1)

(a)When the Mishnah in Chagigah says 'K'li Metzaref Mah she'be'Socho', it means - that a K'li Shareis combines whatever is inside it to sanctify the parts as if they were one.

(b)When Rav Kahana arrived in Eretz Yisrael, he found the sons of Rebbi Chiya busy with a She'eilah regarding an Isaron that was halved and placed in a Bisa - a K'li Shareis for mixing the Minchah)

(c)The She'eilah was - whether, if the two halves of an Isaron were placed in a Bisa without touching each other, and a T'vul-Yom touched one of them, the other one would become Tamei, based on the Mishnah in Chagigah.

(d)He resolved their She'eilah from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'Metzaref ... ' - which implies even things that are not touching (as opposed to 'Mechaber', which would imply that they are).

(e)The reason that they discussed particularly a T'vul Yom was - because a T'vul-Yom is only a Sheini le'Tum'ah, and does not render the K'li, Tamei. An Av ha'Tum'ah would have rendered the contents of the Bisa Tamei via the K'li.

2)

(a)They then asked what the Din would be in a case where a T'vul-Yom touched a third half-Isaron that was placed in between the first two - whether it too, combined with the other two half-Isarons, making all three Tamei, or not.

(b)Rav Kahana replied - that seeing as there is no need for the third half-Isaron, the Bisa would not sanctify it (because a K'li Shareis only sanctifies what is necessary for the Avodah). Consequently, even the third half-Isaron will remain Tahor (since there is no Shelishi le'Tum'ah in Chulin).

(c)And when they asked what the Din will be if the T'vul-Yom placed his finger in between the two half-Isarons without touching either of them, he replied - that only earthenware vessels are subject to Tum'ah via the air (and there is no such thing as an earthenware K'li Shareis).

3)

(a)Rav Kahana then asked them whether, in the same case as they began with, it would be possible to take a Kemitzah from just one of the halves, which will not be effective - if Tziruf K'li is only mi'de'Rabbanan (in which case we would only apply it le'Chumra, but not le'Kula).

(b)The B'nei Rebbi Chiya tried to resolve Rav Kahana's She'eilah from the opening case in our Mishnah where two Menachos from which the Kemitzah as not yet taken, became mixed. From the fact that if it is possible to take a Kemitzah from each one, then that is what the Kohen must do, they try to prove - that Tziruf K'li is d'Oraysa, since the Kemitzah is effective, despite the fact that the parts of the two Menachos that are mixed, are not touching the rest of the Minchah from which the Kometz is taken.

(c)Rava refuted their proof however, by suggesting - that the Mishnah may be speaking in a case where the parts of the Minchah that are mixed are in the form of teeth of a comb which protrude into the second Minchah, but which are nevertheless joined to their own Minchah.

4)

(a)Rava himself tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which learns from the in Tzav "Veheirim Mimenu" ('min ha'Mechubar') - that, at the time of the Kemitzah, the entire Minchah must be joined, and that it may not be taken if the Minchah is placed into two Keilim.

(b)Rava extrapolates from there - that it would be permitted to take the Kemitzah if the two halves of the Minchah were placed separately inside one K'li.

(c)Abaye refutes Rava's proof, by suggesting that the Beraisa might be speaking about a case of 'Kepiza be'Kaba' - by which he means one K'li, which is divided into two by means of a partition which is the same height as the K'li, and on top of which the two halves of the Minchah are joined (outside the air-space of the K'li).

(d)And the equivalent case of 'one K'li that is like two', which is Kasher - speaks where the partition is lower than the walls of the K'li, and the two halves of the Minchah are joined on top of the partition, within the air-space of the K'li ...

(e)... but not if they are not joined.

5)

(a)Abaye compares the latter case to 'Arivta shel Tarnegolim' - a feeding-bowl for chickens, which has a low partition in the middle, to divide between the water and the grain.

(b)Abaye's final word on the subject is - that since, in our case, the two half Isarons are not touching at all, the She'eilah (whether Tziruf K'li combines the two half-Isarons or nor) remains.

6)

(a)If two (half-Isaron) piles of flour are connected by a stream of water, and a Tamei person touches one of them - the other one becomes Tamei too.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah asks what the Din will be if one of those piles is placed in a Bisa together with a second half-Isaron, and, assuming that Tziruf K'li is effective, a T'vul-Yom touches the other half-Isaron. The half-Isaron pile that is outside the Bisa might not become Tamei - because Tziruf K'li is only effective regarding what is inside the vessel, but not with regard to something that is outside it.

(c)He then asks what the Din will be in the reverse case 'Chibur Mayim ve'Tziruf K'li' - whether, assuming that in the previous case, we say 'Keivan de'Mechaber, Mechaber', if the T'vul-Yom (or any other Tum'ah) touches the pile of flour that is outside the Bisa, the second half-Isaron pile inside the Bisa (tht is not touching the stream), will become Tamei on account of Tziruf K'li, or not.

(d)The She'eilah is whether 'Chibur Mayim ve'Tziruf K'li is perhaps worse than 'Tziruf K'li ve'Chibur Mayim' - since the contact with Tum'ah took place outside the K'li.

(e)The outcome of the She'eilos is - Teiku.

7)

(a)If the Kohen placed the two halves of a Minchah into a Bisa without them touching each other, after one of the halves became Tamei - the Tum'ah of the one will not affect the other, because it occurred before it was placed inside the Bisa.

(b)Rava asks what the Din will be if a T'vul-Yom then touches the half-Isaron that is already Tamei. Perhaps the second half-Isaron will not become Tamei, because, seeing as the first one was already Tamei, contact with Tum'ah will no longer affect it ('Sava lah Tum'ah'), in which case the Din of Tziruf K'li will not apply.

(c)Abaye queries Rava from a Mishnah in Keilim. The Tana Kama there declares that if a sheet that was Tamei Medras was subsequently hung in a doorway as a permanent partition, it is no longer Tamei Medras - to be Metamei Adam, but that it is Tamei Maga Medras - to be Metamei Ochel.

(d)The reason that it is no longer Tamei Medras is - because now that it has been designated for something that is not for lying or sitting on, it is no longer considered Medras.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the Tana Kama, seeing as the sheet did not actually touch anything (other than itself). He concedes however - that the sheet is Tamei Maga Medras if a Zav touched it before it was hung up, in which case even though the Tum'as Medras departed when it was hung up, Maga Medras remains.

(b)Abaye tries to prove from there - that we do not apply the principle 'Sava lah Tum'ah', because if we did, why would the Tum'ah of Maga Tum'ah take effect?

(c)Rava refutes Abaye's proof by inverting the order of the two Tum'os - meaning that the Zav touched the sheet first, rendering it Maga Medras, before laying on it and rendering it Tamei Medras ...

(d)... which takes effect because it is more stringent than Maga Medras, unlike the two Tum'os under discussion, which are both Tum'as Ochel, which is a lighter form of Tum'ah.

9)

(a)Finally, Abaye cites the Seifa of the Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi also concedes that in a case where a Zav sits on one folded sheet that is lying on top of another folded sheet (see Shitah Mekubetzes 3) - the top sheet is Medras, and the bottom one, both Medras and Tamei Medras.

(b)The bottom sheet becomes Tamei Medras, despite the fact that the top sheet interrupts being the Zav and itself - because even if a Zav lies on top of ten sheets, one underneath the other, all the sheets that support his weight are Tamei Medras.

(c)Once again, Abaye tries to prove from here that we do not say 'Sava lah Tum'ah'. Rava refutes this proof too however - by pointing out that the two occurred simultaneously (as his weight and the top sheet descended on to the bottom sheet at the same moment; whereas in the case of the two half-Isronos, they occurred one after the other.

10)

(a)In a case where half of a divided Isaron became lost ('Avud'), they designated another half-Isaron in its place ('Mufrash') and the Avud was found, Rava ruled that if all three are placed in a Bisa, and ...

1. ... the Avud became Tamei - the Avud and the first half-Isaron combine (but not the second).

2. ... the Mufrash became Tamei - that the Mufrash and the first one combine (but not the Avud), because, seeing as the Mufrash was designated to replace the Avud, they were never meant to combine.

3. ... the original half-Isaron becomes Tamei - then it combines with both the other two.

(b)Abaye maintains that 'Kulhu B'nei Biksa de'Hadadi Ninhu' - which means literally - that they all belong to the same narrow house (since they are all connected via the first half-Isaron, and are all placed together in the Bisa.

(c)He therefore rules - that whichever one became Tamei, it combines with the other two.

(d)Rava adds 've'Chein le'Inyan Kemitzah'. The ramifications of this statement with regards to where the Kohen took Kemitzah from ...

1. ... the Avud are - that the Kohen may then eat the Shirayim from the Avud and the original half-Isaron.

2. ... the Mufrash are - that he may eat the Shirayim from the Mufrash and the original half-Isaron.

3. ... the first half-Isaron are - that he may eat neither the Avud nor the Mufrash, since we do not know which of the two half-Isronos goes together with the original half-Isaron, both remain Asur.

11)

(a)Abaye again disagrees with Rava. In his opinion, whichever half-Isaron the Kohen took a Kemitzah from - the Shirayim of the other two are forbidden, because he holds 'Kulhu B'nei Biksa de'Hadadi Ninhu', as we explained above.

(b)The problem Rav Papa has with the implication that according to both Abaye and Rava, if the Kohen were to take a Kemitzah from the original half-Isaron, the Kohanim would be allowed to eat the Shirayim of that half-Isaron is - that seeing as one of the three half-Isronos is Pasul, one third of the Kometz that was taken on its behalf (see Shitah Mekubetzes 5), is Pasul too, in which case, the Chometz is Chaser and therefore Pasul.

(c)The additional problem Rav Mesharshaya has with Rava's ruling is - the fact that the Kohen even brings the Kometz, for the same reason as we query his eating the Shirayim).

(d)Rav Ashi solves the problems - by giving the criterion that fixes the Kometz (not by the amount of flour in the Bisa, but) by the intention of the Kohen, and in our case, where the Kohen only intends to include the original half-Isaron, its Shirayim are Kasher.