Question #2: Moreover, what is their dispute, seeing as Rebbi Yossi is speaking according to Rebbi Akiva; Does Rebbi Meir not concede that according to Rebbi Akiva liquid is Metamei others min ha'Torah?

Question #2 (cont.): Seeing as Rebbi Akiva specifically Darshens '"Yitma" 'Yetamei' in the case (on Daf 18a) 'On that day Rebbi Akiva Darshened ... '?

Answer: Ha'Rav Yosef from Yerushalayim answers that according to Rebbi Meir the word "Yitma" is written with regard to liquids in connection with Hechsher, and the fact that liquids are subject to Tum'ah he learns from the Rebbi Akiva, who Darshens regarding Chulin "Yitma" that a Sheini makes a Shelishi. And since by Chulin everybody agrees that Ein Ochel Metamei Ochel, it can only be referring to liquids (See Maharsha).

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Elazar specifically says that they are not subject to Tum'ah at all ...

Answer: That is because he is referring to the Rebbi Shimon in the Toras Kohanim, who says 'le'Ochlin Tamei, le'Keilim Tahor'.

Question: And that what the Torah writes (in Vayikra 11) "And when water is placed on seeds (from which we learn the same thing) ...

Answer: The Gemara in the second Perek of Chulin (36: & 37.) that one refers to a Meis, and the other, to a Sheretz, and both are necessary.

Answer (cont.): And since the Torah reveals by one of them that there is no difference between Telushin and Mechubarim, the same will apply to the other.

Clarification: The Riva defines 'Mechubarin' as where the little bit of water became attached to the food, is removed from the water together with the food.

Clarification (cont.): Because as long as the food ids still in the water, it does not become Muchshar ...

Source: As we learned in Maseches Machshirin (4:8) 'A radish which a Nidah is washing in a cave remains Tahor. The moment she removes it from the water however, even just a fraction, it becomes Tamei'.

Implied Question: The Gemara in the second Perek of Chulin (36:) queries this answer in that it is written 'Mashkei' in the plural, implying (at least) two kinds of liquid?

Answer: Our Sugya is not concerned with that Kashya, since it could answer that 'Mashkei' refers to liquid in general (even though it is confined to blood).

Proof: As the Gemara says in kidushin (Daf 64.) 'Bogros in general' (even though it is referring to only one Bogeres).

Conclusion: Nevertheless the Gemara asks it there, because it has another answer.

Question: If so, asks R. Ya'akov from Orleans, the blood of a Chayah and of a bird, which require covering, ought not to be Machshir, seeing as they are not 'poured out like water'.

Proof: Like we say in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin 84: & 85.) 'You said that a Chayah is included in Beheimah regarding the Simanim;say also that a Beheimah is included in Chayah with regard to covering the blood?

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara answers with the Pasuk (in connection with the blood of a Beheimah) "You shall pour it on the ground like water" ...

Proof (concl.): Implying that the blood of a Chayah is not considered 'poured like water'?

Answer: This is not a question; because all blood that is poured out on the ground like water that does need to be received in a receptacle, such as the blood of a Chayah, is compared to water regarding Hechsher.

Conclusion: In fact, it would even be compared to water regarding Kisuy,had the Torah not specifically revealed otherwise.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have established it mi'd'Oraysa, according to the opinion that Tum'as Mashkin is d'Oraysa ...

Answer: Only it preferred to establish it mi'de'Rabbanan, and this Tana hold that "Yitma" means Hechsher, like Rav.

Clarification: In Perek Keitzad Tzolin (later on Daf 78.) we saythat, according to Rebbi Eliezer, who says that 'as long as there is blood, even if there is no Basar', the Tzitz atones on eating (be'Tum'ah). What are the ramifications? To fix for Pigul, and to take out of Me'ilah.

Question on Rashi: This is not like Rashi,who explains here that it goes according to Rebbi Yehoshua.

Clarifying Text: For this is how it finally reads in the second Perek of Zevachim, where it learns them both from the same 'lengthy' Pasuk in Parshas Tzav.

Defining Pasuk: Where the beginning of the Pasuk, "On the third day", it establishes with regard to someone who has the intention of eating it at the wrong time, and the end of the Pasuk with regard to someone who has the intention of eating it in the wrong location.

Source: Indeed, the Toras Kohanim has this text on that Pasuk.

Alternative Text: Whereas Rashi, who switches the order, does so based on the Toras Kohanim in Parshas Kedoshim, where it Darshens from a short Pasuk ...

Clarifying Beraisa: Because that Beraisa is learned according to the Gemara's initial explanation in Zevachim, where it learns Chutz li'Mekomo from the short Pasuk in Kedoshim.

Question: According to both texts, it is a little difficult as to why the Tana mentions the sin of Pigul first (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks why we need the reason of 'Hutrah mi'Chelalah' (it has a Heter from its general Isur)? Why not because there is no other way of establishing the Pasuk ...

Question (cont.): As the Gemara explains 'If it is talking about the sin of Pigul ... '?

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam explains because the Pasuk implies that it (the Tzitz) atones exclusively for something that has a Heter somewhere from its general Isur, since the end of the Pasuk writes "as an acceptance for them"...

Answer #1 (cont.): And both Pigul and Nosar too, have a Heter from their general Isur by a Minchah of a Kohen and by a Minchas Nesachim.

Answer #1 (cont.): And we have learned in Perek Beis Shamai (Zevachim 43: & 44.) that they are not subject to Pigul.

Answer #1 (cont.): Moreover, Pigul of Chutz li'Mekomo is Hutar mi'Chelalo by a Bamah.

Proof: And so it is implied in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos 25.), where it asks 'Let us say (that it comes to atone for) the sin of the left hand, which is Hutar mi'Chelalo on Yom Kipur? (and it answers) The Pasuk says 'Avon' - The sin that it had but which I rejected' (See Gemara there).

. Source: And this is because it relies on "le'Ratzon", which means that it is a sin which is acceptable'.

Question: The Gemara there also asks 'Let us say the sin of Yotzei, which is Hutar mi'Chelalo by a Bamah? And it answers with the Pasuk "le'Ratzon lahem Lifnei Hash-m"; 'It (the Tzitz) carries the sin of Lifnei Hash-m, but not of Yotzei'.

Question: In that case, why do we not say the same with regard to the Pigul of Chutz li'Mekomo, so why does it continue 'If it is for the of Pigul ... '?

Answer: Whereas Yotzei is definitely not 'Lifnei Hashem', merely intending to take it out, is!