Daf 11

88) R' Meir holds that you can't eat Chametz by the fifth hour and you need to burn it by the sixth hour. R' Yehuda holds that you can't eat it by the fourth hour, you keep it at its status quo on the fifth hour, and you burn it at the sixth hour. R' Gamliel basically holds like R' Yehuda, but he holds that they allow eating Trumah during the fifth hour.

89) Regarding testimony; if one witness says that it happened on the second of the month, and the other witness said it happened on the third of the month, the testimony is valid. After all, we can assume that one heard that they made the month earlier a thirty day month, and the other one didn't hear about it. However, if one said it happened on the third day, and the other said it happened on the fifth day of the month, the testimony is invalid [Tosfos: it's not common that a person wouldn't hear about two months that were made into thirty day months.

When they're only off by a day, we must say that they both agreed to the day of the week, and by that, we can be sure that they truely were testifying on the same day. As we'll bring down Rava later, we can't execute people if we're not sure if the testimony is valid. However, if it wasn't for the fact that most people could make such a mistake, we couldn't accept the testimony as valid even if they said the same day of the week, since we would consider it that he changed his story in the middle, and we hold that; once he said testimony, he can't go back and say contradictory testimony. This is similar to the case where one said it happened on the third, and the other said it happened on the fifth, their testimony is invalid even if they both say that it happened on the same day of the week.]

90) R' Meir holds: if one witness says that it happened by the second hour and the other one said it happened by the third hour; they're testimony is valid. [Tosfos says: even though he might mean it that it was at the beginning of the second hour, which is before sunrise (since sunrise is ninety minutes after dawn), and then it would be that one of them is saying it happened before sunrise, and the other one saying that it happened after sunrise, which makes the testimony invalid; that's only when he was testifying in terms of sunrise, which should be obvious if the sun rose at the time of the crime. However, here, when they're testifying in hours, it might not dawn on him that the beginning of the second hour is before sunrise.] R' Yehuda validates the testimony even if one says that it happened by the third hour, and the second one said it happened by the fifth hour. However, it's not valid if one said it happened by the fifth hour, and the other says it happened on the seventh hour, since the sun is in the east by the fifth hour, and in the west by the seventh hour.

91) According to the first version of Abaya: R' Meir holds that someone doesn't make any mistake in time. We assume that the one who said it happened at the second hour meant at the end of the second hour, and the one who said the third hour means the beginning of the third hour, and it happened as the second hour ended and the third hour began. R' Yehuda held that someone makes a mistake for a half hour. Therefore, the one who said it happened on the third hour meant the end of the third hour. The one who says that it happened at the fifth hour meant the beginning of the fifth hour. It really happened by four and a half hours into the day.

92) According to the second version of Abaya: R' Meir holds that someone makes a mistake of a second. We assume that the one who said it happened at the second hour meant at the end of the second hour, and the one who said the third hour meant the beginning of the third hour, and it happened either at the end of the second hour or when the third hour began. R' Yehuda held that someone makes a mistake for an hour and a second. Therefore, the one who said it happened on the third hour meant the end of the third hour. The one who says that it happened at the fifth hour meant the beginning of the fifth hour. It really happened by the end of the third hour or the beginning of the fifth hour.

Daf 12

93) However, Rava disagrees. After all, if you check them what they meant, it might come out that one meant the beginning of the second and the other the end of the third and we wouldn't execute him; yet, now, without asking them, we'll execute him from a Safeik? After all, the Pasuk says "the people judge him and the people save him." Rather R' Meir held that someone can make a mistake for two hours and a little bit (and it covers all the times, even if one meant the beginning of the second hour and the other meant the end of the third hour). R' Yehuda holds that people can make a mistake of three hours and a bit. [Tosfos says: but you never check them to validate the testimony, like, according to R' Meir, we don't ask the one who says three if he meant the end of the third hour, and the one who says five if he meant the beginning of the fifth hour. Also, we don't say that it should be valid since it's possible that they both made a mistake; since we don't assume that two witnesses will both make a mistake.]

94) That, which one of the seven interrogations is "in which hour did it happen," which we invalidate the testimony if one says that he doesn't know, since you need it to be a testimony that can be disproved (and without the hour, other witnesses can't testify that you were someplace else at the time); the disproving witnesses must testify that the original witnesses were with them in another place for the whole time that they could have been mistaken for the time. Therefore, according to R' Meir, they need to testify that they saw them from the first hour until the fifth hour. Really, they should need to testify before the first hour since it's within two hours of the first time, but people don't mistake night from day. According to R' Yehuda, they need to testify from the beginning of the day until the end of the sixth hour. Really, they should need to testify before the first hour since it's within three hours of the first time, but people don't mistake night from day. Also, they should need to testify after the sixth hour since it's within three hours of the second time, but people don't mistake between the fifth hour and the seventh, since the sun is in the east by the fifth hour, and in the west by the seventh hour. [Tosfos says: you can't say that the disproving witnesses made a mistake and they only thought that they saw them in five hours in the day, but it was really four hours, since we never assign a mistake to two witnesses, like we said earlier.]

95) [Tosfos asks: why did the Torah obligate witnesses to say which day of the week? After all, he anyhow has to say which day of the month, and from that we should know the day of the week. Even if he reverses what he said and says a different day of the week, it's like he never said it since he can't reverse his testimony.

We must answer: it's a Gezeiras Hakasuv that the witnesses can't contradict by all seven interrogations, and even if they got the right day of the month together, if one messes up on the day of the week, it invalidates the testimony. Alternatively, like we said earlier, it helps to keep the testimony valid if one says a date that's off one day from the other.]

96) The Gemara asks: according to Abaya who holds, according to R' Meir that someone only mistakes nothing, or a second, we should allow Chametz until right before noon [Tosfos: not exactly, since you need to give some time before noon to destroy the Chametz.]. According to R' Yehuda that he mistakes a half hour, or a little bit more than an hour, we should allow Chametz at a half hour, or hour before noon. Abaya answers: we only say that witnesses don't make such a mistake, since you must be zealous to be a witness, but regular people who need to refrain from Chametz may make a larger mistake of time.

97) The Gemara asks: according to Rava, who holds, according to R' Meir that someone mistakes two hours and a bit, we should forbid Chametz at the beginning of the fifth hour, and he allowed until the end of the fifth hour. The Gemara answers: since in the afternoon, when Chametz is forbidden from the Torah, the sun is in the west, and the sun is in the east at the beginning of the fifth hour. The Gemara asks: if so, the same should be true at the end of the fifth hour. The Gemara answers: since the sun is at its turning point, the east and the west is not so recognizable. [Tosfos points out: this can't be correct to Abaya who says in his first version that R' Yehuda says someone mistakes a half an hour. After all, why would it make the witnesses invalid if one said it was on the fifth hour and the other said it was on the seventh? After all, we can say the one who said five, meant at the end of the fifth and the one who said seven was the beginning of the seventh and it happened at six and a half hours, and since the sun is at its turning point, it's not noticeable if it's in the east or west. Alternatively, we can say it's even like Abaya, and witnesses are different since they're zealous, so they must be able to recognize when the sun is in the east or west, even when it's by its turning point.]

98) The Gemara asks: according to Rava according to R' Yehuda that he mistakes three hours, we shouldn't allow Chametz from the beginning of the fourth hour? Abaya answers for Rava: since the sun is in the west by the seventh hour, and the sun is in the east in the end of the fourth hour, so they won't mistake them. However, you can't permit until the end of the fifth hour just because we invalidate witnesses if they testify with one saing the fifth and the other the seventh, since witnesses are different since they're more zealous.

99) Rava himself answers why we can't permit by the end of the fifth hour: we can't rely on the sun to tell us what time it is since we're worried that you'll be lenient by a cloudy day. The reason why we didn't forbid the fourth hour since people will know it's the fourth hour since it's the usual time for their meal. [Tosfos points out: this doesn't help witnesses to know when the fourth hour is, since people only notice it when it comes to eating, like by Chametz.]

100) However, you can't answer that R' Yehuda is consistent to his opinion that you only could burn Chametz (and not get rid of it any other way) and therefore you need more time to forbid Chametz to gather wood to burn the Chametz. After all, that's only by the time of burning [Rashi: when people burn it, before the sixth hour] but not if it's not the time of burning [Rashi: after the sixth hour, so you don't need to gather wood if you can just wait until the sixth hour to burn it. However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, how can you say that R' Yehuda would hold to wait until after six hours to destroy it if he has a problem even to search for it after that time since he'll might come to eat it. Also, he learns that you must burn it from Nosar, and you only burn Nosar after it becomes Nosar. So too Chametz, you would only need to burn it after it becomes forbidden. Rather, you need to burn it at the time of destroying, i.e., after six hours, when the Torah obligates to destroy it. However, if it's not that time yet, but it's the time the Rabanan instruct you to destroy it, you don't need to burn it.]

101) We only say that the witnesses are not invalid when saying different times if they disagree on the hour, but when they disagree if it happened before or after sunrise, their testimony is invalid. If one said it was before sunrise and the other said it was at sunrise, it's invalid, and we don't say that it was very clear and he thought it was sunrise, but it was only sun rays that he saw.

Daf 13

102) R' Nachman quotes Rav: the Halacha is like R' Yehuda that you can't eat Chametz after four hours. [Tosfos explains: although there is an unnamed Mishna like R' Gamliel in the beginning of the second Perek]; but he relies on a Braisa that R' Elazar b. Yehuda quotes R' Yehoshua that if the fourteenth of Nissan falls on Shabbos, you burn the Trumah Chametz altogether, whether it's Tahor, Tamai, or Safeik Tamai. [Tosfos explains: there is no problem here to burn Trumah Tahor (which should not be necessary just because it's Chametz, since you could Mevatel it) since it can't be eaten anymore, there's no prohibition to burn it. This is just like there is no prohibition to make them Tamai and we burn Tumah and Tahor Trumah all together.] However, you leave over from the Trumah Tahora enough food for two meals to eat before the fourth hour of the day (like R' Yehuda) [Tosfos adds: and of course you can leave over from regular Chulin that amount.]

103) However the Rabanan say not to burn the Tahoros, (although you know that no one in town can eat it, since you already tried to give it away), since you might find someone who spent Friday night outside the city, and he'll come into the city Shabbos morning and may eat it. However, you shouldn't save the Safeik Tamai ones on the possibility that Eliyahu Hanavi will come the next day (to announce Moshiach's coming) and he might say that these loaves of Trumah are really Tahor and you can eat it; since we have a tradition that he won't come Erev Shabbos or Yom Tov because people are busy getting ready for Shabbos and they can't do it properly if they must go out to greet Eliyahu. [See Eiruvin 43b in Tosfos that explains our Gemara, although it's on Shabbos and you can't prepare for Yom Tov, but he can't come before the meal on Shabbos and Yom Tov (just like he can't come on the day before) since they're busy setting up for the Shabbos meal.]

104) The Gemara pushes off the proof, since we might have only Paskined like R' Elazar b. Yehuda regarding burning Tahoros but not regarding the fourth hour.

105) There was a story with Rebbi who forbade someone who had Chametz given to him to watch to sell it until the fifth hour in the day. Originally they wanted to say that he could sell it to a Jew, since he can eat it then and it shows he holds like R' Meir. However, the Gemara concludes that we had a tradition that he said to sell it to a non-Jew only, like R' Yehuda, since it's forbidden for a Jew to eat it.

106) According to what we thought originally that Rebbi said to sell it to a Jew, the reason why he didn't allow him to buy off the Chametz, so that the watchman should be free from any suspicion (that he gave himself a good price in self interest). This is the same reason why the caretaker of Tzedaka needs to exchange the collected Prutos (for silver coins) with others, and can't exchange it for themselves (since they may give themselves a better exchange rate). Also, the caretaker of the food distribution to the poor need to sell their leftovers to others, and can't buy it for themselves. [Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi that he needs to sell it in Beis Din, and even so, he can't sell it to himself. Although the Gemara in Kesuvos implies that a widow that's selling her husband's property to pay for her food could buy it herself if it was in Beis Din; we're more lenient by wives since the rabbis enacted such an allowance for wives to show importance, so that they would be important in their husbands' eyes.

Although we allow someone who was given to watch orphans' items, if they need to be sold, he can buy it in Beis Din; that's only B'dieved, if he bought it, but he can't buy it L'chatchila. Alternatively, since the Beis Din handed it to him to watch, they can allow him to buy it. However, when the owner hands it over, we must be more stringent.

Also, we say that someone who found a lost object, when it needs selling, may buy it. After all, we don't suspect him of him keeping what he shouldn't since he's honest enough to return the object.]

107) That, which Rebbi told him to sell the Chametz, it doesn't mean that he held like R' Shimon b. Gamliel that, if you give over fruits to a person to watch and it's starts losing volume (do to rot etc.) you sell them (and the Rabanan say that you can't touch them.) After all, the argument is only if it's normal loss [Rashi explains: how much it's expected to lose. Tosfos asks: if so, since it's expected, what's the reason of R' Shimon b. Gamliel to sell it? Rather, Tosfos explains: that it lost in a month more than it's expected to lose over a year.] However, if it loses even more than that [what's expected to be lost in a year or more], the Rabanan agree that you need to sell it, and of course this applies by Chametz when it will be completely lost.

108) R' Yehuda says that they brought two loaves that were invalid Menachos and placed it upon the roof above a platform by the Mikdash on Erev Pesach. When it's still permitted to eat, both of them were out there. When it became forbidden to eat, they removed one of them. When it became time to burn the Chametz, they removed both of them.

109) The reason they always had invalid loaves on Erev Pesach: R' Chanina says because they couldn't bring a Toda on Pesach, because of the Chametz, and not on Erev Pesach, since you don't have the whole prescribed time to eat the Chametz loaves, you're causing Kodshim to become Pasul (and Nosar). Therefore, everyone brought it the day before, and there were too much of them to get eaten, so many were left over overnight and became invalid.

110) You can't say the reason is: since there are many Korbanos Todah that were designated by saying "this is my Todah and this is its bread," which, if the Todah gets lost, the bread is invalid with it and can't be used for its replacement, since it was designated to be secondary to the first animal. After all, they could redeem the bread to eat them. [Rashi says that you may use the money to buy a Todah or other breads for the replacement Todah. Tosfos disagrees. After all, if the bread is invalid to be brought, the money is also invalid. Rather, Tosfos answers: the money can be used to buy breads if the original Todah was found. Alternatively, since there is no loss to Hekdesh, you can redeem all of it on a Prutah no matter how much it's worth.]

111) R' Ada b. Ahava answers differently. [Tosfos explains why he held that R' Chanina's answer, (that there was too many Todahs then, so some must have been left over), was difficult, and that's why he needs to come up with a new answer: since there were so many people who came to Yerushalayim who were eligible to eat them, since they're fit for Yisraelim, they were probably all eaten.] Rather, we can say that since [Tosfos: there are many Todahs brought then, and probably] the blood of one of them spilled, which Rebbi held (by the breads that were brought on Shvuos) that it's enough to make the breads Kodesh that it becomes invalid if ever taken out, and you can never redeem them and it can't be eaten. [Tosfos says: even according to the opinion that it's Kodesh that a redemption takes effect; it's not that the redemption permits the bread, but it just makes the money also forbidden.] (However, R' Elazar b. R' Shimon holds that the bread is never Kodesh unless the Todah is Shected and its blood sprinkled L'shma.)

112) Alternatively, we can say it's like R' Elazar b. R' Shimon. We refer to a case where the Kohein first caught the blood in a utensil. At that point, it was designated to sprinkle on the Mizbeach, which, in some regard, we view it as if it's sprinkled, and then it was spilled. [Tosfos explains: although we said that it's not Kodesh if it's sprinkled not L'shma even though it was designated to be sprinkled correctly; we must say, regarding making a different item (like the bread of the Todah) Kodesh, the sprinkling not L'shma is worse than not sprinkling at all, and you made it retroactively not being designated to be sprinkled L'shma by showing that it was never really designated to sprinkle L'shma. However, regarding the animal itself, it's still considered as if it was sprinkled regularly, and that's why when someone makes a sprinkling with a Pigul thought, it's considered as if it was sprinkled regularly to make the meat have a status of food in order for it to be susceptible to being Tamai like all foods.]

113) We have a Braisa: R' Eliezer says that the loaves (that were left out to show when Chametz is forbidden) were still valid. [Tosfos: this, which they waited until the time it becomes forbidden and can't be eaten; we must say that he held like R' Gamliel that you can eat Kodshim the whole fifth hour,and you take down the second one right before the end of the fifth hour and eat it.]

Daf 14

114) Abba Shaul says that the sign was with two plowing oxen. [Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi: if Yerushalayim was a place where they didn't do work on the fourteenth in the morning; i.e., since many people come from all over and some have this custom, they should be stringent to forbid work for everyone; we must say that they weren't actually plowing, but just lookeded like they're plowing.]

115) R' Chanina, second in command to the Kohanim, testified: the Kohanim never avoided burning meat that became Tamai with a Sheini (i.e., a Shlishi) together with meat that became Tamai with an Av Hatumah (i.e., a Rishon) even though it made the Shlishi into a Sheini. [Tosfos says: according to the opinion that food can make other food Tamai from the Torah, and according to the opinion that this Sheini became Tamai through liquid, and R' Meir will hold that it only makes it rabbinically Tamai; we could have established this case that the food is a Sheini, but it's only rabbinically a Sheini, and now that it will touch a Rishon food, it will become a Sheini from the Torah.]

116) Although we find that food doesn't make other food Tamai, it fits well according to Abaya since he holds that's only by Chulin, but by Trumah and Kodshim it does apply. It also fits well according to R' Ada b. Ahava quoting Rava that, although it doesn't make Trumah Tamai, it does make Kodshim Tamai. However, according to Raveina quoting Rava that it doesn't even make Kodshim Tamai, we must say that it does make it rabbinically Tamai.

117) If there is liquid on one of the pieces, it will make Tamai the second piece even if it can't make other foods Tamai without liquid. [Tosfos says: from here we see that liquids make other items Tamai with less than a Revious. The same we see later that a puddle on the floor less than a Revious can make other items Tamai. However, we say that Yayin Nesech only makes Tamai if it's a Revious. The same applies to greenish (menstrual) blood. We must say that it's only a rabbinical concept that those items are Tamai, therefore we can be lenient. R' Tam says that all liquids need a Revious to make something Tamai from the Torah, but here, we're saying that it will only rabbinically make the meat Tamai with the liquid. Our Gemara is saying: even if food didn't make other foods Tamai even rabbinically, this meat will rabbinically make the other piece of meat Tamai because of the liquid.]

118) R' Akiva adds: the Kohanim didn't avoid burning oil that touched a Tvul Yom, which is a Shlishi, in a metal lamp that touched a person that touched a dead body, and since metal that touches the corpse is like the corpse, and if it touches a person that touched a corpse, it becomes an Av Hatumah like the person, so it will make the oil from a Shlishi into a Rishon. We must say that R' Akiva held that liquid makes other food Tamai from the Torah. After all, if it only becomes Tamai from the Torah, but can't transmit it, then he didn't add on any Tumah. After all, it was Tamai already that couldn't be transferred further (when touched by the Tvul Yom). If you will say that it became rabbinically a stronger Tumah that it's now a Rishon; if so, why say that it touched an Av Hatumah? After all, rabbinically, liquids become a Rishon when it touches any level of Tumah that makes Trumah forbidden to eat, even a Rishon and Sheini (except for a Tvul Yom). Rather, we must say that it makes other food Tamai from the Torah.

119) [Tosfos says: from here, it seems that oil is considered a 'drinkable' liquid that will become a Rishon when it touches a Sheini. Although we Paskin in Menachos like R' Shimon Shezuri who holds that only wine becomes a Rishon, but not oil (and R' Meir holds even oil and the Chachumim say even honey); that only refers to liquids that congealed and then melted. However, before ever congealing, oil has the status of a liquid.]

120) [Tosfos says; it seems from here that we say that, if a Tvul Yom touches Trumah, it itself is Tamai but it doesn't make anything else Tamai, even Kodshim; and we also see from many other places in Shas that the Trumah that a T'vul Yom touches doesn't make Kodshim that touches it a Rivee. However, why don't we use the same Kal V'chomer why we say a Shlishi makes a Rivee by Kodshim? After all, we can say that a Tamai (who became Tahor) that didn't bring his Korban, although he doesn't Pasul Trumah, he Pasuls Kodshim; Shlishi that's Pasul in Trumah should make a Rivee in Kodshim. So too, a Tvul Yom that touches Trumah Pasuls it, so it should also Pasul Kodshim.

If you want to say that there is some Drasha to exclude a T'vul Yom from it, we should use that as a disproof to the Kal V'chomer, and say; perhaps a Shlishi doesn't make a Rivee, since a Tvul Yom also Pasuls Trumah and it doesn't make a Rivee.]

121) R' Meir says: "from their words" we learn that you can burn Trumah Tahor and Trumah Tamai together Erev Pesach. However, R' Yossi says that it's not a true comparison.

122) We can't say that R' Meir refers to the words of R' Chanina Sagan Hakohanim and R' Akiva if they refer to Torah Tumos. After all, that's just making things that already Tamai more Tamai, but this is something completely Tahor being put along with something Tamai. We refer to burning within the sixth hour when the Chametz is only rabbinically forbidden, so you're making something that's forbidden Midarabanan into something forbidden from the Torah. [Tosfos adds: we don't want to establish R' Meir as referring to burning it during the seventh hour (and R' Yossi who argues will hold that we don't compare an Issur to Tumah); since we always refer to burning during the sixth hour when everyone practically burnt it (since the rabbis obligated to burn it then).]

123) [Tosfos says: this is according to the opinion that food can't make other food Tamai (without liquids), and the Trumah being burned together Erev Pesach will only make the Tahor Chametz Tamai from the Rabanan, so you're making a rabbinical prohibition more rabbinically prohibited by making it also rabbincially Tamai, and this should be comparable to making a food that's Tamai from the Torah a stronger Tumah. After all, they're not comparable; since we can't say that by allowing to make something that's Tamai from the Torah a stronger Tumah (which is already at a pinnacle of prohibition) we'll allow a rabbinical prohibition top become more rabbinically prohibited (since it might be adding to make it more prohibited).]

Daf 15

124) Reish Lakish quotes Bar Kapara: he's referring to the words from the argument between R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua.

125) To explain Reish Lakish, we can't say it's the following argument: if you have a barrel of Trumah that gets a Safeik Tumah. [Rashi explains:a Tamai person entered a house and we don't know if he touched it. Tosfos disagrees. After all, if it's in a Reshus Harabim, we should say that the Safeik is Tamai, and if it's in a Reshus Harabim, we should say that the Safeik is Tahor. Rather, we must refer to a case where the Tamai person touched one out of two barrels. This will remain a Safeik in a Reshus Hayachid. After all, we only say a Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Hayachid is Tamai when it's similar to a Sotah where all the Sfeikos could be truly Tamai, but here, both barrels can't be Tamai. This is like we say that if witnesses say that one of two Nazirs became Tamai in a Reshus Hayachid, but we didn't see which one, they bring together a set of Tamai Nazir Korbanos and a set of Tahor Nazor Korbanos. We don't say because of a Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Hayachid that they both bring Tamai Nazir Korbanos, since they both can't be Tamai.] R' Eliezer says; if it's in an open place or the barrel is open, you must put it in a safe place and cover it to preserve it. However, R' Yehoshua says that you may take it from a safe place and put it in an open space. If it's covered, you can uncover it (since it doesn't make a difference if it gets Tamai, since you can't use it anyhow).

After all, we only see that R' Yehoshua there allows indirectly causing its Tumah but we don't see that he allows to actively make it not fit, like here where he allows placing the Tahor next to the Tamai.

126) Rather, we must say it's the following argument: if a barrel of Trumah broke from on top, and underneath it is Chulin Tamai (and if it would fall in it, it's forbidden to eat). If it's possible to save a Revious of the Trumah in a Tahor utensil, you can't make it Tamai by catching the whole Trumah in a big Tamai utensil. However, if it's impossible to save a Revious of Trumah with a Tahor utensil; R' Eliezer still forbids catching the Trumah with a Tamai utensil to save the Chulin below since you're actively making the Trumah Tamai. However, R' Yehoshua allows it since the Trumah is anyhow heading to become Tamai by falling into the Tamai wine below.

127) R' Yossi who argues and says that there is no comparison holds that R' Yehoshua only allows it there where it would be a great loss if it fell into the Chulin wine. However, here, by burning Trumah, it will only cause a minor loss if they're burned separately, since you only need to supply wood for a second fire, even R' Yehoshua would forbid to make it Tamai.

128) [Tosfos says: according to Reish Lakish: if he holds that food can't make other food Tamai, the only way that this food ever becomes a Shlishi is through liquid. (You can't say that it becomes Tamai through wood and frankincense which can become Tamai by Kodshim, since Reish Lakish has an unresolved inquiry if it works with the same Rishon, Sheini and Shlishi, or it just becomes Pasul and can't make anything else Tamai.) Therefore, we can ask: how can you be adding Tumah to food by touching other foods? After all, if we're referring to the Torah level, then it never becomes Tamai, since one food can't make the other Tamai. If we're referring to the rabbinical level, the most it would make it is a Shieni, and it's anyhow a Sheini because it touched Tamai liquid. Tosfos answers: we must refer to the time before they enacted that anything that liquids touch and becomes Tamai always become a Rishon.]

129) R' Yochanan says that R' Chanina Segan Hakohanim refers to Tumah Drabanan and R' Meir learns Chametz from there. [Rashi entertains the idea in the Gemara's original assumption: the Tumah Drabanan is by liquid that made a utensil Tamai. R' Yossi would disagree since you can't learn Issur Chametz from Tumah. Tosfos disagrees since, in that case, they enacted that you can't burn the food right away but you need to wait until it "changes its form" (i.e., assuming the definition is that you need to wait until it's Nosar), and by that time you need to burn it anyway by being Nosar, (unless you change its definition that you burn it after it's left overnight, whether it becomes Nosar or not). Rather, Tosfos explains it like R' Yirmiya eventually explains in the Gemara's conclusion: we refers to meat that touched Tamai liquid with meat that's a Rishon and R' Meir holds that liquid doesn't make food Tumah from the Torah. R' Yossi argues and says that it does make it Tamai from the Torah, so you can't learn Chametz Drabanan from Tumah from the Torah.

This explanation for R' Meir fits well according to the one who holds food make other foods Tamai from the Torah, so, just like you can make Tumah Drabanan into Tumah from the Torah, so too you can make Issur into Tumah from the Torah. Although we said that you can't compare a Pasul becoming a Sheini to a Sheini becoming a Rishon, and we assume that an Issur has the same level of something Pasul (that becomes Tamai, but can't make other items Tamai like a Shlishi), but we don't want to make that distinction by Tumah Drabanan.

However, Tosfos asks: this doesn't fit so well according to the one who holds that food doesn't make other foods Tamai from the Torah. Although you might say that there is nothing to extrapolate. After all, if Issur is not comparable to Tumah, you can't extrapolate it at all. And if you want to logically compare Issur to Tumah, it should be obvious that you can make an Issur into a Sheini, since they're comparable. Mahrsha: although we say that the Issur is like a Pasul (Shlishi) and we're making it into a Sheini; since they're all Tumah Drabanan, they didn't think it is a Chidush to allow making it into a Sheini.

Tosfos answers(See Malei Harayim): from R' Chanina, we learn that you can make a Tamai Drabanan a worse Tumah. However, you can't extrapolate Issur since Issur is not similar to Tamai, but only to a Pasul. However, since R' Akiva says that a Pasul from the Torah can become more Tamai from the Torah, we see that an Issur can become Tamai, but we only know that for an Issur Torah and not by a Rabanan. However, once we see that R' Chanina says that you can make a Tumah Drabanan worse, we shouldn't differentiate, but we say that a Pasul can also be made worse just like R' Akiva held by Torah Tumah.]

130) [Tosfos asks: according to this, that R' Chanina allows to make a Tamai Drabanan into a Tumah from the Torah, then R' Chanina is more lenient than R' Akiva (that only allows a Tvul Yom that's from the Torah to become a stronger Tumah Torah), and the Mishna seems to say that R' Akiva is adding a leniency to R' Chanina. Tosfos brings the Yerushalmi that answers: R' Akiva refers to a Tvul Yom from a Tumah Drabanan, like a Beis Hapras, so it's also a Drabanan turning into a Torah Tumah.]

131) R' Yossi who says it's not a comparison holds that liquid makes other items Tamai from the Torah, therefore, there is no proof that you can make a rabbinical prohibition into a Torah Tumah. [Tosfos says: even though R' Yossi says later on that liquid doesn't make other items Tamai from the Torah, we must say that they argue with what R' Akiva their Rebbi held, but that may not be R' Yossi's own opinion. So, R' Meir holds that R' Akiva held that liquid doesn't make others Tamai. Therefore, he couldn't be explaining the Pasuk the liquid makes others Tamai as actually making them Tamai, but only making them Muchsher so that they can be susceptible to Tumah. If so, that which R' Akiva held that the liquid itself can become Tamai must be learned from the fact that he learns that a Sheini can become a Shlishi by Chulin. The only way that could happen is through food touching liquid, because it can't be by food touching food since we say that everyone holds that food can't make other Chulin foods Tamai from the Torah.]

132) [Tosfos asks; according to the opinion that no food can make any other food Tamai from the Torah, how, according to R' Yossi, does a piece of meat Rishon make a meat that's a Shlishi extra Tamai? After all, the only way it's a Shlishi from the Torah is that the Rishon touches liquid which touch the meat. Therefore, the Rishon meat can't make the Shlishi meat anymore Tamai from the Torah, since food can't make other foods Tamai from the Torah. If we're saying it makes it extra rabbinically Tamai, that can't be true either. After all, the rabbis enacted that all meat that touched liquid is a Sheini, so it's already a Sheini.

Tosfos answers: we must say that this was said before they enacted that all liquids that become Tamai are automatically a Rishon. Alternatively, we'll say that it became Tamai by Kodshim by touching wood and frankincense, and according to the side of the inquiry that it does get a status of a Rishon and Sheini, (and not that it's just Pasul, but can't transmit any Tumah).

133) However, R' Yossi admits that you can burn Chametz at the seventh hour with Tumah since it's already forbidden to eat from the Torah, so it's like it's already destroyed.

Daf 16

134) R' Eliezer holds like R' Meir that liquid doesn't make other items Tamai from the Torah. Therefore, he holds that if you have a Safeik whether the liquid itself became Tamai, you need to be stringent and treat it as being Tamai. However, if it's a Safeik whether it made another item Tamai, we assume it to be Tahor, since it's a Safeik Drabanan.

135) However, R' Eliezer seems to contradict himself, since he says that Yossi b. Yoeizer testified that the liquid in the Mikdash's butchering area is Tahor since liquid is Tahor from the Torah and they didn't enact to make it Tamai in the MIkdash, but only by Chulin. However, this fits well to Shmuel who says that he's only saying that it didn't make others Tamai, but the liquid itself became Tamai since it's from the Torah; but it's difficult according to Rav that says even the liquid doesn't become Tamai.

136) We need two Psukim to say that liquid is Machsher food; one to say that water that's not on the ground is Machsher, and one to say that a body of water that's on the ground is Machsher [Tosfos points out: after it leaves the body of water, but while it's still attached to the ground, it doesn't Machsher.] After all, perhaps detached water is better since you show its importance by detaching it, and perhaps attached water is better since it's in its natural position.

137) Although we see that R' Yossi b. Chanina says that the liquid in the Mikdash's butchering area doesn't Machsher, and we just said that detached water is Machsher from the Torah; we must say that R' Yossi b. Chanina only refers to blood. After all, blood is Machsher because of the Pasuk "blood that spills on the ground," which can't include Kodshim blood since they're caught in a utensil. Although the last blood that drips out of the Korban is not fit to sprinkle on the Mizbeach and is not caught and should be included in "blood that spills to the ground; but the truth is, that last blood is not Machsher even if it's from Chulin. After all, the Pasuks says: "the blood is the soul," that blood is only what the soul comes out from, but the soul doesn't depart from this last blood since it's already dead.

138) Although we have a Braisa that the Tzitz makes sprinkling Tamai blood accepted to be a fit Korban; which seems to say that the blood can become Tamai; that's only blood that became rabbinically Tamai, and not like R' Yossi b. Yoeizer that says that it doesn't even become rabbinically Tamai in the Mikdash. [Tosfos says: it could have also answered that it's like the opinion that liquids can become Tamai from the Torah.]

The Braisa also says that it makes the meat also acceptable. [Rashi says that it makes the Tamai meat acceptable according to R' Yehoshua who needs the meat to be around when you sprinkle the blood. Tosfos says that it could even be an answer according to R' Eliezer who doesn't need the meat around when the blood is sprinkled, but it makes the meat accepted and somewhat considered fit for a Korban in order that the blood sprinkling that was done with thoughts of Pigul should make the meat prohibited because of Pigul. Also, it takes the meat out of its original status that you can have Meila with it when you have pleasure from it before the sprinkling, and now there won't be any Meila.]

139) That, which the Pasuk says that Ahron, by wearing the Tzitz, makes a Tamai offering accepted; it doesn't necessarily mean that it refers to blood (and be a question to those who say that blood can't be Tamai from the Torah), but it means the Kemitza of a Korban Mincha.

140) When Chaggai was testing the Kohanim, according to Rav's opinion that the Kohanim were wrong for saying the items were Tahor; so, this should prove wine and oil can become Tamai. However, we must say that Rav is consistent to his opinion that they only didn't enact Tumah by the liquid in the butchering area (i.e., blood and water), but not those that are in the area that they keep liquids that are brought on the Mizbeach (i.e., wine and oil).

Daf 17

141) However, Levi held that even the liquids brought on the Mizbeach were Tahor. Although we see in Chaggai's second question that everyone holds that the Kohanim were correct to say that the wine and oil were Tamai; we must say that Levi held like Shmuel that we say that liquids are Tahor from making other items Tamai, but they themselves can become Tamai.

142) Anything that we didn't enact Tumah in the Mikdash, and they were touched by Tumah in the Mikdash, it remains Tahor even after it's taken out of the Mikdash. However, if it became Tamai out of the Mikdash, and then was brought into the MIkdash, it remains Tamai.

143) R' Pappa says; even if liquid is Tamai from the Torah, it's a special Halacha L'moshe M'sinai that it's Tahor in the Mikdash. However he was disproved since Yossi b. Yoeizer brings a proof that it's not Tamai from the Torah since it's Tahor in the MIkdash. Also, we see R' Shimon that says that liquids are Tamai, and make others Tamai from the Torah, and therefore, even a Safeik if it touched food makes them Tamai (but not if it's Safeik if it touched a utensil, since liquids only make utensil rabbinically Tamai), and he holds that the liquids (that are held in a utensil) in the Mikdash is Tamai.

144) However, if it's on the ground, it's Tahor if it's water, but not blood [Tosfos points out that it's only if it's Chulin blood that happens to be in there, or it came from a Pasul Korban. However, if the blood is from a Kosher Korban, it's not Tamai since it's not blood that's spills on the ground. See R' Akiva Eiger who asks: this Pasuk only says that it doesn't Machsher, but it could become Tamai. After all, we said that it fits in well that you need the Tzitz to make it an accepted Korban if the blood became Tamai according to the opinion that liquids can become Tamai from the Torah.] Also, only a Revious of water is Tahor since it's a MIkva from the Torah to Tovel needles and forks. [Tosfos learns from here that a Mikva is Kosher from the Torah even if it was completely made from drawn water (since we didn't differentiate whether this Revious on the floor came from drawn water or not like it differentiated between water and blood.) Also, this is the implication from the Halacha that if you had an empty Mikvah (implying that it was completely empty) that you came back to it and found it to be full, you may assume that the Mikva is Kosher and wasn't filled with drawn water (since it's only a Safeik Drabanan). They only enacted to make a Mikvah Pasul when made from drawn water is to make sure that people don't Toivel in utensils.]

145) [The Ri brings a proof that, although the rabbis enacted that the Revious Mikvah no longer works, they didn't enact that a extremely small spring doesn't work either. After all, the Toras Kohanim says that the smallest spring makes something Tahor even though a Mikvah needs forty Saah. Therefore, it's saying that even though we don't use a Revious Mikvah anymore, we still use the smallest spring. However, it's difficult from the Gemara in Chagiga that says you need forty Saah in one place despite that the land is full of holes (which should connect all the waters in the ground to make it forty Saah) since they're not holes the size of a "waterskin's straw" (which has a diameter of two fingers). The waters are only connected (with the water tables) by a spring, and we still need it to be forty Saah in one place.]

146) R' Yehuda says that even if you have a Safeik Tumah of liquids, even utensils that it touches are Tamai. this seems to say that he holds that the liquid can make the utensil Tamai from the Torah. However, we see that he reversed that opinion. After all, he says that if liquid touches the outside of a utensil, it doesn't make the inside of the utensil, or inside the base, Tamai. (However, if it touches the inside of the utensil it makes the whole utensil Tamai.) This only happens by Tumah Drabanan. This applies even by liquid that touched a Sheretz (and not only by liquid that touches unwatched hands, which is only rabbinic), since the Braisa ends off that only if a Sheretz itself touched the outside of the utensil does the whole utensil become Tamai, implying; but not if water that touched a Sheretz touches the outside.

147) [Tosfos brings that the Tanna Kama says that, even for pillows and blankets covers that could be used inside-out is not completely Tamai if the liquid touches its outside although it could be turned inside-out and that outside would be the inside. However, R' Meir argues and says, since it could be used as the inside, touching it makes the whole utensil Tamai unless you make a hem to the inside, and it can no longer be turned inside-out and used it for the inside (since the hem will be sticking out).]

148) There's an unresolved inquiry whether R' Yehuda completely reversed his opinion and said that Safeik Tamai liquids don't even make food Tamai like R' Meir, or only reverses it regarding utensils, but it makes food Tamai like R' Yossi and R' Shimon.

Daf 18

149) The Gemara says that you can't bring a proof from the Braisa that if a cow drinks the Parah Aduma water, the Tanna Kama says: if you Shecht it afterwards, its meat is Tamai. R' Yehuda says that water gets nulled in the cow's stomach. The Tanna Kama seems to hold, even though this water doesn't have the same strong Tumah like regular Parah Aduma waters and it can't make utensils Tamai, but it still has a weak Tumah that can make meat Tamai. This shows that R' Yehuda holds that it doesn't even make the meat Tamai, and thus he holds that liquid doesn't even make food Tamai. [Rashi explains why we should say that the water is Tamai: since it touched itself when it had the strong Tumah when it was fit for being Parah Adumah water. Tosfos says: since it once was able to make a strong Tumah, we have the rule that, even when it's no longer able to do so, it will remain with a weak Tumah. Although we don't say a piece of meat that came off an Aiver MIn Hachai (i.e., limb that came off a living animal) doesn't have a weak Tumah although the Aiver has a strong Tumah; that's because it wasn't a strong Tumah for being food, (since an Aiver consists of inedible parts, like bones and sinews) so it's like a piece of wood. However, since the Parah Aduma waters need to be fit to drink, it's Tamai for being a drink, therefore, when the strong Tumah is removed, it still has the weak Tumah.]

150) The Gemara explains why it's not a proof: perhaps the whole Braisa is R' Yehuda's opinion, and it's saying that it only has the weak Tumah, but not the strong Tumah since R' Yehuda says that the water gets nulled in the cow's stomach. R' Ashi explains why it's not a proof: here is different since the water becomes disgusting when it goes into the cow's stomach, it's no longer the type of liquid that the Pasuk says becomes Tamai, i.e., "liquids that you drink."

151) [Tosfos says: it seems that it's only nulled when it gets to the cow's stomach, and not just when it's in its mouth. Although we say that if a cow drinks water, it Pasuls it for Parah Adumah water; that only refers to the water before they make it Kodesh by putting in the Parah ashes. It's either because it's as if work was done with the water that Pasuls, or it didn't get into the utensil straight from the flowing spring (but from the cow's mouth). However, after it was Mekadish through the ashes, it's only Pasul when swallowed by the cow since people are not conscience of thinking about it. The Tosefta says the P'sul is that it needs to be watched, and it's no longer watched.]

152) R' Yossi held that R' Akiva held that liquid makes food Tamai from the Torah. Therefore, even a Safeik Tumah makes food Tamai (but it doesn't make utensils Tamai). As we see that R' Akiva Darshens "it shall make Tamai" (that anything the Torah calls Tamai makes others Tamai). Therefore, just like he learns from this that a Sheini makes a Shlishi even by Chulin, he learns that liquid makes food Tamai.

153) However, R' Yossi personally didn't hold of the Drasha (and doesn't necessarily hold that whatever is called Tamai makes other items Tamai). After all, he only knows that a Shlishi makes a Rivee by Kodesh from a Kal V'chomer from someone who was Tamai and still needs to bring a Karbon, that his touch doesn't ruin Trumah, but Pasuls Kodshim; of course, Shlishi that Pasuls Trumah will make Kodshim a Rivee. [Tosfos says that it's just a comparison that someone who didn't bring his Korban is like a Shlishi.] Therefore, if R' Yossi would hold of R' Akiva's Drasha, he would need to say that a Rivee makes a Chamishi by Kodshim [Tosfos: and we should know from the Pasuk that Kodshim would be a Rivee since the Pasuk says that Kodshim that touched Tumah of Chulin is Tamai, and R' Akiva held that Shlishi is Tamai by Chulin.]

154) R' Akiva doesn't hold of R' Yossi's Kal V'chomer (since we can say that the one missing his Korban is an Av Hatumah, and you can't compare it to a Shlishi). Therefore, he would hold that there is a Shlishi by both Chulin and Trumah (since we have a similar Kal V'chomer to say Trumah is above Chulin, and R' Akiva doesn't hold of it) and Kodshim is Rivee; and he doesn't say that Trumah is Rivee and Kodshim could be a Chamishi. [Rashi says that a Rivee is only rabbinical. After all, since it's listed with the special extra Tumah of Kodshim, we can deduce that it's only rabbinical. However, Tosfos argues and says that we find Torah prescribed Tumah in these extra Tumos, like it lists that a utensil combines because of this special stringency by Kodesh, and R' Chonin says later that it's from the Torah. Also, it seems to be a true Drasha (whatever touches Tamai (i.e., Shlishi) is Tamai). Although the Gemara says that those Tumos have no resemblance of Torah Tumos, that only means that they're so far removed from the regular way Tumah functions, we would never dream it would apply to Kodshim if it wasn't for the Torah explicitly telling us it's Tamai.]

155) R' Akiva says that if a Tvul Yom touches some of the flour, spices, and coals of Kodshim in a utensil, it makes all the contents in the utensil Tamai since the utensil combines it to be like one item. However, he seems to say that it's only rabbinically Tamai [Rashi explains: since it refers to frankincense and coals that are not food, which is only rabbinically Tamai. Also, since it's listed with the special extra Tumah of Kodshim, it's only rabbinical. However, Tosfos argues and says that we find Torah prescribed Tumah in these extra Tumos, like that someone who didn't bring his Korban yet makes Kodshim Pasul, and that's from a true Drasha. Also, frankincense and coal of Kodshim also is a Torah Tumah since we have a Drasha for it. Rather, the only reason we know that he meant that it's rabbinically Tamai since he lists it after the Parah's ashes which also combines through the utensil that, if you touch part of the ashes, all the ashes are Tamai, and that's definitely rabbinical. After all, Parah Aduma ashes are not considered to be Kodshim from the Torah. The very fact that he lists regular Kodshim after the Para is to show that it's also only rabbinically Tamai.] This argues with R' Chonin who says that the utensil combines its contents from the Torah.

156) If a needle is found in the meat of a Korban, the meat is Tamai, but the hands and knife that was butchering the meat is Tahor. R' Akiva says: from here we see that they didn't enact Tumah for hands in the Mikdash [Tosfos explains: the enactment that if it touches a Rishon, it becomes a Sheini. They probably made this enactment along when they enacted that regular unwatched hands are Tamai, since touching a Rishon is no worse than that. This is not the Gezeira that any item that Pasuls Trumah (like a Sheini) Pasuls hands too, as the Gemara says in Chagiga.] Although they decreed that utensils should also be Tamai the same time they decreed on the hands (so you can't say that this was taught when they enacted Tumah on the hands and not on the utensils) [Tosfos: although Shlomo originally decreed that hands are Tamai by Kodshim, probably he's referring to the Tumah that was enacted by Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel in the eighteen enactments that was already enacted in R' Akiva's days], the reason it doesn't say that this is proof they didn't enact it in the Mikdash; since there is no liquid here, but only food, it wouldn't make the utensil Tamai even outside the Mikdash with regular Chulin.

157) The Gemara asks; how can the needle be considered Tamai? After all, regular utensils that we don't know its status, which we were stringent to assume that it is Safeik Tumah, they didn't enact it in Yerushalayim. Since this animal is brought as a Korban in Yerushalayim, we should assume that it swallowed the needle there.

Rav answers that you knew it touched someone that touched a corpse, which has the same status as the person it touched and is an Av Hatumah. However it was a Safeik if the hands and knife touched it, and since it's a Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Harabim, it's Tahor. (However, if it would be in a Reshus Hayachid, it would be Tamai, although the knife doesn't have intelligence to ask it if it got Tamai (which is a condition to say Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Hayachid is Tamai), but since the Safeik Tumah came through a human action that has intelligence, we say that the Safeik is Tamai). However, if it would have definitely touched, it would definitely make the person and utensil Tamai since we say that the metal utensil has the same status as the corpse it touches.

R' Yossi b. Aven answers: we refer to a regular utensil that we don't know its status, which we were stringent to assume that it is Safeik Tumah. Although they didn't enact it in Yerushalayim, we must say that it was muzzled the whole time it came in Yerushalayim and it must have swallowed it in a different city.

158) They didn't enact that regular spittle is Tamai in Yerushalayim (like they did in the rest of Eretz Yisrael since it might have came from a Zav) except by the upper market (where the Tamai people gather so that they don't make others Tamai). This is even true if you see a Zav pass in another marketplace, we don't assume that the spittle found there came from that passing Zav.

159) They didn't enact to make utensils that we don't know its status to be Safeik Tamai in Yerushalayim unless it's found leading down to the Mikvah, or it's found on certain side-streets that are close to the Mikvah (since it might have been dropped bringing it to the Mikvah). However, it's not Tamai if found on the path from the Mikvah's exit, or found in the rest of Yerushalayim.

Daf 20

160) That, which we said that the meat becomes Tamai from the needle, we can't say that it was Muchsher from the blood of its Shchita, since blood does not have a Hekish to water (to say that the same way water is Machsher, so too blood is Machsher), but only by blood that spills on the ground, and not Kodshim blood that is caught in a vessel. You can't say it's Muchsher from any liquid in the butchering area since Yossi b. Yoezer says that they don't Machsher. [Tosfos explains; since he holds that detached water doesn't Machsher. As we had two Psukim before ("it shall make Tamai") to teach us that both attached and detached water can be Machsher, but Yossi held that one of them refers to Tumah itself, so there is only one Pasuk to teach us about Hechsher, so he feels it's more probable that it refers to attached waters.] It can't be because it's Kodesh, so anything that's Kodesh can be Tamai (just like wood and frankincense) and you don't need Hechsher either to make it into food; since here we refer to counting it as a Rishon and Sheini, and Reish Lakish has an unresolved inquiry whether you can count this special Tumah of Kodesh as a Rishon or Sheini, or if it just makes it Pasul, but can't make anything else Tamai. [Tosfos asks: if it would be Tamai Rishon and Sheini, what difference does it make that the liquid in the Mikdash's butchering area doesn't Machsher if Kodshim doesn't need Hachsher? Tosfos answers: the practical difference if it will Machsher Chulin that's eaten in the Azarah (so that the Korbanos and Minchos can be eaten when they're almost full).]

161) We need to answer that it got Muchsher when they led the animal through a river and it was still wet when it was Shechted. [Rashi explains: and some of the water must have splashed on the meat after they cut it up. Tosfos asks: if so, the meat got the water on it after it was already detached, and we said that this opinion holds that water only Machshers from the Torah when it's attached. Rather, we must say that the water is Machsher by remaining on the skin from the outside. After all, there is only an argument whether a food can become Muchsher when the water touches a handle of it (like a bone that you would hold to eat meat), but everyone agrees that water on the food's protection, (like the skin that protects the meat), is Muchsher.]

162) If the needle was found in its excrement, even the meat is Tahor. The reason we don't say the needle makes the liquid of the waste Tamai, which could, in turn, make the meat Tamai; R' Ada b. Ahava answers: we're referring to completely solid waste. R' Ashi answers: even if it's liquid waste, it's not susceptible to Tumah because it's disgusting liquid.

162) If you have an earthenware oven full of bread, and a Sheretz entered the airspace, the bread becomes a Sheini from the oven that became a Rishon. We don't view it as if the Tumah of the Sheretz fills the whole airspace of the oven and it's as if it touches the bread and makes them into a Rishon. After all, the Pasuk should have given the case that the earthenware had utensils in it, since they can become a Rishon. The reason the Pasuk only said that there was food in them that can become a Sheini is to tell us that they only become a Sheini.

163) R' Meir holds that, on Erev Pesach, you can burn Tamai Chametz Trumah with Tahor ones. R' Yossi says that you need to burn them separately. R' Shimon forbids burning Tamai and Tahor together, but permits Tamai with Tolin (i.e., Safeik Tumah). [Tosfos decides that this must also be by non-Chametz items. After all, Chametz doesn't help to burn Tamai with Tahor. Rather, we must say that R' Shimon holds it's generally permitted to burn Tolin with Tamai. The reason, according to this, that we call it 'Tolin,' (which means that you don't burn it and you don't eat it); it means that you don't need to burn it, but you may if you want to.]

164) We already said: R' Yehoshua says that you can catch the Trumah Tahorah that's falling into Tamai Chulin in Tamai vessels (if no Tahor vessel is available) so that you don't make the bottom wine undrinkable. R' Yossi says that this is only in a case of a great loss, but you can't burn Tamai Chametz with Tahor Chametz to prevent a small loss of using more wood for two fires. Therefore, you must say that the case of the falling Trumah produce is only about wine that can't be used afterwards at all. However, if it's oil, you should allow it to fall into to Chulin Tamai and you shouldn't actively make it Tamai by catching it in a Tamai utensil, since it's only a small loss if it fell in. Granted, it makes it forbidden to eat, but you can use it to light.

165) Even though the Tamai wine is fit for pouring on dirt floors (to keep down the dust and to give the room a pleasant smell) [Tosfos: although the prescribed way to get rid of Trumah Tamai is to burn it, that's only by items that are flammable. However, if it's not flammable, you bury it, and if it's fit for pouring on the floor, you can pour,] we must say that we're referring to newer wine that's not fit to pour on the floor. Although you can always leave it to become old wine, but we're afraid to allow it to stay around. After all, it will come to make someone stumble by eating from it while waiting for it to become old. The reason you don't need to worry about someone stumbling on the oil to eat from it before it's all used, since you can put it in a disgusting utensil, which people won't eat from. However, you can't do that for the wine since you can't put it in a disgusting place if you want to pour it around for its fragrance.

166) This idea that you can't leave these items around since they might lead to stumbling is a Tannaic argument. After all, Beis Shammai says you need to pour out Tamai Trumah wine at once, but you can't use it a little at a time to keep down the dust. Beis Hillel allows pouring a little at a time to keep down the dust. R' Yishmael b. R' Yossi says that he'll be a middle opinion. If it's in the field, you have to dump it since you might come to stumble before you transport it at home. However if it happened at home, you may keep it to pour it on the floor. If it's newer wine, you need to dump it since you might come to stumble before it becomes old. However, if it's already old, you may keep it to pour it on the floor. The Chachumim say to R' Yishmael: a third opinion can't become a middle opinion. [Rashi explains: since Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel didn't say anything that it applies whether it's new or old, in the field or in the home, they haven't showed that their reason has nothing to do with stumbling, so R' Yishmael is a third opinion that has nothing to do with the first ones. Tosfos says: even if they held that the problem is stumbling, since they didn't say anything that it applies whether it's new or old, in the field or in the home, they haven't showed that they held those to be factors to differentiate at all. However, Tosfos asks: why doesn't the Gemara just answer that we can't take a student as a middle opinion to Paskin like him. Rather, Tosfos says that R' Yishmael is a third generation (from Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel), and that's why he can't be the middle opinion to Paskin like him.]

Daf 21

167) Even if wine is falling, you can only catch it if the bottom one is not a hundred times the Trumah. However, if it is, you can have it drop in, and you can permit the bottom one by just removing enough wine like the amount of Trumah that fell in.

168) R' Eliezer admits that you're allowed to catch the Trumah if only the outside of the utensil is Tamai, since the inside where the wine is caught is Tahor, and we don't need to worry that it will touch the outside of the utensil and make it Tamai.