1)

(a)We just queried Rav Chanin, who learned 'ha'Kli Metzaref Mah she'Besocho' from the Pasuk "Kaf Achas ...", in that according to Rebbi Akiva, it is only mi'de'Rabanan. Resh Lakish Amar Bar Kapara answers 'Lo Nitzrecha Ela li'Sheyarei Minchah' - meaning that Rav Chanin is referring to the Minchah itself, whose Tziruf Kli is d'Oraisa because it requires a Kli; whereas the Tziruf Kli d'Rabanan of Rebbi Akiva refers to the leftovers of the Minchah, which are eaten by the Kohanim, and which do not require a Kli.

(b)This solves the problem with regard to the flour of the Menachos. Regarding the Ketores and the Levonah, which do not have any leftovers, and which Rebbi Akiva includes in his list of d'Rabanans - Resh Lakish explains that it speaks when the Kli on which they are placed consists of a flat piece of skin which has no sides, and to which Tziruf Kli is only mid'Rabanan, since mid'Oraisa, it only applies when the walls of the vessel extend above its contents.

(c)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba disagrees with Rav Chanin (with regard to Tziruf Kli' being d'Oraisa). According to him - our Mishnah, which includes Tziruf Kli as one of the decrees, is rooted in the testimony of Rebbi Akiva, and there is no such thing as Tziruf Kli d'Oraisa at all.

2)

(a)A Mechusar Kipurim is - permitted to eat Terumah, but forbidden to eat Kodesh.

(b)Rebbi Yosi in a Beraisa, learns ...

1. ... that a Revi'i l'Tum'ah is Pasul l'Kodesh with a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if a Mechusar Kipurim who is permitted to eat Terumah, is forbidden to eat Kodesh (making it Pasul), a Shelishi, who is forbidden to eat Terumah, will certainly make a Revi'i (which is Pasul).

2. ... that a Shelishi is Pasul l'Terumah - because if a Tevul Yom, who is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheni, is forbidden to eat Terumah (making it a Shelishi (Pasul), a Sheni, who is forbidden to eat Ma'aser, will certainly make a Shelishi (Pasul).

3. ... that, by Kodesh, a Shelishi l'Tum'ah is Tamei min ha'Torah (even though by Chulin, the lowest level of Tum'ah is a Sheni) from the Pasuk in Tzav "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel" - because "b'Chol Tamei" could well incorporate a Sheni (since we have learned elsewhere that a Sheni is called Tamei); yet the Torah concludes "Lo Ye'achel.

(c)It is possible to learn a Chumra in a. from b. with a 'Kal va'Chomer' even when the Chumra does not exist in b. itself (e.g. to learn that a Shelishi makes a Revi'i ba'Kodesh from the fact that he is forbidden to eat Terumah, when by Terumah itself there is no Revi'i, only a Shelishi) - according to those who say that if, as a result of 'Dayo ... ', the 'Kal va'Chomer' will be ineffective (to learn only a Shelishi l'Kodesh - which we already know from the Pasuk), we do not apply 'Dayo ... '.

(d)Those who do not learn 'Dayo' even if, as a result, the 'Kal va'Chomer' will be ineffective, answer the Kashya - by pointing out that in reality, the Revi'i ba'Kodesh is actually only a Ma'alah d'Rabanan, so it does not really matter if the Kal va'Chomer is not valid.

3)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that one hand transmits Tum'ah to the other regarding Kodesh. When Rav Shizbi establishes this specifically 'b'Chiburin' - he means that the second hand is only Metamei Kodesh if it touches the Kodesh whilst it is still touching the first one.

(b)The reason for the decree, according to him is - because he might come to touch the Kodesh directly with the Tamei hand.

(c)According to Rav Shizbi - if the Tahor hand touches Kodesh whilst not touching the Tamei one, the Kodesh becomes neither Tamei nor Pasul. It remains Tahor as before.

4)

(a)According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, when the Tamei hand is dry it renders the Tahor hand a Sheni, to make the Kodesh that it touches a Shelishi - Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that it only renders the hand a Shelishi, to make the Kodesh a Revi'i (Pasul, but not Tamei).

(b)Abaye refutes Rav Shizbi's explanation (establishing the Mishnah of one hand rendering the other hand Tamei by 'b'Chiburin'), from the fact that the Beraisa stresses that the hand is dry - because if the reason for the decree was the suspicion that he might touch the Kodesh with the Tamei hand, then what difference would it make whether the Tahor hand was wet or dry?

(c)Consequently, the decree must be just a 'Ma'aleh d'Rabanan', in which case the Tana is coming to teach us that, even though normally, it is only through liquid that a hand becomes Tamei, and here the Tahor hand did not have contact with liquid, Chazal nevertheless declared it Tamei.

5)

(a)According to Resh Lakish, the Tamei hand transmits Tum'ah to the other hand of the same person, but not to someone else's. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Tamei hand transmits Tum'ah to any other Tahor hand, whether it belongs to the same man or to someone else.

(b)The Tamei hand only renders the Tahor one a Shelishi, to make Hekdesh Pasul, but not Tamei.

(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan - it is only the first hand that transmits Tum'ah to the second one; the second hand does not transmit Tum'ah to a third one.

(d)Resh Lakish later concedes to Rebbi Yochanan that the Tamei hand transmits Tum'ah even to someone else's. Rebbi Yochanan derives this from our Mishnah ' ... she'ha'Yad Metam'ah Chavertah l'Kodesh Aval Lo li'Terumah' - which appears to be superfluous, seeing as the Tana has already said 'uv'Kodesh Matbil Shteihen'. He must have therefore added the second phrase to include someone else's hand.

(e)Resh Lakish, cited by Rebbi Yonah ..., subsequently concedes to Rebbi Yochanan that the Tamei hand transmits Tum'ah even to someone else's (to render it Pasul).

6)

(a)We suggest that one hand rendering the other hand Pasul but not Tamei, is a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehoshua and the Chachamim in the Mishnah in Yadayim. Rebbi Yehoshua, who is the more stringent, says there that ...

1. ... whatever renders Terumah Pasul - also renders hands Pasul.

2. ... if a hand that is a Sheni touches a hand that is Tahor - it makes it a Sheni.

(b)Initially, we explain the Chachamim, who say that a Sheni cannot make a Sheni, to mean - that it renders it a Shelishi (like Rebbi Yochanan).

(c)We refute that suggestion however - in alternatively suggesting that disagree with the entire decree. In fact, they hold that one hand does not make the other hand a Shelishi either.

7)

(a)We finally cite a Beraisa, where Rebbi says that one hand renders the other a Sheni to be Metamei Kodesh, but not Terumah. According to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - it renders the Kodesh, Pasul, but not Tamei (like Rebbi Yochanan).

(b)In fact - this is the Machlokes Tana'im that we referred to a little earlier.

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Ochlin Ochlin Neguvin b'Yadayim Meso'avos bi'Terumah Aval Lo ba'Kodesh'. problem Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos in a Beraisa, has with the Mishnah is - that as far as Kodesh is concerned, there is no difference between wet food and dry food ...

(b)... because due to 'Chibas ha'Kodesh', even dry Kodesh food is Muchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah.

(c)To explain how the Kodesh got into the man's mouth without becoming Tamei via his hands, Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos therefore establishes our Mishnah - where either somebody else placed it there or where he did so himself using a spindle or a shuttle (flat wooden vessels which are not subject to Tum'ah).

9)

(a)The person's hands do not render Tamei, the Chulin radish or onion - because hands are not Metamei Chulin ...

(b)... even if it was once wet.

(c)Chazal now decreed eating Kodesh together with the Chulin, in case one comes to touch the Kodesh in one's mouth with one's hands, though they permitted Terumah - which they might have forbidden because, touching it with one's hands will render it Pasul.

(d)The word 'Neguvim' now pertains, not to the Kodesh or the Terumah, but to the Chulin radish or onion. If it would be wet - then the hands would render the liquid a Rishon, which would make the Chulin a Sheni, which in turn, would make the Terumah a Shelishi.

(e)We cannot accept the interpretation of those who say that the Mishnah mentions 'Neguvim' because then, the Chulin is Muchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah' - since as far as Chulin is concerned, irrespective of whether it is Muchar or not, hands do not render Chulin Tamei.

10)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that an Onen and a Mechusar Kipurim, which Chazal instituted - because until then, they were forbidden to eat Kodesh.

11)

(a)When the Tana of our Mishnah writes 'Ne'emanin al Taharas Yayin v'Shemen Kol Yemos ha'Shanah' - he means that if the Am ha'Aretz declared the wine or the oil Hekdesh during the pressing-season, then he is believed the whole year round to say that he guarded it b'Taharah.

(b)This Mishnah lists cases where Terumah is more stringent than Kodesh. In the equivalent case by Terumah - he is only believed to say that it is Tahor during the pressing-season, but not afterwards.

(c)After the wine-pressing season has come to an end - the Am ha'Aretz should keep the barrel of Terumah wine until the following pressing-season, when he will once again be believed.

(d)If the Am ha'Aretz says that he added a Revi'is of wine for the Nesachim to the barrel - then he is believed on the Terumah wine, too.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules - that the Am ha'Aretz is believed on barrels of wine and of oil that are 'Meduma'os' (This will be explained later in the Sugya).

(b)The Tana adds 'and seventy days before the pressing-season begins' - because it is customary to begin Toveling one's vessels for pressing the wine and the oil from then onwards.