Question: Rashi explains that we learn from here two things: We learn from it a. that in a case of food that is Tamei because of a T'vul-Yom, he holds like Aba Shaul, and b. that a Shelishi that is Tamei because of a Sheini ... .

Question (cont.): Since he learns a Kal va'Chomer for a Shelishi from Mechusar Kipurim, we do not automatically learn from there that he holds like Aba Shaul. ...

Question (cont.): Since from that Kal va'Chomer itself of Mechusar Kipurim, we learn that food that is Tamei from a T'vul-Yom makes a Revi'i.

Question (cont.): In that case, why should he learn a Revi'i ba'Kodesh from food that became Tamei from a T'vul-Yom?

Question (concl.): Would it not be preferable to learn it from Mechusar Kipurim directly, rather than from food that became Tamei from a T'vul-Yom, seeing as we only learn food that became Tamei from a T'vul-Yom itself from a Kal va'Chomer from Mechusar Kipurim?

Answer: Nevertheless, it seems, it is better to learn a Shelishi from a different Kal va'Chomer, such as a Shelishi that became Tamei from a Sheini, which is stronger to make a Revi'i, than to learn it from a Mechusar Kipurim, where one needs to learn the Shelishi itself from a Kal va'Chomer from T'vul-Yom which is Pasul from eating T'rumah.

Implied Question: Even though when all's said and done, it is one Kal va'Chomer that is learned from another Kal va'Chomer?

Answer: Nevertheless, he prefers to strengthen the power of the Shelishi.

Clarification: Rashi explains that since he Toveled, that Tum'ah departs.

Refutation: Tosfos does not understand why he says that, since, we are anyway forced to say that Rebbi Yossi holds like Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai, who learns a Shelishi by T'rumah from a Mah ha'Tzad ...

Refutation (cont.): Otherwise, from where does he learn a Shelishi?

Refutation (cont.): And from that same Mah ha'Tzad Rebbi Yossi will learn a Revi'i from Mechusar Kipurim and from K'lei Cheres.

Refutation (concl.): Which is why he does not ask.

Clarification (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim, 50): Seifer ha'Yashar: The Gemara concludes in the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 14a) that 'Sometimes he is eating Tamei food ... '.

Question: The Riva ha'Levi ztl. asks that we see from here that a k'Beitzah of Tamei food render one's body Pasul, that even a k'Beitzah renders Tamei liquid of T'rumah that one places in one's mouth.

Question (cont.): Whereas we learned in the Mishnah in Perek Keitzad Mishtatfin (Eruvin, Daf 82b) 'Half of that regarding a plagued house, and half of a half of that to render one's body Pasul - which is two k'Beitzim?

Answer #1: Tosfos Rebbe answers that people do not generally drink before they have eaten two k'Beitzim, and that prior to that, it is considered something that is not common.

Refutation #1: The Ri however, does not agree with that answer, firstly, because he (Tosfos' Rebbe) did not even take note of the wording, since here it says 'to render Pasul the body', whereas there it says 'These render T'rumah Pasul', implying even by touching, and here they only decreed the Tum'ah inside (one's stomach [See m'lo ha'Ro'im] on account of Tum'ah outside.

Refutation #2: Furthermore, how can Rav Papa say in the last Perek of Yoma (Daf 80b) 'Leave Tum'as Geviyah which is not min ha'Torah'. And the Gemara queries Rav Papa from the Pasuk "Lo Sitam'u bahem", from which he himself learns that 'Tum'as Geviyah is d'Oraysa'?

Refutation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara replies - 'mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta'.

Refutation #2 (cont.): Now if this was one of the 'eighteen things' how could the Gemara have made such a mistake, to think that it is d'Oraysa, seeing as the Isur (of the eighteen things) was universally well-known?

Answer #2: It is therefore clear that there were two different decrees, one of them a decree of the inside on account of the outside, which is 'P'sul Geviyah', where whoever sees will think that one is permitted to place Tum'ah together with beverages ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Because, when the person ate T'amei food and then drank liquid T'rumah they touched each other inside his stomach and we were not concerned.

Answer #2 (cont.): Therefore they will not be concerned even outside, and so they issued a decree ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Specifically on the Shi'ur of two k'Beitzim, but not one ...

Reason: Because someone who eats a k'Beitzah, it digests in his stomach and some remains between his teeth, and what therefore remains inside his stomach is far less than a k'Beitzah.

Reason (cont.): In which case, nobody will err, since even someone who eats a k'Beitzah of Tamei food and drinks liquid of T'rumah, will not say that if so, a k'Beitzah is Tahor even outside, seeing as inside there was not a k'Beitzah, since it became digested, and no longer had the Shi'ur to render Tamei.

Answer #2 (concl.): And it is specifically with regard to food that one requires more than the Shi'ur (of a k'Beitzah) because it digests, but liquids render the body Pasul even if one drinks only a Revi'is, since it is not the way of liquid to digest inside the body.

Question: Even if they ought perhaps to have added at least a little over and above (two k'Beitzim)?

Answer: Nevertheless, since they arrived at the Shi'ur, they fixed it at two k'Beitzim, which is a known specific amount (i.e. a round figure).

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas the Gezeirah of Shabbos which they decreed on a k'Beitzah, applies even to touching.

Query: Tosfos does not know how to explain the Sugya in Shechitas Chulin (Daf 34a) where Ula said that 'If a Kohen eats a food that is a Shelishi of Chulin that was prepared al Taharas T'rumah, his body becomes Pasul from eating T'rumah.

Query (cont.): Because, if it is part of the first (aforementioned) decree, why did they decree here? If it is on account of Tum'as Chutz, even if one were to touch a Shelishi of T'rumah he would not become Pasul, since a Shelishi does not make a Revi'i in T'rumah, as is evident there ...

Source: Where the Beraisa says that 'Chulin that is prepared al Taharas ha'Kodesh is like Chulin. Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok says that it is like T'rumah, to be Metamei two, and to render Pasul one. In that case, it is not a Revi'i?

Query (cont.): Whereas if it is part of the second decree, on account of liquid, where one ate food and then drank liquid of T'rumah, why does his body become Pasul? Why is he not Tamei even by touching?

Suggestion: And if it is a third decree, why did they issue it, unless we will say that they simply added decrees, one because of the other.

Refutation: According to what we just explained, Rashi's explanation in Maseches Chulin does not seem right and does not fit in.

Refutation (concl.): He comments there that the case of 'Someone who eats a Rishon le'Tum'ah' speaks where he eats half a P'ras, whereas according to what we explained - that he might eat Tamei food and then drink T'rumah liquid, would only require a k'Beitzah. Until here is the Lashon of Seifer ha'Yashar.

Question #1: It implies here that, if the Pasuk was speaking about the two thousand Amos of the Levi'im, then the Tana Kama would hold Techumin de'Rabbanan, and the reason that Techumin is d'Oraysa is only because the Pasuk is referring to Shabbos.

Question #1 (cont.): But the Gemara in Perek Mi she'Hotziuhu (Eruvin, Daf 51a) learns that Techumin is d'Oraysa by way of a Gezeirah-Shavah "Makom" from "Makom" and "Makom" from "Nisah" ...

Question #1 (concl.): In which case, even assuming that the Pasuk is talking about fields and vineyards, one can learn the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Makom" that is written by Shabbos, which is two thousand Amos?

Proof: Since the Gemara asks there 'Let us learn from "mi'Kir ha'Ir va'Chutzah", even though that Pasuk is talking, according to all opinions, about the Levi'im.

Question #2: Whereas at the end of the first Perek of Eruvin (Daf 17b) it implies that those who hold Techumin d'Oraysa, learn it from the Pasuk "Al Yeitzei Ish mi'Mekomo"?

Tosefta: Rebbi Nechemya in the Tosefta (Perek 6) says 'Like people who are reading the Sh'ma, as the Pasuk says "And they said saying", which teaches us that Moshe began first and Yisrael and after him and completed (what he started).

Tosefta (cont.): Moshe said "Az Yashir Moshe" and Yisrael continued "I will sing to Hash-m ... ". Moshe said "Azi ve'Zimras Kah", and Yisrael continued "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu". Moshe said "Hash-m Ish Milchamah" and Yisrael continued "Hash-m Sh'mo".

Refuted Explanation: One cannot interpret the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and Rebbi Meir in that - according to Rebbi Yossi the little children and the sucking babies exclusively said the Shirah but not the fetuses.

Refuted Explanation (cont.): Only from "mi'Pi Olelim ve'Yonkim" he learns that the babies let go of the their mothers' nipples, implying babies that were feeding ...

Refuted Explanation (cont.): And that is why we need the Pasuk "mi'Pi Ol'lim".

Proof: Since otherwise, seeing as he learns from the Pasuk "be'Makheilos Borchu Elokim mi'Mekor Yisrael even the fetuses (said the Shirah) ...

Proof (cont.): The Pasuk would no longer need to say "Ol'lim ve'Yonkim".

Refutation: Since in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 49b) the Mishnah states 'When there are ten, one says 'Nevarech Elokeinu'.

Refutation (cont.): Rebbi Akiva said 'Just as in Shul we find that, irrespective of whether there are many or few, one says "Borchu es Hash-m" ... .

Refutation (cont.): And the Gemara (Ibid, Daf 50a) asks what Rebbi Akiva will learn from Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili's Pasuk? It answers that he needs it for Rebbi Meir's statement, and concludes that (the other opinion [Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili] learns that from "mi'Mekor Yisrael".

Refutation (concl.): So we see that according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili too, the fetuses said the Shirah).