Explanation: The Gemara establishes that this is according to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva who holds that anything that a messenger would decide fits the general description of the item he was supposed to obtain, even though it is not exactly what was ordered, is considered to be of the same type as that item.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara in Nedarim (54b) asks that one would change and purchase fish instead! The Gemara answers that our Mishnah is referring to someone whose eyes hurt, and on a day when he did bloodletting, which is a day where he would not eat fish. However, he would eat cooked chicken.

Observation: However, in Meilah (20a) the answer regarding bloodletting does not stand. Rather, it just states that it is referring to someone whose eyes hurt him. However, on other days, someone who vows not to eat meat is also not allowed to eat fish.

Observation: The Gemara also could have asked that the Mishnah implies that the meat of an undomesticated animal should also be forbidden to cook with milk according to Torah law.

Implied Question: It appears that there is a reason why the Gemara understood it therefore must be prohibited according to Torah law. (Perhaps the Mishnah is discussing Rabbinic law?)

Answer: This is because it relied on the second part of the Mishnah which decreed that one cannot even put it on the same table as meat do to the suspicion it will be eaten together, as deduced by Rav Yosef later.

Implied Question: However, one should not say that this is deduced from the phrase "all of the meat" that implies that all meat, whether from fowl or domesticated animal, is equal to each other. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because when one vows not to have meat, not all meat is equal. Even Rebbi Akiva admits that one is not prohibited from eating fowl according to Torah law (when he vows to abstain from meat), as (Abaye) stated in Nedarim (54a) that Rebbi Akiva admits he would not receive lashes.

Observation: In many places, such as in Shabbos (11b,21a) and Beitzah (3a), the Gemara simply states (without having to prove this concept is valid), "This itself is a decree, and we should establish a decree for a decree?!"

Observation (cont.): In our Gemara we are required to bring proof that we do not make a decree to protect another decree regarding bringing them onto the table together due to eating them together (which without cooking is also a Rabbinic decree).

Implied Question: There are some places where we do make a decree to protect another decree, and this does not bother us. (Why in some places do we apply this rule, while in others we do not?)

Answer: One cannot compare the decrees of the Chachamim to each other unless the Gemara compares them.

Explanation: This is not how the Mishnah is written. Rather, the Gemara is quoting it in short.

Explanation (cont.): The Mishnah in Chalah (4:8) in fact reads as follows. Rabban Gamliel says that there are three different lands regarding Chalah. In the area from Eretz Yisrael to Keziv, one takes one Chalah. In the area from Keziv to the river and until Amanah, one takes two Chalos. One is burned, and one is given to the Kohen. The one that is burned has a certain amount, while the one given to the Kohen does not have to be a specific amount.

Explanation (cont.): In the area from the river until Amanah there are two Chalos, one is burned and one is given to the Kohen. The one that is burned does not have a certain amount, while the one given to the Kohen does have to be a specific amount, and it can be eaten by a Tevul Yom.

Explanation (cont.): Rebbi Yosi says that he does not require immersion to eat it. It is forbidden to Zavim, Zavos, Nidos, and Yoldos. It can be eaten on the same table with a non Kohen who is eating regular food, and it can be given to any Kohen who he wants to give it to.

Explanation (cont.): This is what the Mishnah means. "Keziv until the river until Amanah" were places close to Chutz la'Aretz, and they could not guard themselves and their fruits in purity. Their Chalos were impure and required burning. This is why they needed to separate two Chalos. One was to be burned, as there was an obligation to take Chalah due to Torah law since their produce grew in Eretz Yisrael. This is also why it has a specific amount, as explained in the Yerushalmi.

Explanation (cont.): One Chalah was taken and given to the Kohanim due to Rabbinic law, in order that they should not forget the laws of Chalah. Since it is a Rabbinic law, it does not have to be a specific amount.

Explanation (cont.): "From the river until Amanah and inside that area" is Chutz la'Aretz, where one must take two Chalos with both being according to Rabbinic law.

Explanation (cont.): One is burned because this area is close to Eretz Yisrael, and its Chalah appears to be similar to that of Eretz Yisrael. They therefore decreed that it should not be eaten at all, even by a totally pure Kohen. This is similar to the Chalos of Eretz Yisrael that were burned.

Explanation (cont.): One Chalah goes to the Kohen in order that they should not forget the laws of Chalah. It must be a specific amount because it is eaten. A Tevul Yom may eat it, and he does not need to wait for nightfall. This is because they were not stringent with it as they were with Terumah taken according to Torah law.

Explanation (cont.): Rebbi Yosi says that even immersion is not required. This is even for a Ba'al Keri, as Rebbi Yosi allows a person who became impure due to an excretion to eat this Chalah. This is apparent from the fact that Rebbi Yosi does not list Ba'al Keri among those who are prohibited such as Zavim and Zavos.

Explanation (cont.): When Rebbi Yosi said, "It is prohibited to Zavin and Zavos etc." he meant without (i.e. regardless of) immersion. This is apparent from the Yerushalmi's statement that this was needed according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

Explanation (cont.): It appears that the Rabbanan who also require immersion only do so for someone like a Ba'al Keri who had the impurity come from his body. However, if a person was Tamei Mes he is allowed to eat it without immersion, as is the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

Explanation (cont.): If Tevilah is required for a Tamei Mes, we should have the same question asked by the Gemara in Bechoros (27b), "Do we have the sprinkling (of the ashes of the red heifer)?" Why will immersion help a Tamei Mes? Presumably they were Tamei Mes many times over, as it would have been difficult for them to be careful from Tumas Mes.

Explanation (cont.): Even though they have to be careful not to become Tamei Mes due to their being Kohanim, from the impurity of the sword which is like a dead person they could not be careful. This is because in any house where anyone ever died, all of the metal objects became like the dead person itself. This means the house is like a tent over a dead person as stated in Nazir (53b).

Explanation (cont.): Additionally, they did not have to be careful from the impurity of a sword being like a dead person, since a Nazir does not shave due o this metal as implied by the Tosefta in Ohalos (1:1). If so, they all need sprinkling (with the ashes of the red heifer).

Explanation (cont.): There is no logic at all that the Chachamim decreed that the Chalah of Chutz la'Aretz should not be eaten unless one goes and is sprinkled in Eretz Yisrael. This is why it is logical that they would eat this Chalah without sprinkling and immersion in Bavel, even according to the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Yosi.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, we who are far from Eretz Yisrael do not need two Chalos taken. One is enough, as stated in Bechoros (27a) that he gives it to a Kohen who is a minor and eats it.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara is specifically saying that when there is no Kohen who is a minor one has to separate another Chalah and give it to an adult Kohen. He burns the first one.

Explanation (cont.): The Chalah that is burned from the river until Amnon and inside is not permitted to a minor Kohen. Rather, it is always burned similar to the Chalah that is burned in Eretz Yisrael. This is because it is close to Eretz Yisrael and looks like Chalah of Eretz Yisrael, as we have explained (above). This is why two are always needed (in this area).

Explanation (cont.): However, in far away places such as Bavel and where we live that our Chalah does not even appear to be like Chalah in Eretz Yisrael, we can give our impure Chalah to a Kohen who is a minor.

Explanation (cont.): It is logical that one could even give this Chalah to an adult Kohen who immersed after being a Ba'al Keri and he does not need to wait for the sun to go down. This is because one does not need to be more stringent with this Chalah than the Chalah given to a Kohen in an area that is close to Eretz Yisrael.

Opinion: This is written by the Bahag who says in his Hilchos Chalah, "Ravina says that the law is that a Nidah can take off Chalah and feed it to a Kohen who is a minor (the Bahag adds the following) or one who immersed for his being a Ba'al Keri."

Question: This is slightly difficult. Why does the Gemara say she can give it to a Kohen who is a minor? Even an adult Kohen can eat it after immersing! Alternatively, it can be nullified using Rov (i.e. in a mixture where most of the mixture is not Chalah) just like Terumah taken outside of Eretz Yisrael. This is like the Gemara says in Bechoros (27a), "Rabah used to nullify it (Terumas Chutz la'Aretz) through Rov and eat it when he was impure."

Answer: It appears that specifically Chalas Chutz la'Aretz, because it has no specific amount and it is therefore very little, can be given to a Kohen that is a minor. Certainly it can be given to a Kohen who is an adult that immersed or he wants to nullify it!

Answer (cont.): It is also implied that the Gemara is dealing with a small amount, as the Gemara (ibid.) states "take it with the head of a spit." However, Terumah from produce or wine and oil is not given to a Kohen who is a minor because he will lose it.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, it has a set amount as there is a taking of Terumas Ma'aser. Therefore, it should not be given to a minor, rather to an adult Kohen who immersed or who wants to nullify it through Rov.

Implied Question: One does not have to take two separate "takings" of Terumah in order not to forget (similar to Chalah), as we find that we take one amount of Terumos similar to Chalah where there is a Kohen who is a minor. that we should take two takings of Ma'aseros. (Why shouldn't it be like Chalah?)

Answer: We do not find a concept of needing to take Terumah twice in all of the Talmud.

Answer (cont.): Rather, only regarding Chalah when there is no Kohen who is a minor or an adult who immersed do we find two takings of Chalah, with the second being burned so that we should not forget how to really take Chalah. However, Terumah that is only given to an adult Kohen who immersed or who wants to nullify it through Rov does not have to be taken twice in order not to forget how it is really taken, since it is taken once.

Implied Question: However, it appears that even in areas close to Eretz Yisrael where two Chalos are always taken, they only used to separate one Terumah. (Why shouldn't two Terumos be taken in this area?)

Answer: It therefore appears that there is more reason to suspect that we will forget about the taking of Chalah because it is relative to every person who kneads dough. However, only landowners and people who stockpile produce are used to taking Terumah.

Explanation: Where there is not a Kohen who is a minor and he therefore burns the Chalah and takes a second one, he can give it to an impure Kohen even if he is a Zav. There is no difference there regarding how impure he is.

Implied Question: This is incomparable to the second Chalah taken in areas close to Eretz Yisrael. (Why?)

Answer: In areas close to Eretz Yisrael one must always take a second Chalah. However, in the areas far from Eretz Yisrael one does not have to take a second Chalah at all as long as there is a Kohen who is a minor who is present or an adult Kohen who has immersed from being a Ba'al Keri. The laws of this Chalah are very lenient, as it is merely forbidden to non Kohanim, as we only know it is permitted to Kohanim.

Opinion: It seems that this (second taking of) Chalah does not even cause dough to be Tevel (i.e. as if it is untithed and therefore forbidden). This is because there are many places that do not even take it off at all, even if there is no Kohen who is a minor.

Question: There is a slight difficulty with this custom practiced in some places.

Answer: Rather, because it does not make dough Tevel and one must guard it from being eaten by non Kohanim, these places refrained from taking it at all. It is possible that it does not even give a mixture (of it and regular dough) the status of a mixture (which is normally treated differently than Chulin).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the first taking of Chalah does seem to have this status.

Proof: This is apparent from the Beraisa in Menachos (67a) that states that Terumah of a Nochri in Chutz la'Aretz does not cause this status of a mixture. This implies that if it would belong to a Jew it would cause a status of a mixture.

Answer: Even so, since the second taking of Chalah is more lenient, it is possible it does not have the status of a mixture. Just as they did not decree that there is a status of mixture regarding Dmai, it is similarly possible that they did not decree regarding the second taking of Chalah that it is considered a mixture, as it is treated so leniently.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that even if he is not "holding on to the Torah of Hash-m" he can be given Chalas Chutz la'Aretz.

Question: This does not seem correct to the Ri. It is similar to the cases stated after this Mishnah such as, "And these are given to any Kohen he wants etc." The foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum are included in these. We say later (130b) that they are not given to Kohanim who are not holding on to the Torah of Hash-m.

Opinion: It therefore appears to Rabeinu Yitzchak that the case here is where there are no Kohanim who are Chaveirim. Alternatively, it is where there is a Kohen Chaver who is wealthy, and he does not want to take it. Even if he would want to take it, he has no need for it. The other Kohen is a poor Am ha'Aretz who does need it, and we are commanded to ensure he survives. If we do not give it to him, he will have to be given Chulin. Our Gemara teaches that we can give it to him even though he is not well versed in the laws of purity and impurity. We do not suspect that he will eat it when he is impure.

Opinion (cont.): However, the Chalah of Eretz Yisrael is only given to a Kohen Chaver who will ensure it is pure. Even if there currently is no Kohen Chaver present, one should not give Chalah of Eretz Yisrael to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz. Rather, he should wait until he meets with a Kohen Chaver.

Explanation: The question is not on Abaye, rather it is on Rav Yosef who is the friend of Rav Sheses, as explained by Rashi.

Implied Question: We do not ask that Beis Hillel's opinion seems to be the same as the Tana Kama (in the Mishnah on 103b). (Why not?)

Answer: This is because our Mishnah is explaining that the topic of the first Mishnah is in fact an argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

Implied Question: This is not considered a Stam Mishnah that is followed by an argument. (The Maharam explains that if it is, this should mean that we rule like Beis Shamai, which we know we almost never do.)

Answer: This is because Beis Shamai arguing with Beis Hillel is not considered an argument (as we almost never rule like Beis Shamai).

Question: This is difficult. How can we ask from a case of cheese after meat to a case of meat after cheese? Rav Yitzchak ate cheese and afterwards ate meat. The cases are incomparable, as stated later.

Answer: The Gemara is asking that the Beraisa taught by Igra implies that chicken and cheese can be eaten without concern, meaning without washing hands in between them and without cleaning out one's mouth. However, other meat requires washing hands and cleaning one's mouth. What is the case? If one first eats meat, even washing hands and cleaning one's mouth is not enough. Rather, he must wait until the next meal as stated later. It must therefore be that he is discussing eating cheese first.

Answer (cont): When the Gemara here says meat and cheese it does not literally mean meat and cheese. Rather, it means he may not first ate cheese and then eat meat without concern.

Answer (cont.): Since the Beraisa first stated chicken, the Gemara states meat first (even though it really means that he first eats cheese). The Beraisa stated fowl first because indeed, one can eat fowl first and then eat cheese without concern.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains, as does the Bahag, that if he eats meat he cannot eat cheese means that he cannot do so without washing and cleaning his mouth. However, if he washes his hands and cleans his mouth it is permitted. If he eats cheese, he is allowed to eat meat afterwards without washing his hands and cleaning his mouth.

Implied Question: Mar Ukva did not eat meat until his next meal. (Doesn't this show one must wait between meat and cheese?)

Answer #1: This means he waited if he did not wash his hands and clean his mouth.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he was stringent for himself (but one does not have to do so).

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation there is a difficulty. Why is our Gemara asking a question on Rav Yitzchak?

Answer: One must say according to the explanation of Rabeinu Tam that regarding washing hands there is no difference between having meat first or having cheese first. Specifically regarding cleaning one's mouth there is a difference.

Observation: The custom is not to eat cheese after meat at all, even after eating chicken.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Igra taught that fowl and cheese can be eaten without concern, implying even if one eats fowl first. (Why, then, isn't this the custom?)

Answer: Perhaps this is because he holds that cooking fowl with milk is not a Torah prohibition, and we do not hold this way.

Question: However, this presents a difficulty. Whose opinion does the Beraisa of Igra follow? If it is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, he holds that one may even Lechatchilah cook fowl and milk together. This is as the Gemara states later (116a) that in the area of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili they would eat fowl together with milk.

Question (cont.): If it is according to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, it should have discussed undomesticated animals together with fowl. It is difficult to say that the Beraisa is according to Beis Shamai who says that fowl can be placed on the same table as cheese, but cannot be eaten together with cheese.

Answer #1: However, we find that Rebbi Elazar ben Rebbi Tzadok is recorded in the Tosefta as having the same opinion as Beis Shamai. (Perhaps Igra holds like his opinion.)

Answer #2: Alternatively, Igra indeed holds like Rebbi Akiva. The only reason he discussed fowl (and not undomesticated animals) alone was because it is more commonly eaten. The same would indeed apply to undomesticated animals.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara says earlier that fowl with milk must be forbidden according to Torah law. The Gemara asks, who is this like? It answers that this is unlike Rebbi Akiva. It could have also have included undomesticated animals.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that Igra's reasoning was specifically regarding fowl, as fowl does not get stuck in one's hands, teeth, and gums (as does the meat of undomesticated animals).