Proof: If so, liquids of Kodesh that touched a Tevul Yom become a Sheini, and cause impurity to Kodshim in a way that the Kodshim can make other Kodshim into a Revi'i.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara here says that both do not cause others to become impure. (This shows that it cannot be referring to liquids of a Tevul Yom that touch Kodesh which can indeed cause the Kodesh to make other Kodesh impure.)

Proof (cont.): This law regarding the liquids of a Tevul Yom must be according to the retraction of the Mishnah in Nidah (71b). This is as the second part of the Mishnah states, "If some of her spittle or pure blood (i.e. woman who gave birth eight days after having a boy) fell on a loaf of pure Terumah, it is pure."

Proof (cont.): The Gemara states regarding this statement that this is as it says in the Mishnah that the liquids of a Tevul Yom...and each does not cause impurity.

Implied Question: We cannot say that the case of our Gemara is liquids of Chulin that were made with the sanctity of Kodesh. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because they are considered like Chulin according to the retraction of the Mishnah in Nidah (ibid.), and even if they were to touch water they would not make it invalid. Our Mishnah says that it cannot make Kodshim impure, but it does make it invalid. Rather, it must be that our Gemara is discussing liquids of Terumah.

Answer (cont.): When the Gemara says, "they both do not cause impurity" it means that they do not cause impurity to Kodesh. However, it does not even cause Terumah to be invalid, as the Mishnah states that if her spittle or pure blood fell on a loaf of Terumah, the loaf is pure.

Question: Our Gemara implies that a Tevul Yom causes liquids of Kodshim to become impure in order that they can make other Kodesh into a Revi'i.

Question (cont.): If so, how can the Gemara in Pesachim (14a) say the following thought? Rebbi Akiva added that the Kohanim never refrained from lighting the oil that became invalid due to a Tevul Yom with a candle (i.e. a candle holder) that had become impure through contact with a dead person.

Question (cont.): The Gemara explains that this candle refers to a metal candle holder that is like a sword stuck into a dead person, and is therefore an Avi Avos ha'Tumah. This was what Rebbi Akiva's added.

Question (cont.): The Gemara asks, why don't we say Rebbi Akiva was referring to an earthenware candle holder? His added statement to the statement of Rebbi Chanina (in Pesachim ibid.) would be that while Rebbi Chanina said the Kohanim did not refrain from burning the meat (of Kodshim that was a Vlad ha'Tumah together with meat of Kodshim that is an Av ha'Tumah), this was in a case where both were impure. In our case oil made invalid by a Tevul Yom is only invalid, and it is being lit by a candle that is impure!

Question (cont.): Why is this oil made invalid by a Tevul Yom called invalid? Don't we say here that the oil itself would make Kodesh invalid (meaning that it itself is impure)?

Answer #1: The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) is discussing the Torah law of the oil (which is that it would only be invalid), while in our Gemara we are discussing the Rabbinic law.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that the Gemara means there that one makes other Kodesh impure as this is its type, while the other is invalid if it is Terumah (but does not make other Terumah invalid) as this is its type. (This reading of Tosfos is based on the explanation of the Maharam, who says "Posel" should read "Pasul.")

Answer #3: Alternatively, it seems that our Gemara and the Mishnah in Nidah (ibid.) is according to Aba Shaul who says that a Tevul Yom is a Rishon for Kodesh. The opinion of Rebbi Akiva in Pesachim (ibid.) is according to the opinion of the Rabanan in Meilah (8b) who say that a Tevul does not even make Kodesh impure, but rather causes it to become invalid.

Answer #3 (cont.): This is as the Mishnah states that one transgresses using a Chatas ha'Of once it is dedicated. Once Melikah is done to it, it is able to become invalid if touched by a Tevul Yom. The Gemara deduces that this implies it specifically becomes invalid, and does not become impure. This is the opinion of the Rabanan etc.

Answer #3 (cont.): The Beraisa explicitly states (Pesachim 19a) that Rebbi Akiva holds like the Rabanan. Rebbi Akiva added that if a Tevul Yom touches part of the flour, incense, frankincense, or coals he has made all of it (that is in the vessel, even if it is not physically connected to what he touched) invalid. This implies that a Tevul Yom can only cause it to be invalid, not impure.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we say in Sanhedrin (25a) that when Rebbi Yehudah says, "When do we say etc." he is explaining the previous opinion in the Mishnah. However, this is not the case when he makes this comment in a Beraisa (where he is arguing on the previously quoted opinion).

Proof: In all Sefarim, the text states in Eiruvin (81b), "Whenever Rebbi Yehudah says "When do we say etc." in our Mishnah etc." (How can the Gemara establish Rebbi Yehudah is arguing on the Rabanan when in our Mishnah he says, "When etc." showing that he is merely explaining their position?)

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam answers that here the law follows Rebbi Yehudah, as the Mishnah is like him. Even though he is arguing in the Beraisa on the Rabanan, he is indeed explaining in the Mishnah.

Answer #1 (cont.): According to Rami bar Chama, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (25a) implies that Rebbi Yehudah even argues when he says, "When etc." in a Mishnah, if the context indicates he is arguing. In our Gemara it indeed appears he is arguing in the Mishnah, being that he clearly is arguing on the Rabanan in the Beraisa.

Answer #1 (cont.): According to Rebbi Yirmiyah in Gitin (7b, see Tosfos there DH "Omer"), Rebbi Yehudah is coming to argue in the Mishnah when he says "When etc." even if this is not clearly indicated. This is apparent from the discussion there regarding a boat where Rebbi Yirmiyah answers, "This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, and this is the opinion of the Rabanan." Their argument is based on a Mishnah in Chalah (2:2, where Rebbi Yehudah says, "When etc.").

Text: Some Sefarim have the text in the first Beraisa, "And he will cover it - this teaches that one must cover blood that is sprayed and on the wings. Rebbi Yehudah says etc. Another Beraisa states, "And he will cover it - this teaches that one must cover all of the blood. From here they said etc. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says etc."

Answer #2: According to this text, it is possible that the Beraisa is coming to explain. When the Gemara says, "And the Rabanan hold," it is referring to the Rabanan who argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. (Rebbi Yehudah does not argue with the Rabanan according to this text.)

Question: This is difficult. In Bechoros (3a), their logic is the opposite! The Rabanan hold that when the Pasuk says, "Bechor" it indicates that even a partial Bechor is a Bechor. This is why the Pasuk says, "All (of the Bechor)," to teach that it must be a total Bechor. Rebbi Yehudah says that "Bechor" indicates a complete Bechor. "All" indicates even if it is a partial Bechor.

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam says that our Gemara's logic is the same the Gemara in Bechoros (3a). Being that the Pasuk, "Blood" implies all of the blood, Rebbi Yehudah derives from "its blood" that even a small amount of its blood must be covered. The "Vav" of "Damo - its blood" excludes the implication of "Blood" which implies all of the blood. This is similar to the logic in Bechoros where "All" indicates even a partial Bechor.

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam's explanation seems difficult, as the Gemara earlier said that Rebbi Yehudah understands "its blood" as dividing (between a Chayah and Of, showing that even if one of them is slaughtered its blood requires Kisuy), not teaching that even a little bit must be covered.

Question #2: Additionally, Rabeinu Tam's ruling that the law in our Gemara follows Rebbi Yehudah seems to be contradicted from the Gemara in Bechoros (3b). The Gemara there says that nobody agrees with Rebbi Yehudah's opinion that if one is a partner with a Nochri in an animal, the firstborn from the animal is obligated in Bechor.

Answer #2: It therefore seems that we cannot compare two similar derivations made in the Gemara unless the Gemara itself compares those derivations.

Answer #2 (cont.): This is like the derivation "the Besulah - part of the Besulim" which is compared by the Gemara in Kesuvos (97b) to the argument regarding partial money being like all of the money. They are compared because they are similar in nature. When her Besulim are lessened but partially remain intact, it is as if they are left in their entirety. Similarly, when some of the money of a woman's Kesuvah remains uncollected, she is able to collect food from the estate as if she did not collect any of the money.

Answer #2 (cont.): However, "Sheep - implies a partial sheep" which is the subject of an argument between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan cannot be compared to the argument between Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah and the Rabanan regarding "All souls" (see Sanhedrin 78a). It similarly cannot be compared to the argument regarding "five - implies not half of five," (see Bechoros 48b) "And five cattle - not five half cattle" (see Bava Kama 71b).

Answer #3: Another answer is that one cannot ask a contradiction from Rebbi Yehudah's opinion in Bechoros (3a) as specifically in that Pasuk the word "Bechor" connotes a full Bechor. This is because a regular animal discussed by the Pasuk is owned entirely by a Jew.

Answer #3 (cont.): Alternatively, the Pasuk "All Bechor in Yisrael" (Bamidbar 3:13) indicates all animals owned exclusively by Jews. This is as the Gemara in Yevamos (102a) derives, "In Yisrael - unless both his father and mother are Jewish."

Explanation: Rashi explains in Bava Kama (69a) that this is ground brick.

Question: This cannot be the explanation, as in our Mishnah "Leveinah" is also mentioned (separately).

Explanation #2: Rashi here explains this refers to broken pieces of pottery.

Question: This is also difficult, as the Beraisa in the Gemara also mentions this (separately).

Explanation: Raban Shimon is not arguing, but rather making a rule regarding the parameters of this Halachah.

Question: Charsis does not grow anything, as implied in Bava Kama (69a), "A sign is that this is like Charsis, from which one does not benefit."

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that it does grow things. When the Gemara (ibid.) said that one does not benefit from it, it means that it does not grow enough produce to be able to plant the same area next year (see Rashi in Bava Metzia 105a, DH "Ela Im").

Implied Question: There is no proof from the Medrash that says that if it is Charsis, its fruit are thin. (This implies one can grow fruit in Charsis.)

Answer: This is the Medrash itself says that if it is Tzunma, which is similar to Charsis, its fruit are full. Tzunma is not something one grows fruit in, as stated in Pesachim (47b, where Tzunma means very hard land). Rather, the Medrash must be discussing land that is similar to Charsis and Tzunma.

Question: Can't one grow things in metal? The Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (43b) states that Rebbi Yosi says that one should grind the idol and throw it into the wind. They replied to him, it would just become fertilizer. This is referring to an idol made out of metal, as the Gemara there quotes a Pasuk regarding the golden calf in reference to this idol.

Answer #1: It does not grow things by itself, but rather it helps other things to grow by fertilizing them.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam answers that through burning it will grow things, as the Gemara there is referring to burning the idol. Every idol is burned first (according to Rabeinu Tam), just like the golden calf.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one can explain the Klal (rule, in this case, "v'Chisahu" -- "And he will cover it") in one of two ways, either with a vessel or with something that mixes into it, and the Perat (exception "be'Afar" - "with earth") comes and explains the meaning of the Klal.

Proof: Similarly, in Bechoros (19a) the Beraisa states, "From a Klal that requires a Perat, and from a Perat that requires a Klal. What is an example of this type of derivation? Sanctify for Me every firstborn. One might think this means even firstborn females. This is why the Pasuk continues, "male." If the Pasuk would only say, "male" I would think that even if a female was born before him he should be considered a firstborn, as he is the first male born. This is why the Pasuk says, "the one who exits the womb." If the Pasuk would only say, "that exits the womb," I would think that this is even if he is born after the birth of offspring from a Caesarean section. This is why the Pasuk says, "firstborn."

Proof (cont.): "Male" is not an explanation of the rule, as this is a complete Klal and Perat. "Firstborn" is the Klal, and "male" is the Perat, and the Klal is only defined by the Perat.

Proof (cont.): Rather, the Perat of "that exits the womb" explains the Klal. This is because it is possible to explain the Klal "firstborn" in many ways. One could say it means the firstborn of all of the offspring, or the firstborn of the womb even if it is not the firstborn of all of the offspring, for example if it was born through "another womb" from a Caesarean section. It could also mean the first male, even though a female was born naturally before him. The Perat teaches that when a female is born before him he is not called a firstborn. Rather, he must be the first born out of the womb.

Implied Question: Abaye, who says in Bechoros (ibid.) that a firstborn in one category is not considered a firstborn unless he is the first born before all other offspring, still requires the Perat. (Does Abaye hold that the Perat defines the Klal?)

Answer #1: If not for the Perat, I would think that even offspring born through Caesarean section are considered firstborn as they are the firstborn, even though they are not the firstborn through the womb (i.e. naturally).

Answer #2: Alternatively, according to Abaye both the word "firstborn" and "that exits the womb" are a Klal and a Perat. They are each necessary to define the other, and each has an aspect of being a Klal requiring a Perat, and a Perat requiring a Klal. Each does not explain one aspect and explains a different aspect.

Answer #2 (cont.): "Firstborn" implies even a Caesarean, while "that exits the womb" excludes a Caesarean. "That exits the womb" implies even if it was born after offspring was born through a Caesarean birth, and "firstborn" excludes this case.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that in both our Gemara the Gemara in Bechoros (ibid.), the Klal u'Perat is a regular Klal u'Perat. "Firstborn" implies anyway he is a firstborn. The Perat comes to exclude. "And he will cover it" implies whether with a vessel or with earth. The Perat implies specifically with earth.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The reason that this is considered a Klal that needs a Perat is not because of the possibility mentioned in the Beraisa that it is enough to cover it with a vessel. Rather, it is regarding the teaching stated earlier (83b) from "with earth" that one must place earth on top and on bottom. "And he will cover it" implies on top, not on bottom. This is why this Klal is considered needing a Perat.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara in Bechoros (ibid.) is not coming to explain the concept of a Klal that requires a Perat, but rather the concept of a Perat that requires a Klal.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This is as the second part of the Beraisa states, "If it is dependent on exiting the womb, perhaps even offspring that is born after a Caesarean birth should be a firstborn. This is why the Pasuk says, "firstborn."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Beraisa starts out by saying, "From a Klal that requires a Perat, and from a Perat that requires a Klal. What is an example of this type of derivation?" This indicates that it is coming to explain both types of derivations. (How can we say it only proceeds to give an example of a Perat that requires a Klal?)

Answer: The main point of the Beraisa is to teach regarding a Perat that requires a Klal.

Implied Question: This excludes earth from the desert, as we would not know this from the Mishnah. (Why does Rav Nachman have to say this if Raban Shimon ben Gamliel said in the Mishnah that things that do not grow things cannot be used?)

Answer #1: The earth of the desert does have things growing in it of their own accord (and therefore would not necessarily be excluded from the Mishnah). Rav Nachman is teaching that earth that does not grow plants when seeds are planted in it cannot be used.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we would think that the Mishnah would say that one could use it for Kisuy, as it belongs to a type of earth that does grow things (even though it itself does not).

Question: What is Rebbi Yosi's question on the Rabanan in Avodah Zarah (43b) from the Pasuk, "And your sin that you committed etc.?" They were in the desert, and therefore what they planted in did not grow!

Answer: Perhaps when Bnei Yisrael went there it did grow.

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier states that one cannot use ground pieces of metal vessels! (How can one use ground up gold?)

Answer: This refers to all metal besides gold that is called earth. This is as the Pasuk states, "And earth of gold is to him." Even though it does not grow plants, it can be used as it is called earth. If it would grow plants, we would not require the reason that it is called earth. The same applies to the ashes of one's clothing and of a red heifer.

Question: Since the earth mentioned in the Pasuk is even referring to earth that does not grow plants, why don't we include from the Pasuk, "And he will cover it" things that do not grow plants? It would seem that we should not exclude them from the Perat of "earth."

Answer: The earth discussed in the Pasuk is only referring to earth that grows plants. The inclusion from the word "And he will cover it" includes anything that grows plants, or something that is called earth even though it does not grow plants. "Earth of gold (i.e. gold dust)" and ashes of clothing would not have been included if not for the inclusion implied by "And he will cover it."

Observation: It is now understandable why the Gemara asks in Sotah (16a), "If there is no earth, can one use ashes (for the Sotah water) according to Beis Hillel who holds that ashes are considered earth regarding Kisuy ha'Dam?"

Observation (cont.): The Gemara there continues to bring a proof from Rebbi Yochanan's statement in the name of Rebbi Yishmael. He says that in three places we find that the Halachah uproots the Pasuk. Regarding Kisuy ha'Dam, the Torah states, "with earth" yet the Halachah is that anything can be used.

Observation (cont.): Rebbi Yishmael argues on our Beraisa that derives this Halachah of that "anything" can be used from "And he will cover it," and he holds that it is derived from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.

Observation (cont.): The Gemara's proof is that if ashes could be used for Sotah water, why wouldn't Rebbi Yishmael list this as well? However, if we derive that ashes are included in the word "earth," why would the Gemara ask that it should be considered among this list where the Halachah is that anything can be used? (It is considered earth!) Rather, it must be that our Beraisa derives this from "And he will cover it," and Rebbi Yishmael derives it from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.

Question: In our Gemara, Beis Shamai argues that only earth can be used. However, in Beitzah (2a) the Mishnah states, "And they admit that if one did slaughter, he should cover it up with what is ready for Kisuy, as the ashes of a stove are set aside for usage." (This shows that they allow ashes to be used!)

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that ashes of the stove that come from wood can grow things that are planted in them. They are unlike ashes of food or clothing that does not grow things planted in them.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Shmuel explains that the Gemara asks in Beitzah (2a), "Who mentioned ashes of a stove?" The Gemara answers that it is as if there were words missing in the Mishnah, and it meant to say, "And ashes of a stove are considered set aside for usage." It is a separate statement, and is not according to Beis Shamai.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this refers to earth that is chipped off of the grindstones.

Explanation (cont.): This is not ground stone, as the Beraisa earlier mentioned ground stone.

Explanation (cont.): When the Beraisa says, "They added" it is referring to the Beraisa quoted earlier and not the Mishnah. This is apparent from the fact that it does not mention any of the things mentioned in the previous Beraisa.