R. Yochanan holds like Abaye;

Question (R. Yochanan): Here, R. Meir holds that if one holds the smaller food and the larger one will break off, they are considered like one;

Contradiction (Mishnah - R. Meir): If (a food of) Terumah was cut and it is barely attached:

If one picks up the smaller piece and the larger piece comes with it, they are considered like one. (If a Tevul Yom touches either, both are disqualified);

If not, they are like two pieces. (Perhaps R. Yochanan infers this. It is not in our text of the Mishnah.)

(R. Yochanan): Muchlefes ha'Shitah.

Version #1 (Rashi): (This means that regarding Tevul Yom, R. Meir deviates from what he normally holds, that they are like one in either case!)

Question: Perhaps this is not a deviation. R. Meir holds that Tevul Yom is more lenient than other Tum'os!

Version #2 (Tosfos Yom Tov): (Muchlefes ha'Shitah means that we must switch the opinions of R. Meir and R. Yehudah in this Mishnah (Tevul Yom 3:1); R. Meir considers them like one as long as the smaller piece comes with the larger piece (even if the larger does not come with the smaller). Our text in the Mishnayos is like R. Yochanan's revision.)

Question: Why must he switch the opinions? Perhaps R. Meir is lenient only regarding Tevul Yom, but in general, they are like one in either case! (end of Version #2)

Answer: (He cannot say this, because a Beraisa equates them!)

(Beraisa - Rebbi): The law is the same regarding Tevul Yom and all other Tum'os.

Question: Perhaps Rebbi does not distinguish between Tum'os, but R. Meir does!

Answer (R. Oshaya): R. Yochanan meant that according to Rebbi, Muchlefes ha'Shitah.

Answer #3 (to Question 4:b, 127b - Rava): R. Meir holds that a Yad for Tum'ah is also a Yad for Hechsher. R. Shimon holds that it is not.

Answer #4 (Rav Papa): The case is, it was slaughtered before the owner intended to feed it to Nochrim. R. Meir holds that it becomes Huchshar anyway. R. Shimon holds that it does not.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah citing R. Akiva): Chelev of a slaughtered animal receives Tum'as Ochlim if one intended to feed it to a Nochri. It was already Huchshar through Shechitah.

R. Yehudah: You taught to us that if one gathered and rinsed endives, with intent to feed them to animals, and then decided to feed them to people, they are not Mekabel Tum'as Ochlim until they get a second Hechsher!

R. Akiva agreed to R. Yehudah. They need Hechsher after intent.

R. Meir holds like R. Akiva taught initially. R. Shimon holds like his retraction.

Answer #5 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): The case is, some blood spurted on the dangling limb at the beginning of Shechitah. It was wiped off before the second Siman was slaughtered.

R. Meir holds that Shechitah starts with the initial incision (in a Siman) and continues until the end (cutting the majority of the second Siman). The blood that spurted was blood of Shechitah, so it is Machshir the limb;

R. Shimon holds that Shechitah is instantaneous. (Everything until Shechitah is completed is mere preparation for Shechitah.) The blood that spurted was like blood of a wound. It is not Machshir.

Answer #6 (Rav Ashi): R. Meir holds that blood of Shechitah is Machshir. R. Shimon holds that it is not. The Shechitah is Machshir (only what it permits. The limb remains forbidden, so it is not Huchshar.)

Question (Rabah): Can an animal be a Yad for a (dangling) limb while the animal is alive?

This question is unsettled.

(Mishnah): If a cucumber was planted in a flowerpot (without a hole), and it grew outside the pot, (the part outside nurtures from the ground, and the entire plant nurtures from it, therefore) the entire plant is Tahor;

R. Shimon is Metaher only the part outside the pot.

Question (Abaye): According to R. Shimon, is the Tahor part a Yad for the Tamei part?

This question is unsettled.

If one worships half a gourd, that half becomes forbidden.

Version #1 - Question (R. Yirmeyah): Is it (the forbidden half) a Yad for the permitted half (to receive Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, e.g. from a Sheretz?)

Version #2 - Question (R. Yirmeyah): Is it (the permitted half) a Yad for the forbidden half (to transmit the Tum'ah of idolatry)? (end of Version #2)

This question is unsettled.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If a branch of a fig tree was cut, and it is attached only through the bark, the branch is Tahor;

Chachamim say, if the branch can live, it is Tahor. If not, it receives Tum'ah.

Question (Rav Papa): (According to Chachamim) is the tree a Yad for a branch that cannot live?

This question is unsettled.

(Mishnah): If a stone is part of two attached houses and there is Tzara'as on the stone (facing into one of the houses):

If the Kohen rules that they must remove the stone, the entire stone is removed;

If he rules that the house (with Tzara'as) must be destroyed, they cut the stone and destroy only the half belonging to that house.

Question (R. Zeira): Is the Tahor half a Yad for the Tamei half?

This question is unsettled.

(Mishnah): If the animal died...

Question: What is the difference between Ever Min ha'Chai and a limb of a Nevelah?

Answer: Meat that separates from Ever Min ha'Chai is Tahor. Meat that separates from Ever Min ha'Nevelah is Tamei.

Question: What is the source that Ever Min ha'Chai is Tamei?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): It says "v'Chi Yamus Min ha'Behemah... "

Question: We need that for another teaching of Rav Yehudah!

(Rav Yehudah): "V'Chi Yamus Min ha'Behemah... " teaches that some animals have Tum'as Nevelah, and others do not;

This is Metaher a slaughtered Terefah from Tum'as Nevelah.

Answer: Had it said "mi'Behemah," we would learn only one law. Since it says "Min ha'Behemah," we learn both.

Question: (If Min ha'Behemah teaches about Ever Min ha'Chai,) it should teach also that meat that separated from a living animal is Tamei!

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili) Suggestion: Perhaps Basar Min ha'Chai is Tamei!

Rejection (R. Yosi ha'Glili): "V'Chi Yamus Min ha'Behemah" - death is irreversible. Likewise Tum'as Nevelah applies to things that do not grow back.

R. Akiva says, a dead animal had bones and sinews. Similarly, Tum'as Nevelah applies only to things that have bones and sinews;

Rebbi says, a dead animal had meat, bones and sinews. Similarly, Tum'as Nevelah applies only to things that have meat, bones and sinews.

Question: What do R. Akiva and Rebbi argue about?

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: They argue about the knee. (It has bones and sinews, but no meat.)

Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer: They argue about (a limb that had) meat (but now, only the bone and sinews remain).

Question: What do R. Akiva and R. Yosi ha'Glili argue about?

Answer (Rav Papa): They argue about the kidney and upper lip. (They do not grow back, but they have no bones.)

A Beraisa teaches similarly regarding Sheratzim.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili) Suggestion: Perhaps meat that came off a living Sheretz is Tamei!

Rejection (R. Yosi ha'Glili): "B'Mosam" - death is irreversible. Likewise, Tum'as Sheratzim applies to things that do not grow back;

R. Akiva says, a Sheretz has bones and sinews. Similarly, Tum'as Sheratzim applies only to things that have bones and sinews;

Rebbi says, a Sheretz has meat, bones and sinews. Similarly, Tum'as Sheratzim applies only to things that have meat, bones and sinews.

R. Akiva and Rebbi argue about the knee (Rashi; Tosfos - a limb that had meat, and lost it).

Question: What do R. Akiva and R. Yosi ha'Glili argue about?

Answer (Rav Papa): They argue about the kidney and upper lip.

The Tana'im needed to teach about animals and Sheratzim (that Basar Min ha'Chai from them is Tahor);

Had they taught only about animals, one might have thought that Basar Min ha'Chai of animals is Tahor, because their Tum'ah is more lenient (the Shi'ur for Tum'ah is a k'Zayis), but even the volume of a lentil of Sheratzim is Tamei, so Basar Min ha'Chai of them is Tamei.

Had they taught only about Sheratzim, one might have thought that Basar Min ha'Chai of Sheratzim is Tahor, because their Tum'ah is more lenient (they do not have Tum'as Masa), but animals have Tum'as Masa, so Basar Min ha'Chai of them is Tamei.

(Beraisa): If one cut a k'Zayis of meat from Ever Min ha'Chai:

If he later planned to feed it to a Nochri (only then it is Mekabel Tum'ah), it is Tahor (until it will touch Tum'ah. Basar Min ha'Chai is not Metamei like Nevelah);

If he planned to feed it to a Nochri before he cut it, it is Tamei.