Proof: This is clear from Menachos (52a), which says that Me'ilah does not apply to Efer Parah.

It says "R. Akiva added", which connotes that it is mid'Rabanan, like the Reisha, like we infer here.

Conclusion: Now, we establish the Drashah brought throughout the Gemara "veha'Basar" to include wood and Levonah, like Rebbi in Menachos (20b);

According to Rabanan, it connotes in Menachos (101a) that even meat after Shechitah can be redeemed. (Si'ach Yitzchak did not understand how the Gemara connotes like this.)

Retraction: However, I can establish it like Rabanan, when they were Hukdash in a Kli, like we establish it in Pesachim.

However, we can reject this, that it refers only to Levonah, but not to wood.

In the beginning of [Perek 12 of] Menachos, I explained in the name of the Ri that the verse refers primarily to Levonah. Wood is a mere Asmachta. I elaborated there. It is not relevant here.

Note: In Menachos 21a DH Yatz'u, Tosfos said that only Rebbi includes wood, but Rabanan do not.

Suggestion: We can bring a proof from the fact that it does not list wood in Me'ilah (9a), when it lists others that are Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim!

Rejection: No, it is not listed because Pigul does not apply to Holachah and Haktarah, for it is not a total Korban.

Question (R. Elchanan): Why don't we say that he gathered it on a Chulin Kli?

Mid'Oraisa, a Kli Shares is Metzaref, but not a Chulin Kli, for it must be like a Kaf (from which we learn, which was a Kli Shares). Even though it has an interior [it is not Metzaref]!

This requires investigation.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): According to the opinion that says Dayo (a Kal va'Chomer cannot teach a Chidush greater than any of the matters from which we learn) [even when due to this, we do not learn anything from it], these are stringencies mid'Rabanan. They are not mid'Oraisa;

It says "we learned a Shelishi from the Torah." This is not precise. Also, we do not truly learn from a Kal va'Chomer.

In Pesachim (19a), Rashi explained regarding R. Yosi and R. Shimon that a liquid is not Metamei a food, and Tum'ah does not make [Tamei something] similar to itself (a food is not Metamei a food, and a liquid is not Metamei a liquid)...

Rhetorical question: How can we find a Revi'i in Kodesh? (A person or Kli receives Tum'ah only from an Av, so he/it is a Rishon. He/it can make a food a Sheni, which can make a liquid a Shelishi, but it cannot be Metamei anything else!) Surely, it (a Revi'i) is mid'Rabanan.

Support (Rashi): Our Maseches lists it among the latter stringencies mid'Rabanan.

Question (Ri): R. Chanin holds that Tziruf Kli is mid'Oraisa, and he lists it among stringencies mid'Rabanan!

R. Yochanan holds that Tziruf is mid'Rabanan, and he establishes our Mishnah like R. Akiva, and R. Akiva holds that a Shelishi in Chulin is mid'Oraisa. If so, also a Revi'i in Kodesh is mid'Oraisa!

We apply here "veha'Basar Asher Yiga v'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel." Is it not the case [that Kodesh meat touched a Shelishi]?

Answer (and Explanation #2 - Ri): (A Revi'i is mid'Oraisa.) He calls it mid'Rabanan because we do not find that Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is mid'Oraisa.

Support (R. Tam): We find a Revi'i b'Kodesh mid'Oraisa through wood and Levonah, which receive Tum'ah through Chibas ha'Kodesh.

Observation: Reish Lakish asked about a dry part of a Minchah (it was not mixed with oil, so it was not Huchshar) whether or not it becomes like a Rishon, to make a Sheni [or if it merely becomes Pasul];

If Chibas ha'Kodesh helps to count Rishon and Sheni, according to the opinion that a food is not Metamei a food, this is obvious to him [since we find a Revi'i only through wood and Levonah, i.e. through Chibas ha'Kodesh].

Question (R. Elchanan): According to R. Tam, who establishes (a Revi'i b'Kodesh) through wood and Levonah, is it any better than a real food, for which Chibas ha'Kodesh does not help to count a Rishon and Sheni?! (What was Reish Lakish's Safek?)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): At the time that the Tamei hand touched the Tahor hand, the Tahor hand touched Kodesh.

Question: If so, the second is not Tamei at all. The Kodesh is Tamei due to a decree, lest it touch the first, Tamei hand;

Why do we say that for Kodesh, he immerses both hands? He should immerse only the Tamei hand!

Answer: We can say that it means that if one hand became Tamei, the other is Tehorah. Regarding Kodesh, at the beginning (when he comes to immerse it), Chachamim obligated to immerse both of them, lest both of them became Tamei.

Explanation #2: We can say that "this was taught b'Chiburin" means that one hand touches a Sefer, which disqualifies it, and the other hand, which touches that hand, is judged as if it touched the Sefer. We decree lest it touch.

Support: Similarly, a Mishnah [in Yadayim, brought on Amud B] below says that one hand is Metamei the other, and makes it a Sheniyah. In our Sugya, we establish it regarding Kodesh, according to the Hava Amina that R. Yehudah holds that one hand is Metamei the other, and makes it a Sheniyah;

Question: Why doesn't it make it a Shelishis?

Answer: We decree lest it touched the Sefer itself. Even if it didn't touch the other hand, it is Tamei, lest it touched the Sefer.

(Tosefta): If one immerses one of his hands, all the Taharos he did with the Tahor hand, until he immersed the Tamei hand, are Tamei, for one hand is Metamei the other for Kodesh.

Inference: Even without touching, it is Metamei it.

Consequence: Now, it is possible that this is a stringency according to R. Yosi. It is only part of the general rule that a Revi'i is Pasul for Kodesh, but not for Terumah;

Regarding Terumah, there is no more than a Shelishi. Therefore, it is Metamei only Kodesh, for it makes a Revi'i;

He holds that one hand is not Metamei the other to make it a Sheniyah. Rather, it is Metamei it to make it a Shelishis.

Question (R. Elchanan): Why is this counted as a stringency in our Mishnah? It is included in that there is a Revi'i for Kodesh!

Answer (R. Elchanan): This is another stringency, that one hand is Metamei the other;

One might have thought that since his body does not become Tamei, except from an Av ha'Tum'ah, also his hands do not. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Implied question: Perhaps the Chidush is that for Terumah [one hand is] not Metamei [the other] even b'Chiburin!

Answer: We seek a Chidush only regarding Kodesh.

Explanation: Since he is Metamei his friend's hand, it suffices for us if he disqualifies it;

However, Reish Lakish said [that he is Metamei] only his [own other] hand. He establishes the reason to be lest one confuse the Tahor hand with the Tamei hand;

Therefore, just like his Tamei hand is Metamei Kodesh, for it is a Sheniyah, also his Tahor hand.

Support: Below, when Reish Lakish retracted, he explained his words to disqualify, but not to be Metamei;

Inference: Initially, he held that it is Metamei. This is from Rabbeinu Shmuel.

Question (Ri): We say in Shabbos (14a) that also hands that come from [touching] a Sefer disqualify Terumah, due to R. Parnach, who taught [that if one holds the parchment of] a Sefer Torah in his bare hand, he will be buried bare of that Mitzvah].

How can it say so (that it is due to R. Parnach)? Everything that disqualifies Terumah is Metamei the hands, like our Mishnah taught here! (Seforim disqualify Terumah. They decreed Tum'ah on Seforim to discourage people from storing Terumah where Seforim are kept, for Terumah attracts mice, which ruin Seforim.)

Answer #1: They first decreed about a Sefer. Afterwards they decreed about other matters [that disqualify Seforim].

Answer #2: We need (R. Parnach's reason) according to Rabanan who argue with R. Yehoshua. (They say that what disqualifies Terumah is not Metamei the hands.)

Answer #3: It seems that even R. Yehoshua said [that what disqualifies Terumah is Metamei the hands] only for Kodesh, like our entire Sugya connotes, but not for Terumah.

Implied question: When it says in the Seifa of our Mishnah (Yadayim 2:2) that R. Yehoshua said to them "Kisvei ha'Kodesh are Sheniyim, and they are Metamei the hands", they said "we do not learn Divrei Torah [from mid'Rabanan laws];

What was his question to them? He agrees that Kisvei ha'Kodesh are [Metamei the hands] even for Terumah, and [his] rule that whatever disqualifies Terumah [is Metamei the hands] is only for Kodesh!

Answer: His words were not a question. He merely concluded his teaching to give a reason why a Sheni makes a Sheni, for we find so even for Terumah, and all the more so for Kodesh.

Question (R. Elchanan): What support does he bring for his teaching from Kisvei ha'Kodesh? There is different, due to R. Parnach's reason, that if one holds a Sefer Torah in his bare hand [he will be buried bare of that Mitzvah! It seems that he asks like R. Shimshon in Yadayim, that R. Parnach's decree is not due to Tum'ah, so we cannot learn from it.]

Answer (Ri): Also regarding a Sefer, when R. Parnach's reason does not apply, e.g. Tefilin straps with Tefilin [we find that a Sheni makes a Sheni. This is due to Tum'ah.]

Question (R. Elchanan): In Chulin (34a, R. Yehoshua said that) we find that a Sheni makes a Sheni through liquids, and [R. Eliezer] asked that [we cannot learn from there, for] it makes [the liquid] a Rishon;

Why didn't [R. Yehoshua] say that [a Sheni makes a Sheni without a Rishon, i.e.] a hand is Metamei the other, like here?

Answer: He (R. Yehoshua) said so (that a hand is Metamei the other) in Maseches Yadayim (2:2, and brought here), therefore he was not concerned to support himself from his own words.

Also, he did not want to say that a Sheni makes a Sheni through a Sefer, for there, there is a great reason, like R. Parnach taught.

Implied question: Why didn't he say that a Sheni (food) makes a Sheni (the one who eats it) due to the decree [mentioned in] Shabbos (14a) among the 18 decrees?

We say that perhaps he will put Terumah liquids in his mouth while eating Tamei food!

Answer: Also there, [R. Yehoshua] knew the reason, just he was astounded. Since we never find Tum'ah like this (a Sheni making a Sheni), how do we decree it here? (Therefore, he explained that we find this through liquids.)

Citation (Chulin 34b): If one eats a Shelishi, he becomes a Sheni regarding Kodesh, but not regarding Terumah. [I.e., he ate] Chulin Al Taharas Kodesh.

Question: Why wasn't this counted here, among stringencies [of Kodesh over Terumah]?

Answer #1 (R. Elchanan): There we explain that Terumah is different. Its Taharah is considered Tamei regarding Kodesh. If so, this is not a stringency. (Si'ach Yitzchak - it is not a new stringency. It is included in "garments of those who eat Terumah are Midras to Kodesh.")

Question: According to the opinion there (Chulin 34b) that R. Eliezer never responded like this, and [R. Yehoshua] did not conclude "I said [...only because Shemiras Terumah is like Tum'ah regarding Kodesh]"...

We say there that Amora'im argue according to R. Yochanan [about whether this dialogue occurred].

If so, [the previous question returns;] why didn't we count [here, if one eats a Shelishi, he becomes a Sheni for Kodesh. We cannot give R. Elchanan's answer!]

Answer #2: We can say that they did not decree about Terumah, because [Kohanim] are zealous about Terumah, but [Stam people] are not [zealous] about Kodesh. Therefore, we cannot call this a Maileh (attribute or stringency) of Kodshim.

Support: We find like this in our Perek in the Yerushalmi, regarding the stringency of Kodesh. R. Chiya said in the name of R. Yochanan, it is because people who eat Terumah are zealous, but people who eat Kodshim are not zealous;

Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Chanina in front of R. Mana) Objection: Is this a Maileh?! Granted, something that people are equally [zealous] about both of them, and this is Tahor and this is Tamei, this is a Maileh;

Inference: We do not call a Maileh something that depends on zealousness.

Inference: It seems that these words are from the Gemara (they are not part of the Beraisa).

Retraction (Tosefta - R. Chanina ben Antigonus): Does dry help for Kodesh?!

Citation (Tosefta): Rather, his friend inserted the food [into his mouth], or he inserted it with a spindle or chip, and he eats with it an olive or onion of Terumah.

Explanation: It mentioned a spindle, for it is a Pashut Kli Etz (it has no receptacle), which is not Mekabel Tum'ah. Even mid'Rabanan, a Pashut, small Kli Etz is not Mekabel Tum'ah.

Note: Below, Tosfos says that a Kli that serves man and also things that serve man, is Mekabel Tum'ah. Tosfos ha'Rosh connotes that it must also be big and wide.

Support: We find like this in Chulin (3a), "e.g. he checked a sharp reed and slaughtered with it." It is a Pashut Kli Etz, which is not Mekabel Tum'ah.

Implied question: It says in Bava Basra (66a) that a baker's board is Tamei, even though it has no receptacle at all!

Answer: There, it is Tamei because it serves man, and it serves things that serve man. (Sometimes one sits on it; one also puts loaves and other things on it.)

Support: Similarly, a reversible board [can become] Tamei (Menachos 96b);

Implied question: This is even according to the opinion that the rim [of the Shulchan in the Mikdash] was below, even though [he holds that the rim] was not attached to the board [of the Shulchan], like it connotes in Sukah (5a).

Note: There, the Gemara said that according to the opinion that the rim was below, a reversible board is Mekabel Tum'ah. According to the opinion that the rim was above, it was unsure. In Sukah (5a DH Misgarto), Tosfos explains that it was unsure mid'Oraisa, but surely it is Tamei [at least] mid'Rabanan. Tosfos says "Af" (even) because this opinion cannot say that due to the rim, it is considered to have an interior.

Answer: Rather, it is because it serves man.

Support: It says so explicitly in Toras Kohanim. I explained this at the beginning of Sukah.

Explanation #1: Perhaps his hands, which are Sheniyos, will touch Kodesh in his mouth. Also Rashi explained like this.

Explanation #2: We could explain that perhaps he will touch saliva in his mouth, which is considered a liquid in Eruvin (99a) regarding one who ate pressed figs with Tamei hands.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If he was Makdish it for the Mizbe'ach at the time of the grape harvest, he is believed the entire year about guarding it.

Support (R. Elchanan): We can say so. If he was not Makdish it at the time of the harvest, it is Chulin, and it became Tamei through Tum'as Am ha'Aretz;

If he was Makdish it afterwards, how does this help? Because he was Makdish it, is the Tum'ah uprooted from it?!

Explanation #2: We could say that [at the time of the harvest] he designated it for Nesachim, e.g. we know that he designated all of them;

When he was Makdish them, we can say that fear of Kodesh is on him, and from the beginning he was careful to guard them in Taharah.

Support: We find like this regarding Terumah below. An Am ha'Aretz leaves Terumah of the entire year for the coming year at the time of the winepresses, to give it to a Chaver;

Citation (Sifri): Even though the Chaver recognizes that it is the same barrel [he may accept it].

Note: Our text of the Tosefta (3:11) says "he may not accept it", but Minchas Bikurim says that the text should say "he accepts it." Surely this was Tosfos' text.

The Gemara connotes that even the Chaver himself may [accept it at other times and] leave it until [the time of the winepresses in] the coming year.