Yerushalmi (Part 1): The Yerushalmi, discussing the Mishnah 'Chamishah Lo Yitromu, ve'Im Tarmu Ein Terumasan Terumah; Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan ... '.

Yerushalmi (Part 2): .. asks why their Ma'aseh does not reflect on their thoughts, like we learned there that 'If a Chashu brought them up to the roof ... '?

Question: What exactly is the Kashya, bearing in mind that, at the beginning of the Sugya the Gemara learns from Pesukim that their Terumah is not valid ... ' "Daber el B'nei Yisrael Veyikchu Li Terumah" - to preclude Nochrim; "me'es Kol Ish" - to preclude a Katan; "asher Yidvenu" - to preclude a Cheresh and a Shoteh'?

Answer: Perhaps that D'rashah is merely an Asmachta.

Explanation, Yerushalmi (Part 1): In any event, the Yerushalmi answers there "Venechshav lachem Terumaschem" - Wherever the Torah writes Machshavah, his Ma'aseh does not reflect on his Machshavah; whereas wherever it does not, his Ma'aseh reflects on his Machshavah' ...

Explanation, Yerushalmi (Part 2): In other words, since the basic Mitzvah of Terumah depends on Machshavah, and a Katan does not have Machshavah (since he does not have Da'as), it would not be logical to say that his Ma'aseh reflects on his Machshavah.

Question, Yerushalmi (Part 1): Then Rebbi Yossi there asks Shmuel from Gitin, where the Torah does not write Machshavah, yet nevertheless, his Ma'aseh does not reflect on his Machshavah as we have learned in a Mishnah 'Everyone is eligible to write a Get, even a Chashu' ...

Question, Yerushalmi (Part 2): ... which Rav establishes specifically where a Pike'ach is standing over him (indicating that otherwise, the Get would not be Kasher)?

Answer: Yerushalmi: And the Gemara answers - that there it is the Chashu who is writing, but the husband who is divorcing; whereas here the same person who is dong the thinking is the one who is separating the Terumah.

Question #1: The Ri has a problem with this however, seeing as the Gemara comes to explain the difference between Get and Terumah, whereas that was not the Kashya, but rather from Get on the Mishnah 'Katan Yesh Lo Ma'aseh ... '?

Question #2: Aside from the Yerushalmi's Kashya, one needs to understand a. why it is that, seeing as the Ma'aseh of a Katan reflects on his Machshavah, it does not also reflect on his Machshavah regarding Get, even without a Katan standing over him; b. Why by Terumah, a Gadol standing over him does not help like it does by Get?

Observation: This implies that Shmuel was Rav Huna's junior.

Precedent: Likewise at the beginning of Gitin (Daf 5a) and in Perek Yesh be'Erchin (Erchin 16b), where it cites an episode where Rav Huna and Chiya bar Rav were sitting in front of Shmuel - implying like a Talmid before one's Rebbe.

Question (Part 1): Whereas in the first Perek of Gitin (11b) the Gemara relates how Rav Huna was sitting before Rav Yirmiyah. Now Rebbi Yirmiyah was the Chaver of Rebbi Zeira, as is evident in Nidah (23a), where Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira a She'eilah, and where it concludes that Rebbi Yirmiyah tried hard to make Rebbi Zeira laugh but did not succeed ...

Question (Part 2): ... and Rebbi Zeira was the Talmid of Rav Yehudah (like we find in Shabbos 41a, where he avoided him, after deciding to go to Eretz Yisrael) - and Rav Yehudah was the Talmid of Rav and Shmuel ...

Question (Part 3): ... and Rebbi Yirmiyah (in Gitin 11b) referred to Rebbi Huna as 'Dard'ki' (children [all of which would render Shmuel Rav Huna's senior])?

Answer: In fact, there were two Amora'im called Rav Huna.

Clarification: Whatever the case, the one in Arachin (16b) must have been the Talmid of Rav, as is evident there.

Explanation #1: Rashi interprets Mis'asek as 'Somebody who intends to pick up a knife and to throw it' (our text reads ' ... to pick up a knife or to throw it').

Question: Such a case would be Pasul even by Chulin, according to the Rabbanan, even if he meant to cut with it in the process (like if he intended to stick the knife into the wall, as is evident in the second Perek (31a), unless he intends to cut the Simanim?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that the case of 'Mis'asek' by Kodshim is where he meant to cut the Simanim, but not for the sake of Shechitah, which is Kasher by Chulin, but Pasul by Kodshim.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): There is also another type of Mis'asek - where he Shechts a Kodshim animal thinking it is Chulin. This too, is Pasul on account of Mis'asek , as we learned in Zevachim, at the end of Beis Shamai (46b) that it is Pasul because of Chulin.

Source: And we learn both categories of Mis'asek from the Pasuk "Veshachat es ben ha'Bakar".

Clarification (Part 1): In Pirkei de'Rebbi Eliezer, (Perek 38) it states that Ezra, Zerubavel ben She'eltiel and Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak placed them in Cherem (Niduy) with three hundred Kohanim, three hundred children and three hundred Sifrei-Torah. They blew the Shofar and the Leviyim sang ...

Clarification (Part 2): And the Medrash concludes - 'From here the Chachamim declared that 'Anyone who eats bread baked by a Nochri is as if he ate the meat of a Chazir!'

Clarification: Therefore the Nochrim in Eretz Yisrael are also not so attached to it that all their actions are centered round Avodah-Zarah.

Question: Perhaps a Jewish heretic is worse, as we see by a Jewish Oved Kochavim, who, as the Gemara explains in Horiyos (11a) is unanimously dubbed a Miyn (a heretic), whereas, even though most Nochrim worship idols, we do not ascribe all their Shechitah to Avodah-Zarah?

Answer: Nevertheless, the Gemara considers it obvious that the Shechitah of a Miyn Nochri, who cleaves to Avodah-Zarah, is more likely to be to Avodah-Zarah than that of a Miyn Yisrael.

Question: In that case, the Pasuk should not need to say anything, since, seeing we need "Ish Ish" to include them, on what grounds ought we to accept them?

Answer: We would nevertheless have thought that from the Tzadikei Umos ha'Olam we would accept them; that explains why we need a Pasuk to preclude them.

Question: The Torah writes in Vayikra, 22 "An animal whose Beitzim are squashed, cut, detached or cut off ... and from the hand of a Nochri you shall not bring any of these" - implying that from animals without a blemish one may bring ... '?

Answer: In reality, even animals that are without a blemish are forbidden too, and the reason that the Torah lists the animals with blemishes is to teach us that one then transgresses a La'av and an Asei.

Inference #1: It implies here that the Rabanan do not compare the sacrifices of Avodah-Zarah to a dead person.

Inference #2: And so it seems in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah 32b), where the Gemara declares meat that enters a Beis Avodah-Zarah permitted, but which forbids meat which comes out from there. And the Gemara then ascribes the latter ruling to the fact that it is impossible for there to be no sacrifice in a Beis Avodah-Zarah, and establishes the author as Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira.

Question #1 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam queries that, inasmuch as earlier in the Perek (29b) the Gemara learned that 'Wine of Nochrim is Asur be'Hana'ah from the fact that it is compared to a sacrifice, and a sacrifice is compared to a Meis'.

Question #1 (Part 2): There the Gemara did not establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, like it did in the case of 'Basar ha'Yotzei'?

Question #2 (Part 1): Furthermore, asks Rabeinu Tam, earlier on in our Sugya, the Gemara extrapolates 'Neveilah yes, Isur Hana'ah no!' - Our Mishnah goes not like Rebbi Eliezer, because if it did, does Rebbi Eliezer not hold 'S'tam Machsheves Akum la'Avodas Kochavim'?

Question #2 (Part 2): What is the problem? Why can the author of our Mishnah not be Rebbi Eliezer, and the reason that it is not Asur be'Hana'ah is because it does not go according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira?

Possible Answer: One could however, refute the question by explaining that the Gemara establishes the Mishnah not like Rebbi Eliezer, only after establishing it like Yehudah ben Beseira.

Answer (Part 1): We must therefore explain that, with regard to Isur they do not argue that the Torah compares it to Meis regarding the Isur Hana'ah, since the Torah writes in Tehilim "Vayochlu Zivchei Meisim"; and the dispute is restricted to Tum'ah, where Rebbi Yehudah compares it completely to Meis even as regards Tum'ah'.

Proof: And so it seems from the fact that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira only mentions Tum'ah.

Answer (Part 2): And regarding the case of 'Basar ha'Yotzei', which the Gemara establishes like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, due to the fact that the Tana says 'because it is like Zivchei Meisim', which is otherwise superfluous, since it already says 'Asur'. And the extra Lashon implies that it is even Metamei be'Ohel ha'Meis.

Clarification (Part 1): Were it not for the fact that it is superfluous however, from the Lashon 'Zivchei Meisim' alone we would not be able to make this inference, as we can see from the Gemara later in the second Perek (Daf 40a) where the Gemara extrapolates from the Mishnah 'ha'Shochet le'Sheim Harim, Shechitaso Pesulah In, Zivchei Meisim, Lo!'

Clarification (Part 2): And it queries this from the Beraisa 'ha'Shochet le'Sheim Harim ... . Harei Eilu Zivchei Meisim'?

Clarification (Part 3): What is the Kashya; Perhaps the Beraisa goes like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, and the Mishnah like the Rabbanan?

Clarification (Part 4): It is therefore clear that since it is Asur because of Tikroves Avodah-Zarah, the Lashon Zivchei Meisim is applicable even though it is not Tamei be'Ohel.

Answer (Part 3): And even though the Rabbanan hold that there is no Tum'as Ohel, there is at least, a general Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan.

Answer (Part 4): But according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, it is Tamei be'Ohel mi'd'Oraysa.

Implied Question (Part 1): We learned in the Mishnah in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 48b) that one is forbidden to walk underneath the shade of an Asheirah (a tree that is worshipped), and that if he did, he is Tamei. And the Gemara, attributing this to the fact that there is bound to be a sacrifice there, establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira.

Implied Question (Part 2): Why does the Seifa then state that if the tree was taking up public space He is Tahor, even though Tum'as Ohel is d'Oraysa (as we explained) ...

Answer: ... because there is not definitely a sacrifice there, and (despite the Lashon), it is no more than a suspicion. Consequently, there where the tree is stealing public space, the Chachamim did not include in the decree ...

Implied Question (Part 1): ... and when the Gemara in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav (Daf 129a) asks that when the Chachamim said that Tikroves Avodas-Kochavim of food is Metamei be'Ohel, its Tum'ah must be de'Rabbanan, because if it was d'Oraysa, that would mean that food can be Metamei a stringent Tum'ah' (whereas we know that it cannot)?

Implied Question (Part 2): ... and the Gemara answers that the food in the capacity of Tikroves, is playing the role of wood and has lost its status as food (implying that it is indeed Tamei d'Oraysa - even according to the Rabbanan)?

Answer #1: That is merely a Dichuy (a forced answer).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara's there too, is going according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira.

Question (Part 1): However, when the Gemara in Pesachim (73a), discussing the Beraisa that someone who Shechts a Korban on Shabbos outside to Avodas-Kochavim is Chayav three Chata'os, asks what he has achieved, since he has certainly not taken it out of the realm of Neveilah, since it is Tamei on account of Tikroves Avodah-Zarah ...

Question (Part 2): ... it implies that there is Tum'ah d'Oraysa; because if it would be de'Rabbanan, he would have achieved taking it out of Tum'ah d'Oraysa, rendering himself Patur should he then eat Kodesh or enter the Beis-Hamikdash. And it appears to go like the Rabbanan, since the Gemara does not say 'What has he achieved according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira' (like it does there [on Daf 73a], where it says 'According to those who say 'Mekalkel ba'Chaburah Patur, what has he achieved?

Answer: The Gemara could in fact have answered like that. It did not want to do so however, in order not to prove from here that Tum'as Tikroves is not d'Oraysa. That in turn, because it intends in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav, to try and prove that Tum'as Tikroves Avodas-Kochavim is not d'Oraysa, and refutes it!

Comment: Rabeinu Tam answers the Kashya differently, but there is a Kashya on his explanation. And here is not the place to elaborate.

Clarification: Rashi explains that, even though we will say later (on Daf 41a) that one is forbidden to Shecht into the sea, one may nevertheless Shecht on top of a boat, since everybody knows that, since he is in a boat, he is only Shechting into the sea in order to avoid dirtying his boat.

Refutation: One cannot say that however, because even if he is standing in his boat, he is forbidden to Shecht into the sea, as we will see later, at the end of Perek Sheini (Ibid.), where it says 'But he sticks his hand outside the boat and Shechts, and the blood pours on to the side of the boat'.