Answer #2 (to Question 1:a, 73a - Beraisa): If strands were left that invalidate the Milah, he may not eat Terumah, Pesach, Kodshim or Ma'aser.

Suggestion: This refers to Ma'aser (Sheni) of grain.

Rejection #1: No, it refers to Ma'aser Behemah (one of every 10 animals born each year becomes a Korban).

Objection: That is Kodshim, which the Beraisa already listed!

Counter-question: Pesach was also listed, even though it is Kodshim!

Answer: It is necessary to teach both Pesach and Kodshim.

Had it taught only Pesach, one might have thought that this is because the Torah explicitly forbids an Arel to eat Pesach, but this does not apply to Kodshim;

Had it taught only Kodshim, one might have thought that this refers only to Pesach!

Conclusion: We cannot explain why it would teach Ma'aser Behemah in addition to Kodshim!

Rejection #2: The Beraisa refers to Ma'aser Rishon. It is like R. Meir, who says that only Leviyim may eat Ma'aser Rishon.

Answer #3 (R. Chiya bar Rav mi'Difti's Beraisa): Two kinds of Ma'aser are forbidden to an Arel.

Suggestion: This refers to Ma'aser Sheni and Ma'aser Behemah!

Rejection: No, it refers to (Ma'aser Beheimah and) Ma'aser Rishon, according to R. Meir.

Answer #4 (Beraisa #1): An Onen is forbidden to eat Ma'aser, and permitted to Terumah and Parah Adumah;

A Tevul Yom is forbidden to Terumah and permitted to Ma'aser and Parah Adumah;

A Mechusar Kipurim (one who must bring a Korban to complete his Taharah) is forbidden to Parah Adumah and permitted to Terumah and Ma'aser.

Summation of answer: If an Arel were permitted to Ma'aser, the Beraisa should teach that an Arel is forbidden to Terumah and permitted to Parah Adumah and Ma'aser!

Rejection: This Tana is R. Akiva, who considers an Arel like a Tamei (Rashi - so he is forbidden even to Parah Adumah. Rambam, according to Maharsha - R. Akiva forbids an Arel to Ma'aser. We ask about Chachamim's opinion):

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Ish Ish" (regarding the Isur for a Tamei to eat Terumah) includes an Arel.

Question: Who is the Tana of Beraisa #1 (who forbids Mechusar Kipurim to Parah Adumah? We follow the Gra's text.)

Answer: It is R. Yosef ha'Bavli:

(Beraisa): If an Onen or Mechusar Kipurim burned Parah Adumah, it is Kosher;

R. Yosef ha'Bavli says, if an Onen burned it, it is Kosher. If a Mechusar Kipurim burned it, it is Pasul.

(Rambam - not only R. Akiva, but) also R. Yitzchak forbids an Arel to Ma'aser from a Gezeirah Shavah "Mimenu-Mimenu";

It says "Mimenu" regarding Pesach and regarding Ma'aser. Just like an Arel is forbidden to Pesach, also to Ma'aser.

Suggestion: The words must be free to learn the Gezeirah Shavah. If not, we cannot learn from Pesach, since it has the stringencies of Pigul, Nosar, and (Kares for a person who eats it when he is) Tamei!

Affirmation: Yes, the words are free.

Question: How can we show that the words are free?

Answer (Rava): It says "Mimenu" three times regarding Pesach. One is needed for the simple meaning (the Isur to eat it raw applies only to Pesach, not to Matzah and Maror), and two are extra. One of the two is used for the Gezeirah Shavah. (The other was merely included with the verse that discusses burning the Nosar);

According to the opinion that this Aseh (to burn Nosar) exempts the Lav (not to leave it over) from lashes, since the Torah needed to say 'Nosar', it also says "Mimenu";

According to the opinion that the verse mandates waiting another morning before burning it, since the Torah needed to say "until morning", it also says "Mimenu".

It says "Mimenu" three times regarding Ma'aser. One is needed for the simple meaning, and two are extra. One of these two teaches R. Avahu's law (73b, that one may burn Tamei Terumah). The other teaches Reish Lakish's law:

(Reish Lakish): "V'Lo Nasati Mimenu l'Mes", but a similar usage for a living person, i.e. anointing, is permitted.

This teaches that one may anoint with Tamei Ma'aser Sheni.

Question (Mar Zutra): Perhaps the verse forbids buying a coffin or shrouds with Ma'aser Sheni!

Answer #1 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): "Mimenu" - from (Ma'aser) itself (not from its value).

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): "V'Lo Nasati" is like (what follows it,) "I did not eat". Just like the latter refers to the Ma'aser itself, also the former.

The Gezeirah Shavah is free from one side (what is written by Pesach).

Question: This is like the opinion that in such a case, we learn and do not challenge;

According to the opinion that we learn and challenge, how can we answer? (We can challenge like above (a)!)

Answer: (The Gezeirah Shavah is free both sides.) We learn R. Avahu's law (not from "Mimenu", rather,) like Rav Nachman:

(Rav Nachman): "V'Nasati Lecha Es Mishmeres Terumosai (plural)" alludes to two Terumos, Tahor and Tamei. It is "Lecha" (for your needs); you may cook with it while burning it.

(Mishnah): All Temei'im (may not eat Terumah).

(R. Yochanan): We learn from "Any man from the seed of Aharon (who is a Metzora or Zav will not eat Kodshim until he is Tahor.)"

This refers to Terumah, which all seed of Aharon (i.e. even females) may eat.

Suggestion: Perhaps the verse refers to Chazeh v'Shok (from Shelamim)!

Rejection: Some females, e.g. a Bas Kohen who returns to eat Terumah after being widowed or divorced from a Yisrael, may not eat them.

Objection: Likewise, a Chalalah may not eat Terumah!

Answer: A Chalalah is not considered the seed of Aharon.

Question: What is the source that "Until he is Tahor" refers to nightfall? Perhaps it means after he brings his Korban (then he may eat Terumah)!

Answer (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): The verse discusses a Zav who had two emissions and a Metzora Musgar, who do not bring Korbanos, similar to a Tamei Mes (at the end of the verse. Therefore, "Yithar" must refer to nightfall.)

Question #1: Perhaps a Tamei who must bring a Korban (e.g. a Zav who had three emissions and a Metzora Muchlat) is forbidden to Terumah until he offers it!

Question #2: What is the source for the following Mishnah?

(Mishnah): After immersing, he may eat Ma'aser. After dark, he may eat Terumah. After offering his Korban, he may eat Kodshim.

Answer to both questions (Rava): There are three verses (which seem to contradict each other)!

"He will not eat Kodshim until bathing" implies that after Tevilah he is Tahor;

It also says "At nightfall he will be Tahor, then he will eat Kodshim";

It also says "The Kohen will atone for her and she will be Tahor"!

Resolution: The first verse refers to Ma'aser, the second to Terumah, and the third to Kodshim.

Suggestion: Perhaps the first refers to Terumah, and the second to Ma'aser!

Rejection: Presumably, Terumah is more stringent:

A Tamei who eats it is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei Shamayim);

A Zar who eats it b'Shogeg adds a Chomesh (when paying for what he ate);

It cannot be redeemed;

It is forbidden to a Zar.

Question: Ma'aser has more stringencies!

It must be brought to Yerushalayim;

One must recite Viduy over it;

It is forbidden to an Onen;

One may not burn Tamei Ma'aser, and one who eats Tamei Ma'aser is lashed.

Bi'ur applies to it.

Answer #1: Misah is more stringent (this is the overriding consideration).

Answer #2 (Rava): Even without this, it says "A soul (that will touch... will immerse and be Tahor)";

Ma'aser applies to every soul (but only Kohanim eat Terumah).

Question: Perhaps this only applies to a Tamei who is not Mechusar Kipurim, but a Mechusar Kipurim may not eat until he brings his Korban!

Answer (Abaye): It says about a Yoledes (one who gave birth) "Until the days of her Taharah are completed". This implies that once the days are completed, she is Tehorah;

Contradicition: It also says "The Kohen will atone for her and she will be Tehorah"!

(Resolution): The first verse teaches when she can eat Terumah. The latter teaches when she may eat Kodshim.

Question: Perhaps we should say the other way!

Answer: Presumably, Kodshim is more stringent, because:

It can become Pigul;

It can become Nosar;

It is brought in the Mikdash;

Me'ilah applies to it;

A Tamei who eats it is Chayav Kares,

It is forbidden to an Onen.

Question: Perhaps Terumah is more stringent, because:

A Tamei who eats it is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei Shamayim);

A Zar adds a fifth (if he ate it b'Shogeg);

It cannot be redeemed;

It is forbidden to a Zar.

Answer #1: Kodshim have more stringencies.

Answer #2 (Rava): Even without this, we cannot say that Mechusar Kipurim is permitted to Kodshim!

"The Kohen will atone for her and she will be Tehorah" implies that she is Teme'ah until then;

She cannot eat Kodshim, for "(Kodesh) meat that any Tamei will touch may not be eaten"!

Conclusion: Mechusar Kipurim can be permitted only to Terumah.

Question (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): The verse cannot discuss Terumah!

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Bnei Yisrael" teaches that Tumas Yoledes applies only to Benos Yisrael!

Rejection: "Ishah" includes a convert or freed slave;

A convert or freed slave may not eat Terumah!

Counter-question (Rava): You must agree that the verse discusses Terumah!

"She will not touch any Kodesh" includes Terumah!