Question: The shorn wool itself is permitted, in the event that one transgressed and shore it, since what the D'rashah really means is "Tizbach", ''You may Shecht it, bit not shear it' ...

Source (Part 1): As we learned in Perek ha'Loke'ach Beheimah (Bechoros 25.) Akavya ben Mahalalel permits 'The hair of a blemished B'chor that fell out and that one placed in the window before Shechting the animal; and the Machlokes extends to where the hair was pulled out, as is evident there at the end of the Perek (daf 26.).

Source (Part 2): And even the Rabbanan who forbid it, the Gemara there explains that this is mi'de'Rabbanan - a decree in case he comes to leave it (and subsequently forget and shear it.

Source (Part 3): And all the more so after the animal has been Shechted, when it is permitted even Lechatchilah to shear it, as is implied in the second Perek of Bechoros (15:).

Answer (Part 1): We would nevertheless have thought that the blood is forbidden, since we Darshen "Basar" 've'Lo Chalav', and we might equally-well have Darshened "Basar", 've'Lo Dam'.

Distinction (Part 1): It is not comparable to the shearing which is permitted, since we Darshen it from "Tizbach" (a verb), 've'Lo Tagoz'.

Distinction (Part 2): Whereas here, the Torah writes "ve'Achalta *Basar*" (a noun), which implies that you may eat meat, but not milk and blood.

Implied Question: Even though the D'rashah does not fit so well with regard to blood as it does with milk, which one is permitted to eat.

Answer: The fact is however, that blood is also edible.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara does not cite the D'rashah "Basar", 've'Lo Chalav' is ...

Answer #1: Because it cites the first part of the D'rashah.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, what the Beraisa means is that - since shearing and working with them (the Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) is prohibitted, even to the point that they are subject to Malkos, just as they were before they became Pasul ...

Source: As we learned in a Beraisa (in Bechoros, Daf 15:) 'Somebody who shears or who works with it receives Malkos'.

Answer #2 (Part 2): And since the Torah is so stringent, it seems appropriate to Darshen "Basar", 've'Lo Dam' as well.

Proof (Part 1): And so it is implied in the first Perek in Bechoros (Daf 6:) that the Pasuk comes to forbid the milk and not just to milk the animal.

Proof (Part 2): Since the Gemara wants to extrapolate from it that the milk of Chulin is permitted, seeing as the Torah finds it necessary to forbid the milk of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin from the D'rashah of "Basar", 've'Lo Chalav'.

Explanation #1: Rashi defines 'Dam Chalalim' as blood that makes the animal a Chalal; The Nefesh does not leave the animal with 'Dam Kilu'ach' (the blood that flows), he explains, only from the drop that turns black, which appears after the Kilu'ach.

Question: The Gemara in Kerisus (22.) however, implies that according to the opinion that the Neshamah leaves the animal from the drop that turns black, it does not come to preclude 'Dam Kilu'ach' (from being Machshir)?.

Source: And this is what the Gemara says in Perek Dam Shechitah (Ibid.): 'We have learned What is considered Dam Hakazah with which the Neshamah leaves the animal? Rebbi Yochanan says "As long as it flows"; According to Resh Lakish "From the drop that turns black" '.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara then asks from the Beraisa which defines Dam Hakazah as blood with which the Neshamah leaves the animal as 'As long as it flows, to preclude the Dam ha'Tamtzis, which merely drips'. Does this not incorporate even the first blood and the last blood (which drips)? And it answers 'No, it comes to preclude the drop that turns black!'

Question (Part 2): Now if according to Resh Lakish, it comes to preclude Dam Kilu'ach (as Rashi learns here), then the Beraisa will still pose a Kashya on him?

Explanation (Part 1): In fact, everyone agrees that the Neshamah goes out with Dam Kilu'ach; the Dam Hakazah initially comes out black and then turns red (both without flowing), then it begins to flow and finally it drips close to the animal.

Explanation (Part 2): Now 'as long as it flows' that Rebbi Yochanan mentions is the one in the middle; whereas according to Resh Lakish, the blood with which the Neshamah leaves the animal begins when the black blood turns red, even though it is not yet flowing.

Explanation (Part 3): The Gemara then asks on Resh Lakish from the Beraisa, which precludes Dam ha'Tamtzis because it drips, and so does the red blood that precedes the Dam Kilu'ach drip?

Explanation (Part 4): And the Gemara answers 'No, it includes only the black blood (but not the red blood that follows it).

Implied Question: Why is Dam Kilu'ach not then Machshir with regard to Hechsher Zera'im?

Answer (Part 1): Because the Torah writes "Dam Chalalim", and it is only the blood that comes out after the animal has become a Chalal that is called 'Dam Chalalim, to preclude Dam Kilu'ach, which does not come out after the animal's death. And Rashi himself explains the Gemara in Kerisus in this way.

Answer (Part 2): Whereas with regard to the blood of Shechitah it is the opposite ... since it is only the blood with which the Neshamah goes out that is considered Dam Shechitah, but the blood that comes out after death is not called blood .

Precedent: As the Gemara says in Pesachim (16:) 'But you have the Dam ha'Tamtzis which is spilled like water, yet it is not Machshir?' To which the reply was 'The blood of Shechitah is different, since even by Chulin it is not Machshir, because the Torah wrote "for the blood is the soul!" Blood with which the soul goes out is called blood ... '.

Explanation #1: Granules of flour, Rashi explains, that have accumulated in the Minchah, which oil cannot penetrate.

Question #1 (Part 1): Why does the K'li not combine them with regard to Hechsher, to render it all Huchshar, like it combines regarding Tum'ah ...

Source: As the Torah writes "Kaf Achas", from which we Darshen 'the Torah makes everything in the Kaf, one'.

Question #1 (Part 2): And the Minchah is mixed in a K'li Shareis ...

Proof (Part 1): As is evident in the first Perek of Menachos (Daf 9.), where Rebbi Yochanan says that if a Zar mixed the Minchah, it is Kasher; Outside the walls of the Azarah, it is Pasul.

Proof (Part 2): And the Gemara ascribes this to the fact that there is Kedushas K'li, it may well not require Kehunah, but it does need to be inside?

Question #2: Furthermore, 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' only applies once it has been sanctified in a K'li Shareis, as is evident at the beginning of Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim (101.) where it says 'Blocks of wood are not Kasher as long as they have not been cut; neither does frankincense

Refuted Answer: And when the Gemara says there (102:) regarding a Parah Adumah that became Tamei, despite the fact that 'whatever stands to be burned is considered as if it had been burned (and is like dust)', because Chibas ha'Kodesh renders it a food - even though there is 'Kidush K'li' ...

Refutation #1: Parah Adumah is different, since it has been Shechted and sprinkled like a Korban.

Refutation #2: And also because, due to the Chumra of Parah Adumah, they were strict, declaring Chibas ha'Kodesh effective (even without a K'li).

Answer (Part 1): It speaks here that they did not initially place oil on the Minchah when the flour was in the Bisah - according to the opinion that the dry measuring K'li was sanctified and that the Minchah became sanctified even without oil.

Answer (Part 2): Or it is speaking about the Minchah of a sinner or of a Sotah, which does not require oil, in which case the flour became sanctified in the K'li Shareis, and it speaks where no water was added.

Question: The Lashon 'Tz'rid' however, implies that some of it is wet and some of it is dry?

Implied Question: Similarly, the Gemara could have asked the same She'eilah regarding Basar Kodesh which did not have contact with water, since the blood of Kodshim is not Machshir. (So why did it pick specifically on T'zrid shel Menachos)?

Answer: It specifically mentioned 'T'zrid shel Menachos' since one tends to be careful that it should not have contact with water because of Chametz.

Clarification: The Gemara could just as well have said 'Chad bi9'Neveilah ve'Chad be'Sheretz, u'Tzerichi ... since Neveilah is more stringent regarding the Din of Masa (carrying), whereas Sheretz is more stringent regarding the Shi'ur of a k'Adashah.

Question: Since it is possible to establish the second Pasuk by Neveilah (as we just explained), how do we know that a Meis requires Hechsher to be Metamei for seven days?

Answer: The Ri explains that since both Pesukim are written in connection with Sheretz, one is able to apply it 'Im Eino Inyan' to all Tum'os.

Question: Why can we not learn Meis and Sheretz from one another with a Gezeirah-Shavah "Beged ve'Or" "Beged ve'Or", like we learn in Perek Bamah Ishah (Shabbos 64.) with regard to 'Kilki' and 'Chavak' (accessories of a horse)

Answer: We only learn from "Beged ve'Or" that whatever is considered a Beged with regard to one is considered a Beged with regard to the other. But we cannot apply it with regard to Hechsher.

Observation: In the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 16.) the Gemara cites a third Pasuk "ve'Chol Mashkeh asher Yishaseh be'Chol K'li Yitma"; "Yitma', says the Gemara, means 'Hechsher'. And the Gemara explains there that we need both Pesukim, one for Telushin (when it is detached) and the other for Mechabarin (when it is attached), and both are needed ... .

Conclusion: We do not however, need two Pesukim (one for Talush and one for Mechubar) both by Meis and by Sheretz, because, seeing as the Torah reveals by one of them that there is no difference, the same will automatically apply to the other one.

Implied Question: This Tzerichusa is unnecessary, since both Pesukim are speaking about Sheretz ...

Answer: Only it is the way of the Gemara to explain as if one of them was written by Meis, seeing as one can make a Tzerichusa both ways.

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara does not ask from the Rabbanan, who hold that blood is Machshir ...

Clarification (Part 2): Since Dam is considered like Hechsher Mayim and Yayin, because it is all considered a liquid.

Question: In that case, what does the Gemara ask from 'ha'Botzer le'Gas' (someone who picks grapes for the winepress); there too, the reason is because it is as if it was Huchshar with wine, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Shabbos (17.) 'Perhaps he will pick them with reinforced boxes'.

Answer (Part 1): What the Gemara means there is that since min ha'Torah there is no Hechsher without liquids, by 'Botzer le'Gas', where the liquid goes to waste and is not therefore considered a liquid, the Rabbanan should not have decreed on account of 'Perhaps he will pick them ... '.

Answer (Part 2): But if one could find min ha'Torah Hechsher without liquids, there would be no problem.

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have answered that it became Huchshar through water that is attached ...

Reason (Part 1): Because the Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reason that 'Mashki bei Mitbahaya is not Machshir' is because it is Talush, since he holds that Telushin is not Machshir min ha'Torah, based on the D'rashah "Kol Mashkeh asher Yishaseh be'Chol K'li Yitma".

Reason (Part 2): Like the opinion that holds "Yitma" is meant literally, leaving only one Pasuk for Hechsher, and he thinks it is more logical to establish it by Mechubarin than by Telushin.

Conclusion: Consequently, in the Azarah, he establishes the Torah law.

Clarification (Part 1): The real inference is not from the fact that he mentions 'Mashki' with a 'Yud', since from where do we know that he does not spell it with a 'Hey'?

Clarification (Part 2): But rather from his use of the word 'Dachan', which is in the plural.

Precedent: In the case of 'a needle that is found in the Basar' at the end of the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 20.) too, the Gemara declines to answer 'Tirg'ma a'Dam', due to the same Pircha.

Question: Earlier in the same Perek however (16.) the Gemara does answer 'Tirg'ma a'Dam, without bothering about the same Pircha ...

Answer: Because the Gemara explains 'Mashkin' and 'Dachan' in general

Precedent: Like the Gemara in ha'Omer (Kidushin 64:) where it answers 'What does "Bogros" mean - "Bogros" in general'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it (the water) then falls from the skin on to the Basar.

Question: In that case, the water is Talush, and Shmuel holds in the first Perrek of Pesachim (16.) that Talush is not Machshir, since he Darshens "Yitma" to mean literally 'becomes Tamei', leaving only one Pasuk for Hechsher?

Refuted Answer: Nor can we answer that Shmuel learns Talush and Mechubar from the same Pasuk, since this does not seem to be the case, seeing as he mentions 'that he led it in the river (to preclude Talush).

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that the flesh became Huchshar via the skin (on the basis of its role as a Shomer).

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Since one will have to admit that they only argue at the beginning of 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav' as to whether there is a 'Yad' regarding Hechsher, but that there is a Shomer, they will both agree, and that by definition, is Mechabur, since when the skin is stuck to the flesh, it is Mechubar.

Question: From where do we know that it comes to include wood and frankincense, perhaps it comes to teach us exclusively, that Chibas ha'Kodesh helps to render the Basar Muchshar, and that it does not require any other Hechsher?

Question: Why are liquids from the Mizbe'ach, such as wine and oil Tahor? Why are they not Muchshar with Chibas ha'Kodesh, to be considered food, like wood and frankincense?

Answer (Part 1): Chibas ha'Kodesh, which we learn from "ve'ha'Basar" only serves to turn into a food, something that resembles a food - such as wood and frankincense, which is dense and hard like food ...

Answer (Part 2): But to turn a liquid into a food from "ve'ha'Basar", that not.