Answer #2 (cont.): Also, even if a Safek did not yet arise, it is permitted to be Metamei it and there is no loss to the Kohen, for he is a Chaver (trustworthy about tithes), and he will separate on it from elsewhere. There we discuss an Am ha'Aretz, who will not separate on it from elsewhere.

Question - Citation (Gitin 61a - Mishnah): A woman may lend to her friend, who is suspected about [transgressing] Shemitah, a sifter... but she may not sift or grind with her;

Citation (cont.): Sarah, the wife of a Chaver may lend to Leah (an Am ha'Aretz' wife) a sifter, and she may sift and grind with her, but once she adds water, Sarah may not touch [to help];

Citation (cont.) Question: What is the difference between the Reisha and Seifa?

Citation (cont.) Answer #1 (Abaye): [Chachamim] were lenient about Demai (Safek Tevel), but once she adds water, she may not touch, even before kneading;

Citation (cont.) Answer #2 (Rava): We discuss an Am ha'Aretz of R. Meir, and Tum'ah and Taharah mid'Rabanan.

Citation (cont.) Question: Since the Seifa teaches "once she adds water", this implies that the Reisha discusses without Hechsher. What Tum'ah and Taharah is there?!

Citation (cont.) Answer: In both clauses there was Hechsher. The Reisha discusses Tum'ah of Chulin, and the Seifa discusses Tum'ah of Chalah. "Once she adds water" refers to kneading.

Summation of question - Inference: Abaye forbids touching when it was Huchshar, i.e. to sift or grind, even before kneading, even though if he separated [Chalah] before kneading, it has no effect!

Answer: Also [Abaye] must answer that there it is forbidden due to loss to the Kohen, and in our Sugya there is no loss to the Kohen, like I explained.

Question: Rava permits to cause Tum'ah before kneading, even though there is loss to the Kohen!

Answer #1: [Rava] must explain what was taught in Avodah Zarah (56a, that one may not harvest grapes with a Yisrael who processes his Peros in Tum'ah) like the first answer, that there it is forbidden due to "Mishmeres Terumosai";

However, a dough before kneading is not called Tevulah to Chalah, since if one separated flour to be Chalah, it has no effect.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): There in Gitin, there is mere suspicion. The case of "one may not harvest grapes..." discusses one who Vadai processes his Peros in Tum'ah. There it is proper to elaborate.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is a case like two paths. It is a Safek whether he walked on the Tahor path.

Consequence: He must say that [a second person walked on the other path, and] they came to ask at once. If they came to ask one after the other, both are Tehorim.

Explanation #2: [Hochachos] is a case like the Tosefta in Taharos (6:4). There are two paths - one is Tamei and one is Tahor. He walked on one path, made Taharos, walked on the other path, and made Taharos. Both of them prove. (He received Haza'os for Taharah before walking on the second path. If not, the latter Taharos are Vadai Tamei!)

This means that they prove Tum'ah, for which of them can we be Metaher? Due to the expression "Mochichim" [in the Tosefta], it says here that we discuss Hochachos.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers [even] to a heavy load. (It is Tahor for people who eat Chulin in Taharah.)

Rebuttal: It seems that a heavy load is Tamei even for Chulin, for it is impossible not to move one another!

Explanation #2: It refers to a light load.

Support: In Zavin (3:2), it teaches that if the load was light, they are Tehorim for Bnei ha'Keneses, and Tamei for Terumah;

This that it teaches here "all are Tehorim for Bnei ha'Keneses" refers to all matters of Taharah there (e.g. a Zav and a Tahor pull ropes in opposite directions. It does not mean whether the load is heavy or light.)

Question: Here, Chaverim who eat Chulin in Taharah, we call them "Bnei ha'Keneses", and in Bechoros (36b), regarding blemishes of a Bechor, it says that we [rule that they are proper Mumim, and] permit them [to be eaten like Chulin] through three Bnei ha'Keneses. There, even three commoners are Kosher!

Answer: Also here, "Bnei ha'Keneses" alludes to inferiority, i.e. they do not eat Terumah.

Inference: Here it connotes that even at the time of Kri'as Shem (declaring it to be Chalah), Hakafah (bringing them together) is required.

Question - Citation (Sotah 30a - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Chalah may be taken Min ha'Mukaf (near the dough it exempts), from Tahor on Tamei;

Citation (cont.): What is the case? There are two doughs. One is Tamei and one is Tahor. He takes a Shi'ur of Chalah from a dough from which Chalah was not taken, and outs less than a k'Beitzah of a Tahor dough in the middle, between the Shi'ur of Chalah and the Tamei dough, in order to take Min ha'Mukaf;

We ask from a Beraisa that teaches [that he puts in the middle a full] k'Beitzah, and answer that this Beraisa holds that Chulin Tevulim to Chalah are not like Chalah. Therefore, the k'Beitzah is not Metamei the Shi'ur Chalah.

Question: Now, in any case (whether or not Chulin Tevulim to Chalah are like Chalah) it is difficult! When he calls it Chalah, it will be a Shelishi!

Answer: It connotes that at the time he calls it Chalah, he distances the Shi'ur Chalah a little so it will not touch the k'Beitzah. It is properly considered Mukaf, since before calling it Chalah it was touching.

Answer: There we discuss when there is much Tahor dough, and not only the Shi'ur Chalah, like it teaches "there are two doughs. One is Tamei and one is Tahor." He wants to separate a little from the Tahor dough in order to fix itself and even the Tamei dough;

Therefore, since Chulin Tevulim to Chalah are not like Chalah - if not, the k'Beitzah, which is a Sheni, would be Metamei the Tahor dough - and when he separates Chalah from it and brings them together, it has no effect [to be Metamei the Tahor dough].

Implied question: Below (8a), we rule like R. Eliezer, who says that the basket joins for Chalah, and they need not touch!

Answer: That is to become obligated in Chalah, if he kneaded less than a Shi'ur.

Source #1 (Chalah 2:4 - Mishnah): If one makes each dough the volume of a Kav, and they touched each other, they are exempt from Chalah, unless they bite (if one separates them, part of one will stick to the other);

Citation (cont.): R. Eliezer says, even one who takes bread off the walls of the oven and puts it in a basket, the basket joins them.

Source #2: Also Pesachim 48b connotes like this.

Support: Now it is fine that R. Eliezer himself requires that they touch at the time of Keri'as Shem (Sotah 30a).

Consequence: When making Matzos for Pesach, it is proper that they all touch when he separates one [to be Chalah] for all of them, for the basket does not join them for this.

Implied question: We say in Beitzah (9a) [that in Chutz la'Aretz, if Chalah was not yet separated] and also in Bechoros (27a) we say about Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz, that one may eat [Tevel] and separate afterwards, even though it is not Mukaf (the Chalah or Terumah is not next to what it exempts, i.e.) to what he already ate!

Answer: This refers to a dough that was kneaded together, and it was already connected, [Chachamim] were lenient about Terumah [and Chalah] of Chutz la'Aretz.

Question: This requires investigation, whether it is considered Mukaf through mere touching, without being in one Kli, or without biting;

When he puts less than k'Beitzah in the middle, we could say that it must bite.

Inference: Here it connotes that a Sheni is not Posel Chulin Tevulin to Chalah.

Support: Also the Mishnah teaches that a Shelishi is Tahor in Chulin. This connotes that all the more so, a Sheni does not disqualify Chulin made Al Taharas Terumah, for below it connotes that [such Chulin] are more lenient that Chulin Tevulin to Chalah.

Question: In Chulin (33b), we say that a Shelishi applies to Chulin made Al Taharas Terumah;

In the Gemara in Sotah (30a) that I brought above, it is proven that a Sheni makes a Shelishi in Chulin Tevulin to Chalah, according to the opinion that [such Chulin] is like Chalah!

Answer: A Tevul Yom is more lenient [than a Sheni]. He needs only Ha'arev Shemesh [and then he is totally Tahor].

Implied question: The Mishnah teaches that a Shelishi is Tahor in Chulin!

Answer #1: It refers to a Shelishi of a Tevul Yom (something that he touched, for he is like a Sheni).

Answer #2: It means that since a Shelishi is Tahor in regular Chulin, [Chachamim] did not decree about Chulin Tevulin to Chalah to become Tamei through a Tevul Yom.

Support: This is why we asked it against the case of Nish'an (a Tahor leaned on a Zav, or vice-versa), and we did not ask against every Shelishi that applies to Chulin Tevulin to Chalah, because also Nish'an is a weak Tum'ah, and it is Metamei even regarding a light load, like I explained above (DH v'Chulan).

Implied question: Also Nish'an is mid'Rabanan!

Answer: Me'Es la'Es is more lenient, for there is no Safek Tum'ah at the time she engages in Taharos.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): They excommunicated [R. Eliezer].

Objection: Presumably, he would not mention an expression of Shamta (Niduy). In the episode itself in Bava Metzi'a (59b, in which they excommunicated him) it mentions only Brachah (a euphemism for excommunication)!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam and Rashbam): [R. Eliezer] is Shemuti, i.e. from Talmidim of Shamai.

Support #1 - Citation (Yerushalmi - Mishnah): If a Se'ah of Tamei Terumah fell into 100 Sa'im of Tahor Terumah, Beis Shamai forbidden and Beis Hillel permit;

Citation (cont.): After [Beis Shamai] admitted, R. Eliezer says that we lift off [a Se'ah] and burn it (we say that this is the Tamei Se'ah that fell in).

We ask who admitted to whom, and say that Beis Shamai admitted to Beis Hillel. Rav Asi supports this from our Mishnah. After they admitted, R. Eliezer says that we lift off and burn it. Isn't R. Eliezer Shemuti?!

Support #2: Also the Alpha Beisa of Rebbi Machir explains like this.

Inference: If a woman counted seven clean days, and checked herself on days one and seven and found that she is Tehorah, this is considered counting, as long as she checked herself on the day she ceased [to see blood], and finished [that day] in Taharah (she did a Bedikah at the end of the day).

Limitation: This is only if [the latter checking] was on day seven, but not if it was on day eight.

However, l'Chatchilah it does not help, and she must check every day.

Explanation: However, the inside of a Kli disqualifies Terumah foods, for this is among the 18 decrees [made on the day that they voted, and Beis Shamai outnumbered Beis Hillel], that food and Kelim that became Tamei through liquids [disqualify Terumah].