(R. Yonason): If one eats Terumah that is a Shelishi, he becomes disqualified to eat Terumah, but may touch it.

We need to hear both laws (Ula's and R. Yonason's);

Had we heard only Ula's law, one might have thought that one who eats a Shelishi of Chulin Al Taharas Terumah becomes disqualified to eat Terumah, but he may touch it, but one who eats a Shelishi of Terumah may not even touch Terumah;

Had we heard only R. Yonason's law, one might have thought that one who eats a Shelishi of Terumah is disqualified to eat Terumah, but one who eats such Chulin Al Taharas Terumah may eat it.

(R. Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa): One who ate a Shelishi of Chulin Al Taharas Kodesh, may eat Kodesh, for a Revi'i (fourth-degree) l'Tumah of Kodesh can only come from a Shelishi of Kodesh.

Question (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah): If one eats a Shelishi of Chulin Al Taharas Terumah, he becomes a Sheni regarding Kodesh, but not regarding Terumah.

Even though this Shelishi is not Kodesh, it disqualifies (a person regarding) Kodesh!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): That is because Terumah, even Tehorah, is considered Tamei regarding Kodesh!

(Mishnah): The clothes of a ignoramus are Metamei a Parush (one who eats Chulin in Taharah). The clothes of a Parush are Metamei one who eats Terumah. The clothes of one who eats Terumah are Metamei one who eats Kodesh.

Objection (Rava): One cannot bring a proof from clothing. There, we are considered lest his wife sat on his clothing when she was Nidah. We have no such concern about Peros!

R. Yitzchak holds that the same stringencies apply to Peros.

Question (R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti): We do not have such stringencies about Peros!

(Mishnah): If an ignoramus says 'I put a Revi'is of Kodesh in this Kli', he is believed also about Terumah in the Kli (that it is Tahor).

We do not say that the ignoramus' Terumah is considered Tamei, and it makes the Kodesh Tamei. This refutes R. Yitzchak!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): The law is different when both are in the same Kli. Since he is believed about the Kodesh, he is believed also about the Terumah.

Question (Rav Huna bar Noson - Mishnah): A Sheni of Chulin is Metamei Chulin liquids (makes them a Rishon), and is Posel Terumah foods (solids). A Shelishi (of Chulin Al Taharas Kodesh) is Metamei liquids of Kodesh, and is Posel Kodesh foods.

Answer: Tana'im argue about R. Yitzchak's law. (He holds like Chachamim);

(Beraisa): Chulin Al Taharas Kodesh is like regular Chulin;

R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok says, it is like Terumah. It is Metamei two Kodesh foods (i.e. if it touched one, and that food touched a second Kodesh food), and is Posel a third (if the second food touches a third).

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): The meat is Huchshar due to the Shechitah.

(Rav Asi): R. Shimon holds that Shechitah is Machshir, but blood is not.

Suggestion: The Mishnah supports Rav Asi.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): The meat is Huchshar due to the Shechitah.

(Inference: Shechitah is Machshir the meat, but blood would not be.

Rejection: No. He means that even Shechitah can be Machshir the meat.

Support (for Rav Asi - Beraisa - R. Shimon to Chachamim): Blood is not Machshir. Shechitah is Machshir!

Rejection: He means that not only blood is Machshir, rather, also Shechitah is!

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): Blood of a dead animal (Rashi; Tosfos - person) is not Machshir.

Inference: Blood of Shechitah is Machshir!

Rejection: No, we infer that blood of a corpse (that was killed) is Machshir.

Question: If Dam Shechitah is not Machshir, the Beraisa should teach this, and we would know that all the more so, blood of a corpse is not Machshir!

Answer: It needed to teach about a corpse. If not, we might have thought that there is no difference whether it died naturally or was killed.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): Blood from a wound (Rashi - of an animal; Tosfos - of a person) is not Machshir.

Inference: Dam Shechitah is Machshir!

Rejection: No. Rather, we infer that blood of a corpse (that was killed) is Machshir.

Question: If Dam Shechitah is not Machshir, the Beraisa should teach this, and all the more so blood of a wound is not Machshir!

Answer: It had to teach about a wound. If not, we might have thought that there is no difference if it died fully or partially (i.e. it was only wounded).

Question: Why would R. Shimon say that blood of a corpse is Machshir, but not Dam Shechitah?

Just like a verse considers blood of a corpse to be a drink - "he will drink the blood of corpses", also a verse considers Dam Shechitah to be a drink!

"You will pour (the blood) on the ground like water" equates blood to water!

Answer: No, that verse teaches that just like one may benefit from water, also from blood of blemished Korbanos;

One might have thought that just like one may not shear or work with blemished Korbanos, also one may not benefit from their blood. The verse teaches that this is not so.