Observation: All the more so if the text says "until it was flayed", there is a proof that after flaying it receives Tum'ah without any action. Until here is a comment.

Question: In Shabbos (49b) it connotes that no hide receives Tum'ah until after tanning!

Citation (49b - Beraisa): Hides, whether tanned or not tanned, one may move them on Shabbos. "Tanned" was said only regarding Tum'ah.

Rashi explained that a hide does not receive Tum'ah until after tanning.

Answer #1: Perhaps we can explain that after tanning, even intent is not needed, but before tanning, intent is needed.

Answer #2 (R. Chaim citing Riva): There we discuss those skins [of certain kinds of animals] that are [Tamei] like the flesh;

Citation (Chulin 122a - Mishnah): All of them (skins that are Tamei like the flesh) that were tanned, or he walked on them the time for tanning, they are Tehorim;

It means as follows. They said that there is a difference between tanned and not tanned only regarding Tum'ah, and regarding those hides that are like the flesh;

Before tanning they are Tamei if there is a k'Zayis, like the law of meat that became Neveilah, or of a Mes if there is k'Adashah (the volume of a lentil);

After tanning they are Tehorim, unless there is five by five [Tefachim], like the law of leather.

Question: It connotes here that hide, after it was flayed, even if it is moist, receives Tum'ah through intent, for it includes similar to a hide that was not flayed, which is moist;

Since for Tum'ah it is considered a Kli through intent, if so it is permitted to move it on Shabbos, like we find in Shabbos (123a) regarding a needle without a hole regarding unfinished Kelim;

Since sometimes he reconsiders about it and makes it a Kli, it is permitted to move it.

This is difficult for R. Tam, who explains in Shabbos (49a) regarding "we are Tomen (insulate) in hides and move them" - it discusses dry [hides], but if they are moist, no;

[He said so] because it was difficult for him in Shabbos (116b) regarding flaying Pesach until the chest, it says "may we not move hide along with meat?" [This implies that] without meat, no (we may not move hide).

Also in Beitzah (11b) regarding [on Yom Tov putting] hide in front of people who will trample on it, [Beis Hillel] permitted the end (moving the hide) due to the beginning (so people will slaughter for Simchas Yom Tov. If they could not move the hide, perhaps they would refrain due to concern lest it rot)...

It says "one might have thought that Beis Hillel's reason is because it is proper to lie on it, and even [if it was slaughtered] from Erev Yom Tov [they permit. The Gemara] teaches that this is not so. (Rather, they permit only if it was slaughtered on Yom Tov, lest people refrain from Simchas Yom Tov.)

Answer: Even though it receives Tum'ah through intent, here that he designated it for sitting while it was still moist, one may not move it.

Support: So we must say about a needle that its hole or point was removed. We forbid moving it, even though if he fixed it for stretching [garments while laundering them], it is Tamei (receives Tum'ah), like a Mishnah (Kelim 13:5) teaches.

Answer #3 (to Question (b) - Rashi in Shabbos 120a): The case in Shabbos (49a, of insulating) refers to the hide of a big (work) animal.

Consequence: According to this, we must establish also the case in Beitzah to discuss a small animal, like the case in Shabbos (120a) regarding Pesach (which is a lamb or kid);

The reason is because the hide of a small animal is not so proper to lie on.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Shabbos 120a) teaches that we may spread hide of a kid [over a box that caught fire, lest it spread]!

Answer #1: We must establish it when the hide was designated to sit on.

Answer #2: Regarding a fire Chachamim permitted, like it says there.

Answer #3: This is fine for R. Tam. It discusses a dry hide, like in Shabbos (49a).

Explanation: According to R. Yehudah, you are forced to say that the verse discusses a garment that does not receive Tum'ah, but it is proper to receive;

And according to R. Elazar, the verse discusses a garment that receives Tum'ah, but a garment that is proper but does not receive, it need not be laundered.

Now, we ask which garment is proper to receive but does not receive Tum'ah, and they argue about it - R. Yehudah obligates laundering, and R. Elazar does not.

Explanation (Aruch): This is chicken excrement.

Explanation: One may not put water on it, for soaking it is laundering it.

Implied question: It says in Beitzah (18a) that a Nidah may scheme and immerse in her clothes [on Yom Tov, to be Metaher them, even though normally one may not immerse Kelim on Yom Tov. This should be forbidden due to laundering!]

Answer (R. Tam): It is not considered laundering because it is the way of getting dirty. Her clothes get dirtier when she enters the river wearing them than they get cleaned;

The same applies to woven chains in Shabbos (57a. Even according to the opinion that forbids going out with them when they are dirty,) we forbid only lest she remove them [in order to immerse] and carry them four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, and not [lest she immerse while wearing them] because soaking it is laundering.

Support: For this reason one may clean [even wet] hands on a cloth on Shabbos.

Alternative text: R. Chaim's text says Shechalim (cress, and not Shelachim, i.e. hides).

Question: In any case it is difficult. "This is [more] stringent" implies that it is the only stringency, and there are no others, like we infer in Bava Metzi'a (57b) regarding Ona'ah does not apply to the following...

It says "granted, regarding a person, this is [more] stringent, and nothing else. However, regarding Hekdesh, is this the only stringency, and there are no others?!"

Answer #1: However, even without [this question] it is difficult there, why does it say "granted, regarding a person, this is [more] stringent, and nothing else"?

There is payment of Kefel (a thief pays double), which applies to a person, and not to Hekdesh! And a Shomer Chinam swears to a person (if the deposit was lost due to Ones), and he does not swear to Hekdesh!

Answer #2: Some texts there do not say "and nothing else." It means as follows. Granted, regarding a person, it is appropriate to teach "this is [more] stringent", for there are few stringencies of a person over Hekdesh, and when one finds a stringency, it is appropriate to say "this is a stringency over it";

However, there are many stringencies of Hekdesh over a person. It is no Chidush to teach about [a stringency] "this is a stringency [over a person]."

Support: According to this Perush it is fine here, and also in Erchin (19b), in which it teaches "this is a stringency of Nedarim over Erchin", and in the Gemara it lists more [stringencies] than the Beraisa.

Answer #3: And if the text there says "and nothing else", we can explain that it is because the stringency of Ona'ah occurs frequently, but the stringency of Chiyuv four or five (for one who steals an ox or Seh, and then sells or slaughters it), Kefel, the Shevu'ah of a Shomer Chinam or payment of a Shomer Sachar are not frequent;

Therefore, it asks "granted, regarding a person, this is [more] stringent, and nothing else", for there is nothing else common. However, regarding Hekdesh, is this stringent, and nothing else? There are other common [stringencies]!

Observation: According to this Perush, it does not answer our Sugya and that in Erchin.

Note: Tosfos (Erchin 20a DH Chomer) says that we ask "are there no other stringencies" only in Bava Metzi'a, for it is proper to be more stringent about Hekdesh, so it is no Chidush to find a stringency of Hekdesh.

Reference: Rav Huna's teaching was said in Chulin (123b) regarding a Talis that one began to tear. Once the majority was torn, it is not connected, and it is Tahor. This connotes that it is totally Tahor.

Question: Why is it not Tamei Maga (due to touching a) Midras, like it says in Chulin (72b) that if [a garment Tamei Midras] three by three [Tefachim] was divided, it is Tahor from Midras, but it is Tamei Maga Midras! R. Meir says so.

It concludes there regarding three by three [fingers] that come from a large garment, all agree that at the time [the parts] separate from their source (the initial garment);

And even if this case of a Talis is when it was not Tamei Midras, rather, it merely touched Tum'ah, in any case, as long as three by three fingers remain, which is the Shi'ur of Tum'as Maga, Tum'as Maga is not uprooted from it!

Answer #1: If not for our Sugya, we could have said that "Tehorah" means from Midras, and the reason it did not teach "but it is Tamei Maga Midras", like it taught in Chulin (72b), is because it did not come to teach a Chidush of Tum'ah;

Rather, the Chidush is that even though the big Talis is still more than three by three, even so, it is Tahor from Midras, since it is not proper for its initial use, to wrap himself in it.

Question: However, it is difficult from our Sugya. If Tum'as Maga was not uprooted, how can one enter it [to the Mikdash]? It is still Tamei! (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)