liquid which is a Rishon.

Refuted Text: And we do not read the wording that appears in some texts 'Rebbi Yehoshua said to him "liquids are different, since they are prone receiving Tum'ah' ...

Reason: Since that would not answer the question anyway.

Clarification: According to some commentaries, it is from here that the Chaverim hold that that there is no Shelishi by 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh'. (Continued on Amud 'Beis')

Clarification (Part 1): According to some commentaries, it is from here that the Chaverim hold that there is no Shelishi by 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh' ...

Clarification (Part 2): Because the words 'Also I only said ... ', is equivalent to the conclusion of Rebbi Yehoshua's statement in the Beraisa 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah'.

Clarification (Part 3): Only Rebbi Yehoshua did not at first explain it until Rebbi Eliezer asked him about it.

Proof: Now if there would a Shelishi by 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh', he should have explained that he was not speaking about that, so that he should not come to err and say that he was not speaking about anything to which a Shelishi is applicable.

Conclusion: It is therefore clear that there is no Shelishi, which is why it was not necessary to explain that he was speaking about Terumah.

Implied Question: Even though there is Kodesh itself where there is a Shelishi?

Answer: He would not be speaking about that, seeing as people do not generally eat Kodesh that became Tamei, from which people tend to distance oneself from it.

Refuted Explanation: The Gemara did not want to establish one like Rebbi Yochanan himself, and the other like Rebbi Yochanan in the name of his Rebbe ...

Refutation: That is because when he proceeded to present the discussion that took place between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, he was not relating a S'vara, since this is not something that is dependant on a S'vara; Rather it must have been a Kabalah (a tradition).

Explanation #1 (Part 1): In his second explanation, which he prefers, Rashi explains that the Gemara is speaking about plain Chulin. When the Mishnah (Taharos 2:3) says 'Metamei' and 'Posel,' it is referring to Terumah. When it says 'ha'Shelishi Ne'echal,' it means that even if it is 'N'zid ha'Dema' (i.e. a cooked dish which had Terumah added to it) which touched a Sheini le'Tum'ah, rendering it a Shelishi, one is permitted to eat it.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): If however, the cooked dish touched a Sheini before Terumah was added to it, it would not be necessary to teach that it can be eaten, since it would be pure Chulin which cannot become a Shelishi. (This is known as the principle, "Ain Sheini Oseh Shelishi b'Chulin.")

Explanation #1 (Part 3): The Gemara then asks that since it is 'N'zid ha'Dema', the Kohen is obligated to eat it Al Taharas Terumah, rendering it 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah ... '.

Explanation #1 (Part 4): If a Shelishi would render a Kohen unfit to eat Terumah, how could one give this to a Kohen and permit him to eat this? This causes his body to become invalid, and a Kohen cannot allow himself to become invalid (as the Gemara in Yoma 80b derives from a Pasuk that a Kohen cannot make himself invalid)!

Comment: The Gemara also could have asked, how he is permitted to eat Terumah in the first place? How can the Tana state that it may be eaten 'bi'Nezid ha'Dema'?

Conclusion: The Gemara answers, 'Ignore 'N'zid ha'Dema', as it does not contain a k'Zayis (of Terumah) bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras.' This is why it does not need to be eaten al Taharas Terumah, since it is (like) Chulin.

Question #1: There is a difficulty with this explanation. Being that the Tana is discussing Chulin, he ought to have specifically stated that 'Metamei' and 'Posel' are specifically referring to the Chulin causing a change in the status of Terumah (being that the only detail stated in the Mishnah is Chulin)!

Question #2: Furthermore, at the outset, when we thought that there is a k'Zayis (of Terumah) bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras (in this mixture), we should have asked a question even if Ula would not have said his law. We should ask, how it is possible to eat this mixture? One is essentially eating impure Terumah!

Answer (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Mishnah is indeed discussing Chulin, as explained by Rashi. However, when it says 'Metamei' it actually means 'Posel.' When it says, 'v'ha'Sheini Pasul ve'Eino Metamei', it implies "v'Aino Posel," meaning that it does not make a Shelishi. When it says, 've'ha'Shelishi Ne'echal bi'Nezid ha'Dema' it means that being that he intended to mix in Terumah, he needs to guard this cooked dish al Taharas Terumah, rendering it Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah ...

Answer (Part 2): This is why it can become a Shelishi (as opposed to regular Chulin). This Shelishi, however, can be mixed with N'zid ha'Dema and eaten.

Answer (Part 3): The Gemara then asks how it is possible to feed him something that renders his body Pasul, as it is forbidden for him to become invalid, as explained by Rashi?

Answer (Part 4): The Gemara answers that the case of the Mishnah is where there is less than a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras. This (is not literal, but rather) means that he only intends to mix into this Chulin an amount of Terumah that is less than a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras. Accordingly, he does not have to guard this Chulin cooked dish al Taharas Terumah. It has the law of Chulin, which cannot become a Shelishi.

Implied Question: Why, then, does the Mishnah refer to this dish as a Shelishi? (There is currently no Terumah in the dish, and it therefore cannot become a Shelishi!)

Answer#1: This is merely because it touched a Sheini (and therefore it would be a Shelishi if applicable).

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is called a Shelishi because if he had intended to add a lot of Terumah spices to the point where the dish would contain a k'Zayis (of Terumah) bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras, he would have had to guard it al Taharas Terumah (and it would have the status of a Shelishi).

Refutation: However, this answer is a Dochek (forced).

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rashi's first explanation seems correct. The Mishnah is referring to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah. 'Metamei' and 'Posel' refers to the Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah, which is the subject of the Mishnah.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Rashi explains that the Gemara's question is how we can feed the Kohen something that renders his body invalid for eating Terumah and then allow him to eat Terumah?

Explanation #2 (Part 3): The Gemara answers that the case is where there is less than a k'Zayis etc., and we therefore do not worry if he eats this mixture when he has become invalid.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Chatzi Shi'ur is Asur min ha'Torah. (How can we allow him to eat a small amount of Terumah when impure?)

Answer: Nevertheless, since his body becoming invalid to eat Terumah in this manner is only mid'Rabbanan, the Chachamim were not strict in this regard.

Implied Question: Rashi asks (on this explanation), how can the Kohen be allowed to render his body Pasul? The Gemara in Yoma (80b) derives from the Pasuk, "Lo Sitam'u Bahem v'Nitmeisem Bam" (Vayikra 11:43) that "Tumas ha'Geviyah" is a Torah law! (This seems to mean that it is prohibited according to Torah law for a Kohen to allow his body to become invalid. How, then, can we allow the Kohen to make his body invalid?)

Answer: It would seem that the Gemara in Yoma (ibid.) is not stating that that a Kohen cannot allow his body to become invalid. The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (16b) even permits Kohanim to touch a Sheretz and Neveilah! It must be that the derivation in Yoma (ibid.) is only that if he ate impure foods, he becomes unfit to eat Terumah and Taharos according to Torah law.

Precedent: Likewise, the Gemara in Kerisus (13a) states that 'They permitted a pregnant woman to eat less than a Shi'ur of impure food, since her life is in danger.' This implies that this is only permitted in a case where she was eating less than a Shi'ur or where her life was in danger. In such a case, she is allowed to eat this even though she intends to eat Terumah and Taharos afterwards (otherwise, she is obviously allowed to eat impure foods).

Continuation of the Mishnah in Taharos: In the very next Mishnah in Taharos (2:4), the Tana writes 'ha'Rishon ve'ha'Sheini she'bi'Terumah - Teme'im u'Metam'in; Shelishi she'bi'Terumah - Posel ve'Lo Metamei; ha'Revi'i - Ne'echal bi'Nezid ha'Kodesh'.

Explanation of the Mishnah in Taharos (Part 1): That section is speaking about Terumah she'Na'asu al Taharas Kodesh, and 'Pasul' and 'Tamei' is referring to the Terumah itself; whereas the Revi'i one is permitted to mix with N'zid ha'Dema of a dish of actual Kodesh.

Explanation of the Mishnah in Taharos (Part 2): The next Mishnah continues 'ha'Rishon ve'ha'Sheini u'Shelishi she'ba'Kodesh - Teme'in u'Metam'in; Revi'i - Posel ve'Lo Metamei; Chamishi - Ne'echal bi'Nezid ha'Kodesh', that section is talking about actual Kodesh she'Na'asu al Taharas Chatas ve'Al Taharas Parah Adumah. (The higher the level of holiness, the impurity can be further removed and still be deemed impure. Accordingly, while it is generally accepted that Chulin cannot have a Shelishi, Terumah can have a Shelishi. Similarly, while Terumah cannot have a Revi'i, Kodesh can have a Revi'i. Similarly, while Kodesh cannot have a Chamishi, Chatas and Parah Adumah do have a Chamishi. This is why Tosfos explains these Mishnayos in the manner above, and is the reason for the following quotes from, Chagigag showing that the higher the level, the more impurity .)

Source #1: This is as the Mishnah says in Chagigah (18b) 'the garments of Ochlei Kodesh are Medras (considered as if they have been sat upon by a Zav according to Rabbinic law, see Rashi in Chagigah 18b, DH "l'Ochlei") with regard to Chatas.'

Source #2: And the Mishnah says (also) in Maseches Chagigah (Daf 18b) 'Yochanan ben Gudgodah would eat al Taharas ha'Kodesh, and his headscarf was Medras with regard to Chatas'.

Explanation ... (Part 3): That is why the Tana says that also a Revi'i renders a Chatas invalid.

Explanation ... (Part 4): And in the Chamishi itself one is permitted to mix a food of actual Kodesh.

Explanation ... (Part 5): But plain Terumah that is not al Taharas Kodesh is not subject to being a Revi'i. Kodesh that is not al Taharas Chatas is not subject to being a Chamishi (as explained above).

Source: This is as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Pesachim (19a), 'It is impossible that the Tana would not have mentioned a Revi'i with regard to Terumah, or a Chamishi with regard to Kodesh (if such a law actually existed).'

Implied Question: One should not wonder how it is possible to eat Terumah and Kodesh that is impure. (How can they be eaten if they come in contact with a Revi'i or Chamishi?)

Answer: Being that there is no Revi'i by actual Terumah and no Chamishi by actual Kodesh, there is no prohibition.

Explanation of the Mishnah in Taharos cont. (Part 1): According to Rabeinu Tam (whom we quoted earlier), the following Mishnah regarding Terumah (Taharos 2:4) is speaking about plain Terumah, and the Tana refers to it as a Revi'i, because they intend to mix in N'zid ha'ha'Kodesh, and he therefore guards it from becoming a Revi'I (which affects Kodesh, not Terumah).

Explanation of the Mishnah in Taharos cont. (Part 2): The Mishnah regarding Kodesh is speaking about plain Kodesh. 'Chamishi Ne'echal bi'Nezid ha'Kodesh' is because they intend to eat Kodesh that has been guarded al Taharas Chatas together with this Kodesh. Metamei means 'Posel', just as he explained in the earlier section.

Refuted Explanation: This does not mean that a S'tam Nazid is like that ...

Refutation: Since in 'Eilu Ovrin' (Pesachim 44.) it is implied that S'tam it does contain a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras, where, in connection with a Chulin stew containing garlic and oil of Terumah, the Gemara says, both there and in Perek Sheloshah Miynim (Nazir 36.) 'since a Zar receives Malkos for eating a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras of it'.

Explanation: What the Gemara therefore means is that the current case is speaking where there is not a 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras'.