(a)The Gemara asks how the flesh of a Kodshim animal that was found in the Azarah became 'Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah'. Why can we not ask the same question with regard to the animal of a Shelamim which the Pasuk renders Tamei?
(b)Why could the flesh of the Korban not have become Huchshar ...
1. ... through blood (either its own or of another Korban)?
2. ... through the water with which it was washed?
(c)What is the problem with saying that the flesh became Muchshar through Chibas ha'Kodesh?
(d)What is a Tzerid shel Menachos and what is Resh Lakish's She'eilah regarding it?
(a)How an animal of a Shelamim (which the Pasuk renders Tamei) became Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah- is not a problem, since there is plenty of water in Yerushalayim (where the Shelamim had to be eaten) to render the animal Muchshar (and it could have become Muchshar, for example, whilst it was being washed). The problem is regarding an animal of Kodshim in the Azarah, as we shall now see.
(b)The flesh of the Korban could not have become Muchshar ...
1. ... through blood (either its own or of another Korban) - because of Rebbi Yochanan, who said 'Dam she'Nishpach ka'Mayim, Machshir, v'she'Eino Nishpach ka'Mayim, Eino Machshir'.
2. ... through the water with which it was washed - because of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, who said 'Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya ... Ein Machshirin'.
(c)To say that the flesh became Muchshar through Chibas ha'Kodesh - would be synonymous with saying that Chibas ha'Kodesh causes Kodshim to become not only Pasul, but Tamei (to transmit Tum'ah to others - the Mishnah says 'ha'Basar Tamei and not just Pasul). And clearly, that is not how Resh Lakish (who is uncertain whether Chibas ha'Kodesh renders Pasul or even Tamei) interprets the Mishnah.
(d)Resh Lakish asked whether a Tzerid shel Menachos - the dry flour of Menachos (the parts where there was no oil, and which is subject to Tum'ah only because of Chibas ha'Kodesh) can even become a Rishon or a Sheni l'Tum'ah, or whether it can only be Pasul, but no more.
(a)How did the flesh of the Korban become Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah?
(a)The flesh of the Korban become Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah through the water of the river, via which the owner led the animal on its way to the Beis Hamikdash to be Shechted. It was probably a Shelamim, which the owner was trying to improve (by making it easier to skin) in this way.
(a)If the needle was found in the dung, even the flesh remains Tahor. The Gemara gives two reasons why the dung does not render the needle Tamei. One of them is because we are speaking about hard dung (which is not a food - and it is only liquid dung that can possibly transmit Tum'ah). What led the Gemara to think that the Beraisa was speaking about liquid dung?
(b)What is the second reason?
(a)The Gemara thought that the Beraisa was referring to liquid dung - because we are speaking when he had just watered the animal, as we learnt earlier.
(b)Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa even by liquid dung. Liquid dung, he says, is not called a Mashkeh - but a Mashkeh Saru'ach (a smelly liquid).
(a)'A Sheretz is Metamei liquid, which is Metamei a vessel, which in turn, is Metamei food, which is Metamei liquid. And we learn from here three Tum'os that result from a Sheretz'. What is wrong with this Beraisa?
(b)Why is it the first 'liquid' that must be eliminated, and not the second?
(c)Why would leaving the first liquid intact have anyway caused a problem?
(d)How does 'Nezaisa' serve as a clue to remember the order of the three things mentioned in the Beraisa? What is 'Nezaisa'?
(a)If a Sheretz is Metamei liquid, which is Metamei a vessel, which in turn, is Metamei food, which is Metamei liquid, we have here four Tum'os which result from a Sheretz - so why does the Beraisa write three?
(b)It is the first 'liquid' that must be eliminated, and not the second - because there is no Tana who holds that liquid renders vessels Tamei except Rebbi Yehudah, who retracted.
(c)Leaving the first liquid intact would have anyway caused a problem - because it is only food that received Tum'ah from a vessel which in turn, received Tum'ah from a Sheretz that is Metamei liquid, but not from a vessel which received Tum'ah from liquid.
(d)To manufacture Nezaisa (barley-beer) - they would bring first the vessel, then the barley (the food) and then the water (the liquid).
(a)The Mishnah in Kelim says that bread in an oven in which there is a dead Sheretz becomes a Sheni l'Tum'ah. Why do we think that it ought really to be a Rishon?
(b)How do we know it is in fact, a Sheni, and not a Rishon?
(a)We think that bread in an oven in which there is a dead Sheretz becomes a Rishon l'Tum'ah - because we consider the whole oven to be full of Tum'ah, so that everything inside it becomes a Rishon.
(b)If this were so, it would mean that the oven has the Din of an Av ha'Tum'ah, which is Metamei everything, even vessels. In that case, how would we account for the Beraisa, which learns from the juxtaposition of "mi'Kol ha'Ochel" to "Kol Asher b'Socho Yitma", that only food can receive Tum'ah from the air of an earthenware vessel, but not vessels? Consequently, we are forced to say that the air becomes a Rishon (and not an Av), and the food inside it, a Sheni.
(a)Why does Rebbi Yosi (in a Beraisa) forbid burning Terumah Teluyah together with Temei'ah?
(b)How do we reconcile that with the Tana of our Mishnah, in whose opinion Rebbi Yehoshua permits it?
(c)But how can that be, when the Tana of our Mishnah is named as Rebbi Yosi?
(d)With regard to burning Terumah Tehorah, Teluyah and Temei'ah together, what is the opinion of ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir?
2. ... Rebbi Yosi?
(a)Rebbi Yosi (in a Beraisa) forbids burning Terumah Teluyah together with Temei'ah - because maybe Eliyahu will come and declare the Terumah Teluyah, Tahor.
(b)the Tana of our Mishnah, in whose opinion Rebbi Yehoshua permits it - is Rebbi Shimon, with whom Rebbi Yosi argues.
(c)What Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah is saying to Rebbi Meir, is - that even Rebbi Shimon (with whom he disagrees), who is lenient, is only lenient by Teluyah and Temei'ah, but not by Tehorah and Temei'ah.
1. Rebbi Meir even goes so far as to permit burning Terumah Temei'ah, Teluyah and Tehorah all together on Erev Pesach.
2. Rebbi Yosi forbids burning any two of them together; according to him, each one must be burnt separately.
(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Eliezer agrees that one may burn Terumah Tehorah together with Teluyah, but argues with regard to burning Terumah Temei'ah together with Teluyah. Why is that?
(b)Why does Rebbi Yehoshua permit burning even Terumah Temei'ah together with Teluyah?
(a)Rebbi Eliezer agrees that one may burn Terumah Tehorah together with Teluyah - because, since there is no Chezkas Tum'ah, it does not appear as if he is being Metamei Terumah with his hands. Whereas he forbids the burning of Terumah Temei'ah together with Teluyah, because, since the Teluyah has not been declared Tamei, it does appear as if he is being Terumah with his hands.
(b)Rebbi Yehoshua permits burning even Terumah Temei'ah together with Teluyah - because, in his opinion, the prohibition of being Metamei Terumah is confined to a Vaday Tum'ah, not to a Safek.
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua permits catching Terumah wine that is Tahor into a Tamei vessel to save it from falling into Chulin wine Tamei below. Then why does Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah quoting Rebbi Yehoshua, forbid burning Terumah Tehorah together with Temei'ah - even though that would save a loss of extra fire-wood?
(b)How does the Gemara prove this distinction by virtue of Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion with regard to a barrel of oil, quoted in another Beraisa?
(c)What is 'Ziluf', and, considering that wine is subject to Ziluf, why should the potential usage of oil as fuel apply to oil any more than the potential use of Ziluf to wine?
(d)How do we know that Ziluf was considered important in those days?
(a)Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah quoting Rebbi Yehoshua, forbids burning Terumah Tehorah together with Temei'ah - because it entails only a small loss, unlike the Chulin wine which he is saving from becoming Medumeh, which is considered a big loss.
(b)The Gemara proves this distinction by virtue of Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion with regard to a barrel of oil, which, under the same circumstances as the wine (which he just permitted to render Tamei), he forbids. Why is that? Because oil can still be used for fuel, in which case the loss is only a small one; whereas by the spilling wine, which is not fit for Ziluf (sprinkling), as we shall soon see, the loss is a big one.
(c)'Ziluf' means sprinkling with the aim of settling the dust - and the reason that the use of fuel applies to oil more than Ziluf does to wine is because we are talking about fresh wine, which may not be kept until it becomes old, in case one comes to inadvertently use it; oil on the other hand, can be kept in smelly vessels (which will discourage people from using it in the interim) until it becomes fit to be used as fuel. One cannot however, keep wine for Ziluf in smelly vessels, because Ziluf, unlike fuel, requires a pleasant aroma.
(d)We know that Ziluf was considered important in those days - because Shmuel quoted Rebbi Chiya as saying that someone who is willing to pay one Sela for wine to drink, should be willing to pay two Sela for the same wine for Ziluf.
(a)Beis Shamai forbid retaining a barrel of Terumah wine which became Tamei; Beis Hillel permit one to retain it to use for Ziluf. What compromise does Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi make (two versions)?
(b)What is the basis of the Machlokes between Beis Hillel and Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi?
(c)Like whom does the previous Sugya (which contends with Takalah) hold?
(d)Whenever there are two opinions and a Machri'a (a third opinion which compromises), the Halachah is like the Machri'a? Why is Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi not considered a Machri'a?
(a)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi makes a compromise between Beis Shamai, who forbid retaining a barrel of Terumah wine which became Tamei, and Beis Hillel, who permit one to retain it to use for Ziluf. According to him, in the field, it must be poured out immediately (and not taken home to make Ziluf there, because we are afraid that, in the interim, he may drink it); but in the house, he may use it for Ziluf whilst he is pouring it out. Alternatively, new wine must be poured out immediately (as we learnt above); whereas old wine, which is fit for Ziluf immediately, may be used for that purpose.
(b)Beis Hillel are not worried about Takalah (inadvertently using it if one is permitted to keep it), whereas Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi is.
(c)The previous Sugya, which is worried about Takalah - holds like Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi.
(d)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi is not considered a Machri'a, because neither Beis Shamai nor Beis Hillel gave any indication that they acknowledge the distinction that Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi made, in which case, he is not really compromising at all, but is merely a third opinion, which is not necessarily Halachah.