Previous daf

1)

(a) Ula disagrees with Rebbi Elazar. He establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehoshua.
How does he explain Rebbi Yehoshua's statement (in the Mishnah in Taharos) 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Terumah'?

(b) Then why did the latter say ' ... al Taharas Terumah'?

(c) And he ascribes Rebbi Elazar's interpretation of our Mishnah, to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's description of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua. First of all, Rebbi Eliezer bases his opinion (that the eater should not be less Tamei than the food that he eats) on a case where the eater becomes even a higher level of Tum'ah than the food that he ate.
Which case is that?

(d) What does Rebbi Yehoshua counter? Why can we not use Nivlas Of Tahor as an example?

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua then bases his opinion on the fact that the Shi'ur of the food is more stringent than that of the eater.
What is he referring to?

(b) How does Rebbi Eliezer counter that? Why can one not use Shi'urin as an example?

(c) Rebbi Eliezer also queries Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling rendering someone who eats a Sheini, a Sheini (contradicting his initial ruling). How does Rebbi Yehoshua answer that? Where do we find a Sheini that makes a Sheini?

(d) On what grounds does he reject Rebbi Eliezer's reply that, if that is so, he ought to make the eater a Rishon, just like the liquid became a Rishon?

(a) How did Rebbi Eliezer query Rebbi Yehoshua further from his ruling regarding someone who ate a Shelishi?

(b) What did Rebbi Yehoshua reply?

(c) How does this prove that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua's dispute refers exclusively to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah?

(a) On what grounds does Ula then disagree with Rabah bar bar Chanah's version of the Machlokes?

(b) We learned earlier that Ula explains Rebbi Yehoshua's statement 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu ... ' to mean 'Af be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah'.
What degree of Tum'ah will the latter then ascribe to something that touched Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh which is a Shelishi?

(c) How else might Ula explain Ula's version of Rebbi Yehoshua? Why might the latter mention specifically 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah?

5)

(a) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Yanai rules that someone who eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh becomes a Shelishi. Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi from the Mishnah in Taharos that we cited earlier 'Shelishi Sheini le'Kodesh ve'Ein Sheini li'Terumah'.
How does the Mishnah end? What is then Rebbi Zeira's Kashya from there?

(b) Rebbi Asi answers 'Lo Miba'i ka'Amar' (like Ula answered on the previous Amud), which Rebbi Zeira queried from the Lashon of Rebbi Yehoshua himself 'Af Ani Lo Amarti Ela bi'Terumah', a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan. How do we know that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with that version of Rebbi Yehoshua's statement?

(c) How do we resolve the discrepancy?

(a) What does Ula say about someone who eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah?

(b) We query this from the Mishnah in Taharos 'Shelishi, Sheini le'Kodesh, ve'Ein Sheini li'Terumah, be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah'.
What do we extrapolate from 've'Ein Sheini li'Terumah', that poses a Kashya on Ula?

(c) How do we suggest amending the inference, to answer the Kashya?

(d) Why does the Tana then say 'Ein Sheini bi'Terumah'?

(a) According to Ula's current statement, when does Rebbi Yehoshua hold that we do not give the eater the same degree of Tum'ah as the food?

(b) Rav Hamnuna queries Ula from a Mishnah in Taharos. The Tana rules there 'ha'Rishon she'be'Chulin Tamei u'Metamei'.
What does he say about a Sheini?

(a) The Tana concludes 've'ha'Shelishi Ne'echal bi'Nezid ha'Dema.
What is 'Nezid ha'Dema'?

(b) What problem does Rav Hamnuna now have with Ula from there?

(c) How does Ula answer the Kashya? Why is Nezid ha'Dema different?

(d) What is the significance of the Shi'ur of 'less than a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras'?

(a) According to what we just said, why does the Tana not permit eating a Rishon and Sheini too, bi'Nezid ha'Dema?

(b) What problem do we have with Ula's answer (which explains why it is permitted to eat the Terumah), based on ...

1. ... the Pasuk in Shemini "Al Titam'u be'Chol Eileh, Ve'nitmeisem Bam"?
2. ... the Lashon of Rav Hamnuna's Kashya 'Safinan Leih Midi de'Pasil Leih le'Gufo'?

(c) How do we therefore revise our interpretation of the Mishnah? What does 'Nezid ha'Dema' now mean?

(d) And how will we now interpret the Ula's answer 'Hanach li'Nezid ha'Dema ... '?

Next daf