Observation (cont.): And in Yoma (10a), regarding Sukah of the Chag during the Chag requires an Eruv and Mezuzah and [it is like a house to obligate taking] Ma'aser, it says there that it is mid'Oraisa, If it were mid'Rabanan (they would not decree), lest one come to separate from Patur on Chayav;

And regarding Demai, and one who buys from a Nochri, according to the opinion that Yesh Kinyan, Chachamim obligated, and they were not concerned [lest one separate from Patur on Chayav].

Explanation: And we require "l'Mashchah" - in grandeur, the way kings eat, roasted and with mustard. L'Mashchah is written regarding all Matanos, even the foreleg, jaw and stomach, like it connotes here;

And regarding Terumah, we do not find any eating in grandeur. Perhaps grandeur applies only to meat.

Explanation #1: It is Batel to permit a Tamei Kohen to eat it, like it says that Rabah was Mevatel it in a majority and ate in when he was Tamei.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): [It is Batel] to permit a Zar to eat it. We do not require 101 [parts of mixture, like we require for Terumas Eretz Yisrael].

Rebuttal: It is explicitly proven in Menachos (67a) that it is forbidden to a Zar, regarding "Chalah of a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael, and his Terumah in Chutz la'Aretz, we inform him that he is exempt. Zarim may eat his Chalah, and his Terumah is not Medame'a (forbid if it is mixed with Chulin)";

Inference: Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz of a Yisrael is Medame'a, and it is Batel to allow Zarim to eat it only in 101!

Assertion: The text says Rabah, who was a Kohen, for we say that Rabah descended from the house of Eli;

However, [the text does not say Rava,] for Rava was not a Kohen, like is proven in Chulin (133a) that Rava told his attendant "acquire Matanos for me." (If Rava was a Kohen, he could have acquired them himself! Also, Rav Yosef deduced that Hash-m was upset with Rava. If Rava was a Kohen, the attendant was like a mere Shali'ach!)

Opinion #1 - Inference: He need not separate Min ha'Mukaf (near the Peros being exempted, for he already ate them).

Rebuttal and Opinion #2: I could explain that at the end, after he separates Terumah, he leaves over a little to fulfill with it [Min ha']Mukaf.

Support (for Opinion #1): However, Rashi explained that he eats and leaves over enough for Terumah, and separates it at the end.

Question: Why does it mention a minor Kohen? Even an adult may eat it after he immerses and become Tahor from his Keri (seminal emission, even though he is Tamei Mes)!

Suggestion: It is due to the toil of Tevilah (adults do not want to immerse).

Rejection: Also in Eretz Yisrael they immerse for Terumah. And also in Bavel they immersed for Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz, like it connotes above, that Rabah ate it [through Bitul] in a majority only when he was Tamei (but when he was Tahor, he ate it without Bitul)!

And it says in Nidah (32a) that a case occurred [in Bavel] in which they immersed a baby [who became Nidah] before her mother (Yoledes Nekevah is Tamei for two weeks), in order to anoint the baby with Terumah oil!

Answer (Ri): There is no Shi'ur [how much to separate] for this Chalah. Since it is a small amount, one gives it to a minor Kohen.

Support: The wording "she takes it at the end of a poker (a pole to stoke the fire)" connotes that it is a small amount.

Implied question: This was said only about the Chalah that we burn!

Answer: In any case, it connotes that also the [Chalah] that one gives to a minor is a small amount, and regarding the one that is burned, it needed to mention "at the end of a poker" (even though surely, Chachamim would not enact a small amount to be eaten and a large amount to be burned), for via it she casts it to the oven (see the coming Tosfos).

Distinction - Possibility #1: However, their Terumah (of Chutz la'Aretz), which was from grain (before it was made into bread) was not so proper to give it to a minor Kohen. Even if it had no Shi'ur, (it is improper to do so) for a minor would lose it, and the same applies to wine and oil.

Possibility #2: Terumah has a Shi'ur, e.g. Terumas Ma'aser (therefore they did not enact to give it to a minor).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We are as careful as possible [that a Tamei person] not touch it after one called it [Chalah].

Objection: We said that there is no problem of [a Tamei person] touching it. It is totally permitted to touch it!

Explanation #2: Rather, it mentions "at the end of a Masa" for it is normal to use it to turn over coals and wood, like Rashi explained that Masa is Forga (a poker used to stoke coals), and [with it] one can nicely enter the Chalah in the oven, in the fire.

Explanation #3: It seems that Masa is a spatula used to remove bread (which they used to stick on the oven wall), like it connotes in Ta'anis (25a) regarding R. Chanina's wife. Her neighbor said "bring a Masa, for your bread is burning!", and it says there that indeed, [R. Chanina's wife] had entered [another room] to bring a spatula.

However, Meta'ara can be Furgun, like Rashi explained in Chagigah (4b) regarding Miryam who raises (or braids hair of) children. She took Meta'ara and was arranging the oven. She held the shovel that we call Furgun and was sweeping the oven.

Because there are matters that are not obligated in Chalah until after baking, e.g. spongy bread and bread fried in honey, in Pesachim (37a), and like it says "he grinded it, baked it and separated Chalah from it", it mentioned "she takes it at the end of a poker", for when she comes to remove it from the oven wall, she burns it and casts it in the fire with the end of the poker itself.

Inference: They were stringent to separate a second Chalah only when there is no minor Kohen. This is unlike those places that it teaches in Chalah (4:8) that they always separate two Chalos, one for the fire and one for a Kohen;

Those places are close to Eretz Yisrael, and their Chalah looks like Tamei Chalah of Eretz Yisrael, which must be burned. They decreed not to eat it, even a Kohen who is totally Tahor, because it is Tamei;

Therefore, they always separate [Chalah] for the fire, and a second Chalah, lest the law of Chalah be forgotten, like it explains also here.

Distinction: However, here in Bavel, which is far from Eretz Yisrael, and its Chalah does not look like Tamei [Chalah] of Eretz Yisrael, they did not decree any Isur about it due to its own Tum'ah. Therefore, they permitted it also to a Tamei minor Kohen, since the Tum'ah does not leave his body. And they permitted also to be Mevatel it in a majority;

And the second [Chalah] an adult Kohen eats, even a Zav, for we do not distinguish here at all.

Implied question: A Mishnah there teaches about the second Chalah "and it is forbidden to Zavim, Zavos, Nidos and Yoldos!

Answer: We cannot learn [to] here to forbid to Zavim and Zavos, for [here] is in Bavel, far from Eretz Yisrael, and also one needs to separate [the second Chalah] only where there is no minor Kohen...

... [We cannot learn to here] from places close [to Eretz Yisrael], that always separate two Chalos.

Remark: In some Perushim of Rashi, the text was corrected to say "the other Chalah here, one does not call it Chalah, for it does not have the law of Chalah at all. And presumably, it is not Medame'a (forbid a mixture with Chulin)."

Implied question: Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz is Medame'a, like a Beraisa in Menachos (67a) teaches!

Answer: Perhaps the second [Chalah], even in places taught in the Mishnah, is not Medame'a. (I cannot resolve the text of our Tosfos, which connotes that it is a bigger Chidush to say that the second is not Medame'a. Perhaps the text should say "even the first." Tosfos (Chulin 104a-b Sof DH Chalas) was unsure about the first. One could keep the text "v'Shema" if we change the text in the previous line to say "Af Al Gav" or "v'Af Al Gav" in place of "d'Af Al Gav.")

Assertion (Tosfos' Rebbi): Both here and there, even in a place where they were stringent to separate a second Chalah, they were not stringent to separate two Terumos, for we find in the Mishnah to separate two only regarding Chalos.

Explanation: We can give a reason, because there is more concern for Chalah lest it be forgotten, for it applies to everyone who kneads a dough. However, Terumah normally applies only to people who own land or do Miru'ach of harvests.

Explanation: [Rav Nachman] did not consider it proper to say that when they became Tamei Mes, they went and received Haza'ah in Eretz Yisrael, and returned to eat Terumah...

[In this Havah Amina] they were not concerned for Tum'ah of Chutz la'Aretz regarding Chalah of Chutz la'Aretz, but for all Tum'os mid'Oraisa, it is forbidden as long as he did not immerse, since he is Tamei mid'Oraisa even for Chulin.

[Rav Nachman did not say so,] for it is unreasonable that they enacted Chalah for a Kohen in Chutz la'Aretz that he can eat it only if he goes for Haza'ah in Eretz Yisrael, and it is impossible to be careful [to avoid] Tum'as Mes.

Implied question: They need to be careful because they are Kohanim!

In any case, from Tum'ah of a sword (a metal Kli that became Tamei Mes) even through Ohel, like is proven in Nazir (53b), that one who towers above a sword is like one who towers above a Mes, and in Ohalos (1:3) it is proven that a [metal] spit becomes like a corpse through Ohel ha'Mes, from those they could not be careful (because there was no Haza'ah in Chutz la'Aretz. In Eretz Yisrael, they could be Metaher Kelim that became Tamei Mes, so people could be careful even about these.)

Also, [Kohanim] need not separate [from Tum'ah of a sword] like [they must separate] from a Mes, like a Tosefta in Semachos (4:21) teaches "any Tum'as Mes that a Nazir need not shave [and bring Korban Nazir Tamei and begin Nezirus again from the beginning] for it, a Kohen is not commanded about it."

Conclusion: Therefore, presumably, they ate it without Haza'ah and Tevilah.

Consequence: Based on this Halachah, we must explain what the Mishnah in Chalah (4:8) teaches "from the river until Amnon and inside, two Chalos. One is for the fire, and one is for a Kohen. A Tevul Yom may eat it. R. Yosi says, Tevilah is not needed, and it is forbidden to Zavim..."

[We must explain that the first Tana] discusses a Tevul Yom of a Ba'al Keri (one who had a seminal emission), and he is permitted without Ha'arev Shemesh (i.e. before night), even though the Tum'ah came out of his body;

[If you will say that it is a Tevul Yom of] a Tamei Mes (this cannot be, for) do we have Haza'ah (in Chutz la'Aretz)?!

And R. Yosi says, even a Ba'al Keri does not need Tevilah.

Proof: The Seifa teaches "it is forbidden to Zavim, Zavos, Nidos and Yoldos", and it does not list a Ba'al Keri;

That Seifa is needed only according to R. Yosi, like it says in the Yerushalmi "we need this according to R. Yosi." Even though it is written "according to R. Yehudah", it seems that it is a printing mistake, and the text says "R. Yosi."

Remark: In passing, I will explain the Reisha of the Mishnah. It teaches that there are three lands for Chalah. From Eretz Yisrael until Keziv, there is one Chalah. From Keziv until the river and until Amnon, [one separates] two Chalos. One is for the fire and one is for a Kohen;

The one for the fire has a Shi'ur, and the one for a Kohen has no Shi'ur. This is because it is a place of Tum'ah, and they cannot guard themselves in Taharah, because it is close to Chutz la'Aretz, and their Chalos must be burned;

Therefore, we separate two Chalos, one for the fire, which is Chalah Tamei mid'Oraisa, for their Peros grow in Eretz Yisrael, and one is for a Kohen, lest the law of Chalah be forgotten;

The one for the fire has a Shi'ur, like the Yerushalmi explains, because it is mid'Oraisa. That of the Kohen has no Shi'ur, because it is mid'Rabanan;

Citation: Afterwards, it teaches "and from the river until Amnon and inside [one separates] two Chalos, one for the fire and one for a Kohen. The one for the fire has no Shi'ur, for it is burned, and both of them are mid'Rabanan;

And afterwards, it teaches "a Tevul Yom may eat it. R. Yosi says, Tevilah is not needed, and it is forbidden to Zavim, Zavos, Nidos and Yoldos, and it is eaten with a Zar on [the same] table, and it is given to any Kohen."

Remark: This is the Mishnah brought in Chulin (104a), but the Gemara brings it there abbreviated. The Gemara is wont to elaborate or abbreviate when it brings Mishnayos from Taharos and Zera'im, and changes the wording according to the need;

Source #1: The case of Safek entry, the Gemara brings in Pesachim (10a) about the Mishnah of one who entered a valley (Taharos 5:5), and it is taught about an earlier Mishnah in Taharos (5:4);

Source #2: And similarly, the Mishnah in Orlah that it brings in Avodah Zarah (68b) "Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem join; R. Shimon says, they do not join", and it is taught at length in Orlah (2:1), and the Gemara abbreviates it there in Avodah Zarah.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps the Mishnah it brings there is the Mishnah of Me'ilah taught there concisely in Me'ilah (18a)!

Rejection: The Perush of those Mishnayos are not the same, like R. Tam explained. The Mishnah of Me'ilah discusses joining to a k'Zayis, and for Makos, similar to all [the Mishnayos] of that Perek;

And the [Mishnah] it brings in Avodah Zarah discusses giving taste, and to forbid 200 [parts] in a mixture, like is proven in the Mishnah itself in Orlah. Investigate, and you will find [that it is so];

Therefore, it brings in Avodah Zarah a proof from it that Isur and Isur do not join according to R. Shimon to give taste and ferment. [R. Tam] explained R. Shimon's opinion, that it taught about it "R. Shimon says, they do not join", i.e. to give taste, for the first Tana discusses this;

And R. Shimon's opinion in Me'ilah is explicit in the Gemara in Me'ilah (18a). "They do not join" means that they do not need to join, for [R. Shimon holds that] one is lashed for any amount.

Opinion #1: The Mishnah taught "it is given to any Kohen." This means any Kohen, even a Kohen Am ha'Aretz;

Even though Terumah of Eretz Yisrael is given only to a Chaver (one who fulfills Mitzvos properly), who will guard it in Taharah, they did not decree about Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz, lest he eat it when he is Tamei.

Support: It connotes that it is similar to what was taught after this Mishnah "and these are given to any Kohen", and it lists among them the foreleg, jaw and stomach, Reishis ha'Gez and similar matters, to which no Isur Tum'ah applies;

And in any case, if there is a Chaver and an Am ha'Aretz, he does not give to the Am ha'Aretz, like it says in Chulin (130b) 'what is the source that we do not give a Matanah to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz? It says "Lases Menas... Lema'an Yechezku b'Toras Hash-m" - one who is Machazik in (properly observes) Toras Hash-m, he has a portion, and one who is not Machazik has no portion.'

Opinion #2 (Rashi in Chulin 104b): "To any Kohen" comes to teach even if he is not Machazik, we give to him Chalas Chutz la'Aretz.

Rebuttal: Due to the Mishnah after this, one cannot say so, for it lists Matanos that we say about them they are given only to Machazikim! Rather, surely here we discuss where there is no Chaver;

Alternatively, even if there is a Chaver but he does not need Matanos, one gives to a poor [Kohen] Am ha'Aretz, that we are commanded to sustain him. If people will not give to him, they will need to give it to him Chulin (which could have been given to poor Yisraelim).

Consequence: Now that I explained that what was taught "a Tevul Yom may eat it" means a Tevul Yom of Ba'al Keri, that he does not need Ha'arev Shemesh, even though the Tum'ah came out of his body...

It seems that the same applies to Chalah of the fire of Bavel and of us (in Chutz la'Aretz far from Eretz Yisrael). Even though it is forbidden to one that the Tum'ah came out of his body, it does not require Ha'arev Shemesh. One need not be more stringent than Chalah of the Kohen of that Mishnah;

Source: The one who is stringent about it in our Sugya, to forbid it to a Tamei Mes or a Tamei Sheretz before Tevilah, he permits it to a Tamei Sheretz [right] after Tevilah.

Rebuttal: This is not such a proof, for perhaps even though they were stringent about a Tamei Sheretz before Tevilah, just like for a Ba'al Keri, for a Tevul Yom of [Tum'as] Sheretz perhaps they were more lenient (i.e. but a Ba'al Keri needs Ha'arev Shemesh).

Pesak (Bahag, in Hilchos Chalah): Ravina said that therefore, a Nidah may separate Chalah and feed it to a minor Kohen, or to one who immersed from his Keri.

Opinion #1 (Bahag): Chalah in Eretz Yisrael, we separate only one Chalah and burn it.

Opinion #2: It seems that nowadays, since we burn it, for they do not have Haza'ah in all of Eretz Yisrael, one must separate a second, just like from Keziv until the river and until Amnon, that he separates a second Chalah, lest the law of Chalah be forgotten.

Explanation #1: [The Halachah does not follow Rav] regarding that he obligates Tevilah. Rather, even Tevilah is not required.

Explanation #2: Rashi connotes unlike this. (Rather, even Ha'arev Shemesh is required.)

Implied question: Regarding "ki'Schir Shanah b'Shanah" we expound that wages of this year are paid only in another (the next) year!

Answer: We expound each according to what the verse discusses;

And regarding Ma'aser it is written "Shanah Shanah." We expound below (53b) that one may not tithe from new on old or from old on new."

Observation: We must establish our Sugya to discuss a year [of the Bechor] without [three] festivals (in order, starting with Pesach), for in festivals alone without a year there is Bal Te'acher, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (6b).

Question: We need [Shanah b'Shanah] for like we expound in Temurah (21b) that [Bechor] is not disqualified from one year to another!

And Ben Azai expounds in Zevachim (29a) and in Rosh Hashanah (29a) "ha'Makriv Oso" (Pigul), "Lo Yeratzeh" - it will not be accepted, but Lo Yeratzeh does not apply to one who delays his vow;

And we require there two verses, one for Bechor and one for other Kodshim!

Answer: This [Drashah] of our Sugya here, [Ben Azai] derives it there from Acherim's Drashah, for there in Zevachim (29a), Rosh Hashanah (5b) and Temurah (21b) we equate Bechor to Ma'aser. Just like Ma'aser is not disqualified from one year to another [also Bechor].

And in Temurah it says also that Acherim establish the verse "Tochlenu Shanah b'Shanah" for this [Drashah] of Rav. Therefore, presumably, also these [Drashos in our Sugya] here hold like Acherim.

Remark: R. Akiva argues with this reasoning in Zevachim (57a), and it explains there that they argue about [something learned from] it (a Hekesh) and something else, whether or not it is [considered] a Hekesh.