Clarification: It appears to the Ri that the Gemara mentions 'd'Oraysa' ...

Clarification (cont.): Because there is also such a thing as an Av ha'Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, for example 'Me'es Le'es' in the case of Nidah, Tum'as Beis ha'Peras, the Tum'ah of Chutz la'Aretz, and many other such cases.

Clarification (cont.): And the reason that it mentions d'Oraysa is not because it has any ramifications, at least not according to those who hold that food is not Metamei food min ha'Torah, in which case it is in any event only Metamei mi'de'Rabbanan.

Conclusion: And it only mentions d'Oraysa because it wants to then say 'V'lad Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan', which is Davka de'Rabbanan.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to a vessel that became Tamei via a liquid.

Question: R. Ya'akov from Orleans queries this however, in that if is so, then how can Rebbi Meir possibly learn from Rebbi Chanina, seeing as Basar Kodesh that became Tamei via a K'li that became Tamei via liquid only needs to be burned with Ibur Tzurah ...

Proof: As is evident in Chagigah (Daf 22. & 22:) and in Perek al Eilu Mumin (Bechoros Daf 38. & 38:) where it says 'A vessel that becomes Tamei via liquid on the outside, the inside, its hook, its rim and its handles are Tahor' - since the Rabbanan made a reminder that one should not burn T'rumah and Kodshim on account of it.

Proof (cont.): Once it becomes Nosar however (Ibur Tzurah), then even if it was completely Tahor, one is permitted to burn it together with something Tamei, as is evident later (on Amud Beis)?

Qualifying the Question: If however, Ibur Tzurah merely means leaving overnight, even where it does not become Nosar, then the question falls away.

Qualifying the Question (cont.): And according to Rashi, 'Einah Hi ha'Midah' of Rebbi Yossi will then mean that we cannot compare an Isur de'Rabbanan to Tum'ah de'Rabanan (See Maharsha).

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that 'V'lad Tum'ah de'Rabbanan refers to Basar that became Tamei via a liquid, as Rebbi Yirmiyah explains later in the Sugya (on Amud Beis) 'It is referring here to Basar that became Tamei via a liquid, and Rebbi follows his own reasoning ... '.

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'And Rebbi Mei follows his own reasoning ... '.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And Rebbi Yossi follows his reasoning, where he rules that the ability of liquids to render other things Tamei is d'Oraysa; and even though a Kodshim vessel that became Tamei via liquid is only burned with Ibur Tzurah, other Tum'os de'Rabbanan one burns even without it, since not all Tum'os follow the same pattern.

Observation: And the Ri says that according to the opinion that one food is Metamei the other, it is only necessary to establish the case earlier by V'lad V'lad according to Rebbi Yossi, who considers the Tum'ah of liquids d'Oraysa, in which V'lad Tum'ah will be 'd'Oraysa.

Observation (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Meir, in whose opinion V'lad Tum'ah is de'Rabbanan, there will be an additional Tum'ah, even without V'lad V'lad, seeing as initially, it was Tamei de'Rabbanan, and now when one comes to burn it, it is Tamei d'Oraysa..

Question: According to the opinion that 'One food cannot render another food Tamei', asks the Ri, it will transpire that according to Rebbi Yossi the only possibly case of a Shelishi d'Oraysa will be where a Shelishi touches a liquid which touched a food that was a Rishon.

Question (cont.): That being the case, what addition will there be if one burns it with Basar that became Tamei via an Av ha'Tum'ah, seeing as food is not Metamei food, it will only be a Sheini mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Question (cont.): Which it is anyway, since it became Tamei via a liquid which is (always) a Rishon.

Answer #1: And he answers that the decree of 'Whatever renders T'rumah Pasul, is Metamei liquid to become a Rishon', had not yet been instituted, as Tosfos explained earlier (on Daf 14. DH 'Lo').

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Shelishi became Tamei via wood and frankincense, as Rabeinu Tam will explain later with regard to 'Revi'i ba'Kodesh', and he holds now that Chibas ha'Kodesh helps to count a Rishon and a Sheini ...

Conclusion: Even though Resh Lakish will later ask whether it is.

Question: The Ri asks that this is fine according to the opinion that food is Metamei food, since then one can learn that, by an Isur de'Rabbanan, one may make a Shelishi into a Sheini, even though Isur is equivalent to Pasul.

Question (cont.): Whereas earlier, the Gemara implies that Tamei and Pasul are not the same.

Question (cont.): But according to the opinion that 'One food is not Metamei another food min ha'Torah', what does he hold ...

Question (cont.): If he holds that one can compare them, then without any proof it will be permitted to render an Isur de'Rabbanan, a Sheini de'Rabbanan; whereas if he hold that one cannot compare them, how can he then learn from a Shelishi?

Answer: To answer the question, the Ri explains that he only learns that since we see that one is permitted to render a Shelishi, which is Mekulkal mi'de'Rabbanan, a Sheini, it follows that one cannot differentiate between de'Rabbanan and d'Oraysa. Consequently, we can learn an Isur de'Rabbanan from a P'sul d'Oraysa.

Conclusion: And the Ri adds that when, according to Rebbi Yossi, Rebbi Yehoshua in our Mishnah permits burning Teluyah together with Teme'ah, he is referring to a Teluyah d'Oraysa, since according to him, one is forbidden to turn a Shelishi de'Rabbanan into a Sheini.

Question: Since this Sugya goes according to Resh Lakish, there is no case of a Shelishi d'Oraysa, according to the opinion that food is only Metamei food via liquid, in which case it renders it a Sheini de'Rabbanan. In that case, what additional Tum'ah is there?

Answer: We are therefore forced to say that the decree 'Whatever invalidates T'rumah ... ' had not yet been instituted (as Tosfos explained earlier).

Refuted Answer: Neither is it possible to establish it by Eitzim or Levonah, since Resh Lakish is the one who asks in the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 36.) as to 'Whether Chibas ha'Kodesh is effective to create a Rishon and a Sheini or not'.

Implied Question: And when Resh Lakish mentioned 'V'lad Tum'ah d'Oraysa' is ...

Answer #1: He meant to say that even if it is d'Oraysa, it is possible to explain 'mi'Divreihem' to mean from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua.

Answer #2: Alternatively, h mentions 'd'Oraysa' in order to establish is even according to Rebbi Eliezer, because, as far as Rebbi Yehoshua is concerned, one is even permitted to render a Shelishi de'Rabbanan, a Sheini.

Answer #2 (cont.): And in the same way, Rebbi Meir learns from the words of Rebbi Yehoshua Chametz in the sixth hour, which is an Isur de'Rabbanan.

Implied Question: Why did the Mishnah then cite the opinions of Rebbi Chanina and Rebbi Akiva?

Answer: Because Rebbi Yossi erred, thinking that Rebbi Meir was indeed referring to Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim, as the Gemara will explains shortly.

Explanation #1: (Rashi establishes the case where a Tamei person entered) (cont. on the following Amud).

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes the case where a Tamei person entered, and we do not know whether he touched or not.

Question: The Riva asks on this that if it is speaking in a R'shus ha'Yachid, then 'S'feiko Tamei; and if is speaking in the R'shus ha'Rabim, then 'S'feiko Tahor'?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore establishes where there are two barrels in the R'shus ha'Yachid, and he touched one of them, but does now know which one he touched.

Explanation #2 (cont.): In which case they are both Teluyos min ha'Torah. We cannot apply here the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid Tamei', since we can only learn this from Sotah if, like Sotah, the ruling is possible to be correct ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas here, where one of them is definitely Tahor, one cannot declare them both Tamei because of a Safek.

Proof: As we learned in Perek Sh'nei Nezirim (Nazir daf 57.) that if somebody testifies that he saw one of two Nezirim becoming Tamei, they need to bring one Korban Tum'ah and one Korban Taharah.

Proof (cont.): And although the Gemara establishes the case by Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, we do require each Nazir to bring a Korban Tum'ah, seeing as only one of them became Tamei.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Rebbi Zeira extrapolates this from the fact that Rebbi Yochanan says 'Machlokes be'Sheish', since if he would have learned from Rebbi Yehoshua, why the sixth hour? Why not even in the fourth or the fifth hours, seeing as it is going to be destroyed anyway?

Question #1: The Ri disagrees however, because he may have mentioned the sixth hour (not to preclude the fourth and fifth hours, but) because he continues 'but in the seventh hour, everyone agrees that it must be burned'.

Question #2: And besides, in the fourth and the fifth hours, who says that it is going to be destroyed? Seeing as one is still permitted to eat it, he will find plenty of people to do so?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that he extrapolates it from his words 'but in the seventh hour, everyone agrees that it must be burned', And if he learned that from Rebbi Yehoshua, from where did he know that that is what Rebbi Yossi holds ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since he holds that it is different there, due to a loss of Chulin, but elsewhere not, despite the fact that it stands to be destroyed, in which case, even in the seventh hour it may not be burned together with the Tamei?

Question: The fact that one burns it in the seventh hour even according to Rebbi Yossi, is only from the words of Rebbi Akiva, who permits burning Pasul together with Tamei?

Answer: Since he learns it from Rebbi Yehoshua, and we do not find that Rebbi Meir learns Isur from Tum'ah, from a S'vara we cannot learn Isur from Tum'ah.

Answer (cont.): Whereas if 'mi'Divreihem' referred to Rebbi Chanina, Rebbi Meir would learn Isur from Tum'ah, And Rebbi Yossi says 'Einah Hi ha'Midah', due to the fact that he holds 'V'lad Tum'ah d'Oraysa', and we cannot learn from it an Isur de'Rabbanan - i.e. Chametz in the sixth hour.

Conclusion: But in the seventh hour, which is d'Oraysa, we can learn from it.

Clarification: It seems to the Tana to compare this case, where the bread is going to waste anyway, to the seventh hour ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas in the sixth hour, where it only goes to waste as a result of a Gezeirah de'Rabbanan, it is not burned.

Question #1: Rebbi Yossi himself learns later (on Daf 18:) that liquid is Metamei others only mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Question #1 (cont.): And when he says here that it is d'Oraysa, he is merely citing the opinion of Rebbi Akiva his Rebbi, in which case it is not his own opinion?

Side Point: It is possible however that even if Rebbi Meir learns his ruling from Rebbi Chanina and Rebbi Akiva, it can be referred to as his opinion , seeing as he is referring to them in the first place.