Question: (Continuing to discuss R. Nechemia's opinion) So far we have only learned that he prohibits Tameh from Tamei when they are the same species. What about from another species?

Answer: R. Chanina of Antuna went with R. Zeira to Chamas Gader and bought there a (Tahor) bun. He wished to leave some of the bun until the next day (so that if all he would find the next day was Tamei buns, he would be able to use the remaining Tahor bun for their Terumah). R. Zeira told him that he need not be concerned for the opinion of R. Nechemia who rules against the majority. If R. Nechemia agrees that when he does not have Tahor, he may separate from Tamei for Tamei, why did R. Chanina need to leave any of the Tahor bun? (Rather, he must hold that when there is no Tahor produce of that species, he cannot separate from Tamei produce.)

The Mishnah (earlier Chulin 63(b)) used the word "B'Emes - in truth''. R. Eliezer says that whenever the word 'B'Emes' is used, it signifies a Halachah L'Moshe MiSinai - an oral tradition received by Moshe at the Giving of the Torah.

Question: (The Mishnah taught that if part of a fig cake became Tamei, he may separate from the Tahor part for the Tamei part.) If part of a fig cake became Tamei, wouldn't all of it become Tamei?

Answer: The figs are only connected through the fruit juice (honey) that oozed from them (and fruit juice cannot make a connection for Tumah).

Question: Since the fig cake will ultimately be split into two, why shouldn't it be viewed as two fig cakes, one Tahor and one Tamei, and it should be prohibited to separate from Tamei for Tahor?

Answer: The Terumah was declared when it was still attached.

The Mishnah taught that the same applies to a bundle of vegetables (that if part of it became Tamei, he may separate from the Tahor part for the Tamei part). It refers to when it became Tamei when it was already in the bundle, but if it was before, it's considered to be two bundles.

Question: But won't it ultimately be split into two?

Answer: He declared it when it was still attached.

Question: If a bundle became Tamei and was then untied and retied, what's the law? (The Gemara doesn't answer this question.)

Question: Why didn't the Mishnah only teach the case of the fig cake without the bundle or the pile?

Answer: Without the case of the bundle, I would have said that for a fig cake which is one item, he may separate from the Tahor part for the Tamei part, but not for a bundle...

And without the case of the pile, I would have said that a bundle, which is all taken at one time, may be separated in that way, but a pile, which is not, may not be. Therefore, all three were needed.

Question: Since the Mishnah (Chulin 63(c)) taught that if there were two fig cakes, two bundles or two piles, he may not separate Terumah from one for the other, why did R. Yochanan citing R. Yannai (earlier Chulin 63(k)) need to expound the pasuk (Bamidbar 18:27), "And your Terumah shall be considered for you as grain from the threshing-floor etc.''?

Answer (R. Chiya bar Ada): To teach that with one pile, one may separate from Tahor on Tamei, even if it's cucumber or pumpkin (from which one cannot make a bundle).