Clarification: This is a vessel with which the owners of the parched ears prepare them, and it is holed ...

Clarification (cont.): As we learned in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Menachos Daf 66.) 'One places them inside a tube of Kala'im until the fire takes hold of all of them, at which point they split on account of the heat.

Support: And so the Ri discovered in an old Seifer in the name of Rabeinu Tam.

Question: So why did the Tana say 'Siltos'?

Answer: The Tana is actually learning two ways.

Question: Since he holds that Shimur is required whilst turning them round, how can the Gemara then take for granted that it is a Mitzvah to boil the Minchah? Perhaps it is not a Mitzvah at all, only it requires guarding from beginning to end?

Answer: The main Shimur is to prevent it from becoming Chametz ...

Conclusion: And Rava now maintains that if there would not be a Mitzvah to guard it against becoming Chametz whilst it is still corn, such as the performing of Lesisah, it would not be necessary to make Shimur in the granary at the beginning of the Miru'ach (flattening the heap of corn).

Clarification: The Ri establishes the prohibition of making a saddle-cloth from the Kil'ayim to where it is lost, in case one goes on to use it to make a patch on his garment, and will also not take care for it not to touch his body.

Clarification (cont.): But if one knows where the Kil'ayim is, it is permitted ...

Proof: As we learned in Maseches Kil'ayim (Perek 9, Mishnah4) 'The saddle-cloth of a donkey is not subject to Kil'ayim, and may be used to form a mattress or a cushion, provided it does not touch his flesh'.

Implied Question: Even though we have learned in the first Perek of Beitzah 'Even if there are ten spreads one on top of the other, it is forbidden to lie on them, in case a thread winds itself round his finger.

Answer: Perhaps one does not trend to wind a mattress, a cushion and a saddle-cloth (round one's finger) to such an extent.

Question: But surely this ought to be forbidden on account of 'Lo'eg la'Rosh'?

Source: Like we find in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos 41.), where 'Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amr Shmuel said 'Garments that are put away in a drawer are subject to Tzitzis', On the one hand, Shmuel concedes there that an old man who made Tzitzis for his Kavod is Patur, but on the other, he holds that, when he dies, one fixes Tzitzis on his Beged because of "Lo'eg la'Rosh".

Question: So for the same reason one should not be permitted to make Kil'ayim for a Meis?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that Tzitzis (is different, because) it is equal to the entire Torah, therefore "Lo'eg la'Rosh" is more applicable.

Proof: Like the Gemara says in 'ha'Techeiles (there 43:) "And you shall remember all the Mitzvos of Hash-m" - 'this teaches us that Tzitzis is on a par with all the other Mitzvos'.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara relates in Perek Mi she'Meiso (B'rachos Daf 18.) how Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Yonasan were once walking in a graveyard, and the Tzitzis of Rebbi Yonasan were dragging on the gravestones. So Rebbi instructed him to lift them up, so that the Meisim should not say that 'Tomorrow they will come to join us, and today they are mocking us!'

Implied Question (concl.): Even though the Meisim too, wear Tzitzis?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that the concept of 'mocking' nevertheless applies, since they (the living) demonstrate that they are commanded to perform the Mitzvos, whereas the dead are not

Answer (concl.): And 'One cannot compare someone who is commanded to perform Mitzvos to someone who is not'.

Implied Question: And the reason that nowadays one removes the Tzitzis from the Talisos of the dead ...

Answer: Is because we rely on the Beraisa in Maseches Semachos (chapter 12) where Aba Shaul ben Botnis commanded his sons to bury him at the feet of his father and to untie the Tzitzis from his garment.

Precedent: In fact, there are a number of things in which we rely on external Sefarim, ignoring our Gemara.

Example #1: Such as in the last Perek in Megilah (Daf 31:) where the Gemara states 'Rosh Chodesh Av that falls on Shabbos, one Leins the Haftarah of "Chodsheichem u'Mo'adeichem" (which is equivalent to "Chazon Yeshayahu"), yet we Lein "ha'Shamayim Kis'i", as it says in the P'sikta.

Example #2: Also on a fast-day, we Lein "Vayechal",even though the Mishnah (Ibid.) prescribes Leining the K'lalos and the B'rachos. For this we rely on Maseches Sofrim (Perek 17, Halachah 7).

Clarification: One cannot prove from here that Iruy (pouring) has the Din of a K'li Sheini, seeing as it does not teach us a bigger Chidush - namely, not to pour on to the dish containing the spices ...

Clarification (con.): Because by the same token, one can extrapolate the opposite from the Seifa - which states 'But one may place it into the dish', and does not say that one may pour it into the dish 'containing the spices'.

Halachah: In fact it seems that even Shmuel, who holds 'Tata'ah Gavar' (that the food that is at the bottom is more powerful than the one that is at the top); and the Gemara in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (later Daf 76.) learned a Beraisa in support of him, will hold that pouring cooks 'K'dei K'lifah' (to the thickness of a peel).

Source: Since the Gemara there cites a Beraisa like Shmuel states 'Hot into cold, needs to be peeled; cold into cold, needs to be washed.

Conclusion: Consequently, if one poured something boiling on to a chicken, it needs to be peeled!'

Inference: It also follows that a vessel which one used as a K'li Rishon cannot be Kashered by means of Iruy, seeing as Iruy only cooks K'dei K'lifah, whereas the K'li absorbed more than a K'dei K'lifah.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Perek Kirah (Shabbos Daf 42.) permits hot that falls into cold ...

Answer: Since it only cooks K'dei K'lifah , seeing as the cold that is underneath is water - a substance which mixes, the coldness of the water does not allow it to cook at all (even K'dei K'lifah).

Answer (cont.): But this does not apply to something that does not mix.

Proof: The Gemara in Avodah-Zarah (Daf 76.) quotes Mar Ukva, who says that ''Someone who purchases a pot from a Nochri and fixes a rim round the top ... '. And it concludes that 'Just as it absorbed, so too, does it exude!' Just as it absorbed via drops, so too, does it exude via drops'.

Proof (cont.): Now if Iruy had the Din of a K'li Rishon, why would the Gemara need to come on to the reason of 'because it absorbed via drops'; even assuming that it absorbed normally, it would absorb via drops, which is 'Iruy'?

Proof (concl.): A clear proof that Iruy only cooks K'dei K'lifah!

Implied Question: And what we learned in Perek Chavis (Shabbos, Daf 145.) 'Whatever has not been cooked in hot water before Shabbos, one may wash in hot water on Shabbos' ...

Answer: Must be speaking in a K'li Sheini', since in a K'li Rishon, even washing it would be forbidden (since Iruy cooks K'dei K'lifah).

Question: There it specifically permits washing, implying that soaking it is forbidden ...

Question (cont.): Whereas in our Sugya, it even permits placing it in a dish or in a tureen, which means soaking it?

Answer: The Ri answers that there it is speaking about something that is subject to cooking, so that, when one soaks it, even in a K'li Sheini, it looks as if he is cooking it; whereas the spices (mentioned here) are added to the dish to sweeten it, in which case it does not look as if one is cooking it.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi in Perek Kirah asks whether one is permitted to place spices in a dish and to pour on to it something boiling.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Yonah forbids it, because he says, Iruy is like a K'li Rishon.

Yerushalmi (cont.): And he proves it from the Pasuk "And earthenware vessels in which one cooks, shall be broken" - irrespective of whether one cooked in them or one poured into them something boiling.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Asi however, refutes this proof, because, he argues, 'The earthenware vessels there absorb, but the spices here, it does not cook.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Asi bar Bun queried that however from a Beraisa, which gives the same Din to copper vessels. 'Will you say that copper vessels too, absorb'?

Explanation #1: Rashi explains this to mean 'Kimcha de'Avishuna' (flour that has been heated in an oven to dry it).

Refutation: But this is difficult, seeing as earlier (on Daf 39:) the Gemara forbade it, and nobody disagreed?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore agrees with the Aruch, who translates 'ba'Chasisi' as flour of lentils, which do not tend to become Chametz to such an extent.