Implied Question: Even though it does not make a Revi'i ...

Answer: ... we would nevertheless have thought that one is forbidden to touch it, in case one comes to eat it.

Clarification: Just as it does not make a Revi'i.

Implied Question: And the reason that he mentions 'Someone who eats' and not 'Someone who touches' (that he does not render Kodesh that he touches a Revi'i ...

Answer: ... is because, since eating is more stringent than touching, it is a bigger Chidush ...

Source: ... as we see in the case of someone who eats a Shelishi, who becomes a Sheini regarding Kodesh.

Question: In what regard is it considered a Shelishi, seeing as a. someone who eats it is Tahor even with regard to eating Kodesh, and b. if it touches Kodesh it does not render it a Revi'i?

Answer (Part 1): They are considered a Revi'i with regard to the Mishnah in the first Perek of Taharos 'A Sheretz is Metamei three and renders Pasul one regarding Kodesh. This refers to Kodesh Mekudash, such as the Loaves of a Todah or the Wafers of a Nazir on which the Korban Shelamim has been Shechted, or to Menachos that have been sanctified in a K'li Shareis ...

Answer (Part 2): ... but the Loaves of a Todah or the Wafers of a Nazir on which the Korban Shelamim has not been Shechted, or the Menachos that have not been sanctified in a K'li Shareis, are neither like Kodesh not are they like Chulin, but like Terumah, which the Sheretz is Metamei two and renders Pasul one.

Conclusion: ... And it is in this regard that they are considered a Shelishi, in that one can no longer Shecht the Shelamim on them nor will they render Kodesh the Menachos in a K'li Shareis, since they are no longer subject to Kedushas ha'Guf,

Question (Part 1): Rebbi Yitzchak (the author of the current ruling) it seems, hold neither like Rebbi Eliezer nor like Rebbi Yehoshua ...

Question (Part 2): ... since, according to Rabah bar bar Chanah, Rebbi Yehoshua holds that Shelishi shel Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh is not subject to Shelishi at all, whereas according to Ula, when he says 'Shelishi Sheini le'Kodesh', he is referring even to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh' ...

Question (Part 3): ... whereas according to Rebbi Eliezer, someone who eats a Shelishi becomes a Shelishi?

Answer: Rebbi Yitzchak maintains that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua are speaking specifically about Shelishi shel Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah, whose Taharah is Tamei as regards Kodesh. But someone who eats Shelishi shel Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Kodesh is Tahor to eat Kodesh.

Question: The Mishnah in Taharos (Perek 2, Mishnah 4) which states "Shelishi she'bi'Terumah, Posel', and which Tosfos explained on the previous Daf (DH 've'ha'Shelishi') is referring to ' ... Na'aseh al Taharas ha'Kodesh', poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yitzchak.

Answer: The Gemara concludes (on Amud 'Beis') that 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh is a Machlokes Tana'aim.

Refuted Explanation: What Rashi explains - that Revi'i ba'Kodesh is merely a Ma'alah de'Rabbanan, since the Tana mentions it among the last five Ma'alos in Perek Chomer ba'Kodesh, and the Gemara says there that these five have no connection with Tum'ah d'Oraysa ...

Refutation (Part 1): ... is not correct, seeing as it also lists in those last five Ma'alos that a K'li combines whatever it contains (Metzaref) concerning Kodesh, and 'Tziruf' is d'Oraysa, according to Rebbi Chanina at the end of the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 19a).

Refutation (Part 2): And even Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, who disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan there and holds that Tziruf is de'Rabbanan, establishes the Mishnah there like Rebbi Akiva, who holds that a Shelishi be'Chulin is d'Oraysa, in which case, a Revi'i ba'Kodesh is d'Oraysa as well, since we will apply here the Pasuk "And the Basar which touches any Tamei cannot be eaten!"; Is this not speaking where it touched a Shelishi?

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara in 'Kol Sha'ah' (Daf 24a) refers to a Revi'i as a mere Ma'alah ...

Answer: ... is not because it is mi'de'Rabbanan, bearing in mind that it also refers to 'Heivi Kaparaso, Ochel be'Kodshim' as a Ma'alah, even though it is d'Oraysa, as the Gemara Darshens in 'ha'Areil' (Yevamos 74b) ...

Precedence: ... in the same way as it refers to "ve'ha'Basar", 'Lerabos Eitzim u'Levonah' as a Ma'alah even though the Gemara later (Daf 36a) proves from there that Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir mi'd'Oraysa.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Perek Beis Shamai (Zevachim 46b) regarding "ve'ha'Basar", 'Lerabos Eitzim u'Levonah' - 'li'Pesula be'Alma' (a mere P'sul) ...

Answer: ... it does not mean 'P'sula be'Alma de'Rabanan', but that it is not included with regard to the Malkos of "Lo Yochal", only to render it Pasul to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: And when the Gemara says in Perek Chomer ba'Kodesh (Chagigah 21b) that 'the last five items in the list have no connection with Tum'ah d'Oraysa' ...

Answer #1: ... Rabeinu Tam does not have the word 'd'Oraysa' in his text.

Answer #2: Though the truth is that even if it is inserted, what the Tana means is that, in a similar case regarding Chulin, there would be no connection with Tum'ah d'Oraysa, seeing as it is so distant from Tum'ah.

Rashi's Question: ... and what Rashi asks in Pesachim that one cannot find a Revi'i ba'Kodesh mi'd'Oraysa, according to those who hold that Tum'as Mashkeh to be Metamei others is not min ha'Torah; and that food cannot be Metamei food. Since a Sheretz is Metamei a K'li, a K'li, food, and food, liquids. But that is only a Shelishi?

Answer (Part 1): ... This is not a Kashya however, since it is possible to find a Revi'i via wood and frankincense.

Question: And even though Resh Lakish queries whether Chibas ha'Kodesh (the source of Hechsher Tum'ah of Eitzim and Levonah) can make a Sheini and Shelishi ...

Answer: ... the Amora who holds in Pesachim (18b) that 'Ochel is not Metamei Ochel' holds that we do count Rishon and Sheini by it); whereas Resh Lakish (who is unsure about the latter) holds that 'food is Metamei food'.

Explanation of Sugya (Part 1): It seems that the current questioner) maintains that someone who eats a Shelishi becomes a Sheini because since he was not careful to guard it against Tum'ah and touching a Sheini, one must be concerned that he may also allow it to touch a Rishon ...

Explanation of Sugya (Part 2): ... and he holds like Ula, that Shelishi she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh also becomes a Sheini for the same reason.

Explanation of Sugya (Part 3): Nor does he hold that the Taharah of Terumah is considered Tum'ah with regard to Kodesh, but that Shemiras Terumah is considered a good Shemirah even as regards Kodesh too.

Explanation of Sugya (Part 4): To which Rebbi Yitzchak replies that Davka regarding 'Shelishi she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah does the person who eats it become a Sheini, because the Taharah of Terumah is considered Tum'ah with regard to Kodesh, but someone who eats a Shelishi al Taharas ha'Kodesh is Tahor to eat Kodesh, just as it does not make a Revi'i ...

Explanation of Sugya (Part 5): ... and according to him, even Terumah Tehorah renders Kodesh Tamei. Hence the Gemara asks from where he knows that, seeing as, according to the reasoning of the questioner, one has no proof for that from the fact that someone who eats a Shelishi becomes a Sheini.

Explanation of Sugya (Part 6): So he brings a proof from the Mishnah in Chagigah - that the clothes of those who eat Terumah are considered Medras regarding those who eat Kodesh ...

Explanation of Sugya (Part 7): ... and he does not draw a distinction between things that are subject to Medras and fruit (which is not).

Explanation of Sugya (Part 8): Rava on the other hand, answers that one does draw such a distinction, and we are not concerned that perhaps the fruit touched the Medras. 'So it seems to me'.

Explanation: We also need this reason to explain why 'Bigdei Am ha'Aretz Medras li'Perushin', seeing as the Am ha'Aretz himself is neither Metamei via Medras nor via Heset ...

Source #1 (Part 1): ... like learned in Maseches Taharos (Perek 7, Mishnah 6) 'ha'Ganavim she'Nichnesu la'Bayis, Eino Tamei Ela Makom Raglei ha'Ganavim; u'Mah heim Metam'im, Ochlin u'Mashkin u'Chelei Cheres Pesuchim; Aval Lo ha'Mishkavos ve'ha'Moshavos u'Chelei Cheres ha'Mukafin Tzamid Pasil ... .

Source #1 (Part 2): ... ve'Im Yesh Imahen Oveid-Kochavim O Ishah, ha'Kol Tamei'.

Conclusion: This clearly implies that an Am-ha'Aretz neither renders Tamei Mishkav and Moshav, nor is he Metamei be'Heset.

Source #2: In 'ha'Nizakin' too, the Gemara asks with regard to 'Mukaf Tzamid ... ' why we are not afraid that perhaps his wife moved it whist she was a Nidah, implying that he himself is not Metamei visa Heset.

Question: We need to find a reason to explain why the Chachamim gave his 'Tzinor' (spit etc.) the Din of a Zav, in that his 'fountains' are Metamei, as is implied in Perek B'nos Kutim (Nidah 33b) and in Perek Chomer ba'Kodesh (Chagigah, 23a); yet with regard to his Medras and his Heset, they did not give him the Din of a Zav?

Answer: It seems that it is because the Chachamim only issue decrees which the community are able to abide by. Consequently, whereas it is possible to guard oneself against his 'Tzinor', Mishkov, Moshav and Heset are excessive Chumros which the Chachamim did not want to be overly strict.

Comment: Perek B'nos Kutim (Nidah 33a) is a more appropriate location to discuss this matter than here.

Question: How is the Kohen permitted to eat the Terumah, seeing as Hekdesh is mixed together with it?

Answer: By means of 'B'reirah', where he declares that the Revi'is that he is about to separate from it will be Kodesh (and the rest, Terumah).

Question: But it is different here, seeing as he guarded it 'al Taharas Kodesh'. So 'Mah Nafshach', since as he is believed with regard to Kodesh, he is also believed with regard to Terumah?

Answer #1: We would have thought that, since the Terumah of a Chaver is also Metamei Kodesh - 'seeing as the Taharah of Terumah is Tamei with regard to Kodesh', it is not possible to believe the Am ha'Aretz, so that he should not go and build a Bamah for himself' (do his own thing).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara is asking that we ought to suspect that he may have placed Kodesh in the barrel after the Terumah.

Clarification: This is because it renders the meat permitted to eat. And this is also how Rashi explains it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains this to mean an animal that died naturally. A little later in the Sugya too, regarding 'the blood of a wound that is not Machshir', he explains likewise with regard to the blood of the wound of an animal.

Question #1: In that case, Rabeinu Tam asks, the Tana ought to have said 'Dam Meisah', 'Dam Megeftah' (in the feminine)?

Question #2 (Part 1): Moreover, the Mishnah in Machshirin (Perek 6, Mishnah 6) learns it in connection with Adam ...

Question #2 (Part 2): ... as it states there 'These are the things that are Metamei and Machshir: his Zivus, his seed, his urine, a Reve'is of blood from a Meis and the blood of a Nidah'.

Question #3: Furthermore, even the Rabbanan agree that the blood from an animal's wound is not Machshir ...

Source (Part 1): ... because the Gemara says in Perek Chavis (Shabbos 143b) 'Not at all; If the milk of a woman is Tamei against her will, that is because blood from her wound is Tamei. Will the milk of an animal also be Tamei against the owner's will, seeing as the blood of its wound is Tahor?' ...

Source (Part 2): ... and presumably, this goes according to the Rabbanan, as it would be illogical to establish it like Rebbi Shimon and not the Rabbanan?

Question #4: Fourthly, if 'Dam Chalalim' applied to an animal, why do we say by Adam 'What difference does it make whether it is completely dead or only partially (wounded)', and not by an animal?

Question #5 (Part 1): And finally, the Gemara will say shortly that Rebbi Chiya holds 'Einah li'Shechitah Ela li'be'Sof', and this is Dam Makah, which is not Machshir!' And that goes according to the Rabbanan, according to whom the blood of Shechitah is Machshir.

Question #5 (Part 2): And in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (121.) the Gemara states 'We have learned that a Yisrael who slaughters a Tamei animal and a Nochri who slaughters a Tahor one require Machshavah, and a Hechsher from another source'.

Question #5 (Part 3): Why is it not Tamei because of 'Dam Chalalim?'

Answer: Rashi however, explains there that it is only called the blood of a Chalal if it comes through being torn apart via the neck - as the Gemara states in Sotah 'To place it on the slain necks of Resha'im'.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since the area of the Beis ha'Shechitah is called 'the neck, as is implied in the first Perek (19b).

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the entire Sugya is talking about Adam, in connection with whom 'Dam Chalalim' is applicable, and not with Beheimah.

Question #1: Why is this a 'Kol she'Kein'? Seeing as the Rabbanan learn the latter from "Dam Chalalim" and the former, from "Tishp'chenu ka'Mayim", what has one got to do with the other?

Question #2: And the same Kashya will apply a little later with regard to 'Dam Magefto'?

Answer (Part 1): Because we would have thought that, even according to the Rabbanan, had we not learned Dam Shechitah from "Tishp'chenu ka'Mayim", we would have thought that specifically Dam Chalalim is Machshir, where the animal was killed and did not die naturally. We would not say 'What difference does it make whether a person killed it or the Mal'ach ha'Ma'ves!' since we cannot go beyond the Chidush that the Torah is teaching us, and we do not find that any blood other than 'Dam Chalalim' is Machshir.

Answer (Part 2): But now that 'Dam Shechitah' is Machshir, the fact that 'Dam Chalalim is also Machshir is no longer a Chidush, and we can apply the S'vara 'Mah li Katla Kula ... '.

Conclusion: And the same answer will apply a little later.

Clarification (Part 1): According to Rebbi Avahu, who says in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 21b) that "Lo Sochlu" incorporates an Isur Hana'ah, we need the Pasuk ("al ha'Aretz Tishp'chenu ... ") to permit all blood be'Hana'ah ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... and the Gemara here, which learns from it Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, goes according to Chizkiyah, who argues with Rebbi Avahu ...

Clarification (Part 3): ... and who maintains that "Lo Sochlu" does not incorporate an Isur Hana'ah.

Implied Question: The Gemara could also have said that we need the Pasuk to teach us that the blood of a Beheimah does not require Kisuy ha'Dam ...

Precedent: ... like the Gemara states at the beginning of 'Kisuy ha'Dam' (84b)?

Answer (Part 1): The Ri explains however, that even though we have a principle 'Ein Hekesh le'Mechtzah' ...

Answer (Part 2): ... Rebbi Shimon does not consider it logical to Darshen from "Tishp'chenu ka'Mayim" anything other than something to do with pouring - that it needs neither burial nor covering.

Conclusion: ... whereas Hechsher has nothing to do with pouring.