Remark: Here does not apply "a species found its species, and it is aroused." (Tzon Kodoshim - this is because there is nothing tangible, just mere intent.)

Explanation: The Pesul does not allow the Pigul to separate from it.

Question: What is their connection? Regarding a Korban, when he said Chetzi Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo Chetzi Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, the Korban is already disqualified. It does not return to become Pigul;

However, a half-Beitzah of a Rishon [l'Tum'ah] and a half-Beitzah of a Sheni that became mixed, that it became a Sheni, the reason is not because the half-Beitzah of a Rishon became Batel;

Rather, it is because it has no power to be Metamei by itself. Therefore, when he joins with it a half-Beitzah of a Rishon, why shouldn't it join?!

Explanation: This is according to the opinion that there is touching after touching (if something Tahor touch half a Shi'ur of Tum'ah, and after touched another half-Shi'ur, it becomes Tamei.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Initially there was a full Shi'ur, and it was divided. Therefore, when he returned and mixed them, its name returned to it;

However, here initially it was a half-k'Zayis of Pigul and a half-k'Zayis of Pasul. it is not called Pigul, rather, Pasul. Therefore, when a half-k'Zayis of [Chutz li']Zman comes to it, it does not lose the name Pasul for the name "Pigul' to take effect on it.

Question: According to this, [Rav Hamnuna] should have said "there, there was a Shi'ur. Here, there was not a Shi'ur"!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "There is a Shi'ur", i.e. there is a Shi'ur of the Sheni. Therefore, it allows the Rishon to separate from it and it goes to join with another Rishon;

Here, there is not a Shi'ur of the Pasul. It does not allow the Pigul to separate from it.

Explanation: There was a k'Beitzah, and it became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah (not an Av) that also was k'Beitzah. They join with each other. If there is a half-Beitzah of the Rishon and a half-Beitzah of the Sheni, they join to be Metamei like the more lenient of them;

[Rav Hamnuna asserts] is this not even if it was later filled, i.e. he took from the Rishon, and put on (the mixture of Rishon and Sheni). This shows that since there is not a Shi'ur of the Sheni, it does not allow the Rishon to separate from it to go to the other Rishon!

[The Gemara] answers that perhaps he did not complete [the Shi'ur]. We cannot compare this to Tum'ah that was Batel, and returned and reawakened, for here it was not Batel. Here, the reason is because it does not separate from it.

Observation: According to R. Tam's Perush that I explained, we need not say like Rashi explained that any amount of a food receives Tum'ah. I elaborated in Shabbos (91a).

Implied question: Below (36a), we say that if he intended for Temei'im to eat it, it is not Pigul!

We must explain a reason why this is worse than [intent for] dogs to eat.

Implied question: It is obvious that [Achilah] applies to an animal, regarding something proper for it, like it is written "veli'Vhemtecha ul'Chayah Asher b'Artzecha Tihyeh Kol Tevu'asah Le'echol"!

Answer: Rather, [R. Yanai] brings a proof that [an animal] eating meat is called Achilah.

Question: Why didn't [R. Ami] bring the verse "v'Im He'achel Ye'achel", that the verse discusses two consumptions - one of people, and one of the Mizbe'ach?

Also, it says "Asher Tochal ha'Esh Es ha'Olah"!

Answer: It is obvious to [R. Ami] that Hash-m's fire is called Achilah, and even so, Achilah and Haktarah do not join;

However, now that you say that all burning is called Achilah, it is difficult to him why they do not join.

Observation: We could have inferred this from the Reisha, which taught "Lehaktir something that is proper for Haktarah." This implies that [intent does not disqualify] something not proper for Haktarah;

Inference: Consumption of fire is not called Achilah.

Question #1: Perhaps really, it does not join, and [the Mishnah] comes to teach through inference that eating and eating of one person joins, even [if he delayed] more than Kedei Achilas Pras (the time to eat a half-loaf)?

Question #2: Also afterwards, Abaye infers that eating and eating join more than Kedei Achilas Pras, since it taught eating and Haktarah...

Perhaps it comes to teach through inference that eating and eating of two people join!

Answer: He infers from this that we attribute the reason that Haktarah and eating do not join because this is eating and this is Haktarah;

Inference: If Haktarah were considered like eating, it would join even though this is like two people, and more than Kedei Achilas Pras.

Question: This should be proven from the Mishnah "Chetzi Zayis b'Chutz Chetzi Zayis l'Machar - it is Pasul"!

Answer: Perhaps it refers to Haktarah.

Implied question: The Reisha taught "to eat a k'Zayis outside, a k'Zayis tomorrow"!

Answer: Perhaps the clause of a half-k'Zayis discusses specifically Haktarah.

Question: It teaches very much, like Abaye himself inferred above - eating of two people, and more than Kedei Achilas Pras!

Pesak: In the Gemara it is proven that women slaughter even l'Chatchilah.

Source: It explains that our Mishnah taught "if they slaughtered", i.e. b'Di'eved, because [the Tana] needs to teach Temei'im, which are not l'Chatchilah. It did not say because he needed to teach women, which were taught in the Reisha!

Observation: This refutes what Hilchos Eretz Yisrael wrote, that women may not slaughter, because Daitan Kalos (they are unfocused).

Citation (Hilchos Eretz Yisrael): If one slaughtered and did not bless, or someone slaughtered naked, it is Pasul.

Explanation: These are mere stringencies that the Chacham who wrote Hilchos Eretz Yisrael said based on his own opinion. (There is no source for them.)

Explanation: The Gemara explains that l'Chatchilah they do not slaughter, lest they touch the meat.

Implied question: Blood of Kodshim is not Machshir! (Even if they touch it, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah.)

Answer #1: Chibas (the dearness of) ha'Kodesh is Machshir.

Answer #2: He passed [the Korban] through the river, and there was still liquid Tofe'ach (enough to wet what touches it) on it [at the time of Shechitah], like it says in Pesachim (20a).

Question: We already know [that a Tamei may not slaughter], lest he come to be drawn (after the Korban) inside (the Azarah)!

Even one who is totally Tahor, according to Ben Zoma, who says (Yoma 30a) that one who enters the Mikdash must immerse, he may not slaughter with a long knife, lest he come to be drawn [into the Azarah], like it says there (31a)!

Answer #1: There is more reason to decree about a Tahor, lest he come to be drawn, but a Tamei is careful and remembers. Therefore, it did not mention lest he enter his hand inside, even though it is forbidden according to the opinion that partial Bi'ah is Bi'ah (below, 32b).

Answer #2: It mentioned a reason (lest he touch the meat) that applies to everyone. (Lest he be drawn applies to only according to the opinion that partial Bi'ah is Bi'ah.)

Question (R. Efrayim): How can [a Tamei] slaughter Kodshim?

Even though we establish it in the Gemara to be through a long knife, how can it be so long, from Har ha'Bayis until Ezras Yisrael?

A Mishnah in Kelim (1:8) says that the Cheil (inside the wall of Har ha'Bayis) is more Kadosh than Har ha'Bayis. Nochrim and Temei'ei Mesim may not enter there. Ezras Nashim is more Kadosh than [the Cheil]. A Tevul Yom may not enter there.

Even if our Sugya holds that a Tamei Sheretz may enter the Cheil, Ezras Nashim is 135 Amos long. How can a knife be so long?!

Answer #1: When someone became Tamei in Ezras Nashim, [Chachamim] were not stringent to make him leave, like R. Tam explains.