Alternative Proof: The Gemara could equally-well have said that if Rebbi Yossi held like Rebbi Akiva, why does he need to learn a Revi'i ba'Kodesh via a Kal va'Chomer from Mechusar Kipurim?

Alternative Proof (cont.): He would know it from the Pasuk itself - since a Shelishi by Chulin is Tamei, we would apply "ve'ha'Basar asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei ... ", just as we Darshen here regarding a Shelishi.

Clarification: Rashi explains that according to the opinion that holds Tum'as Mashkin is Metamei others only mi'de'Rabbanan, we will only find a Revi'i ba'Kodesh mi'de'Rabbanan.

Observation: Via wood and frankincense however, it is possible, as Tosfos explained above (15; DH 'V'lad Tum'ah de'Rabbanan').

Observation (cont.): And Resh Lakish who asks whether Chibas ha'Kodesh can make a Rishon and a Sheini, will hold 'Ochel Metamei Ochel'.

Refuted Explanation: And what Rashi proves that it must be de'Rabbanan, since the Mishnah in 'Chomer ba'Kodesh' lists it together with the 'Ma'alos' ...

Refutation #1: The Ri disagrees, since the Gemara establishes that Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, and he Darshens "Yitma" 'Yetamei' - in which case a Revi'i must be d'Oraysa, seeing as we can apply here "ve'ha'Basar asher Yiga ... "?

Refutation #2: Moreover, Tziruf is also d'Oaraysa, according to Rebbi Chanin.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Chagigah (21:) that the last five Ma'alos have not the slightest connection with Tum'ah d'Oraysa ...

Answer #1: Rabeinu Chananel erases the word 'd'Oraysa'.

Answer #2: But even if we were to leave it intact, what the Gemara means is - that the Torah has no reason whatsoever todeclare it Tamei, seeing as they are far-removed from Tum'ah, and strictly speaking, they ought to be Tahor.

Clarification: Furthermore, Rashi explains that those who do not Darshen "Yima" 'Yitamei' learn that food renders others Tamei from the fact that we need "Tamei Hu" to teach us that something Tamei cannot render its own equivalent Tamei.

Qualification: The Ri explains that this goes according to Abaye and Rav Ada bar Ahava, but according to Ravina, who says that 'the Pasuk speaks out in full', perhaps "Hu" comes for Kodshim, which we would otherwise have thought can render their own equivalent Tamei, since the Pasuk writes "ve'ha'Basar asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei".

Explanation #1: There are some who citing Rashi, explain that Rebbi Akiva learns that Tziruf is de'Rabbanan, because mi'd'Praysa, frankincense and wood are not subject to Tum'ah, since they are not food, and the fact that they are is a Ma'alah de'Rabbanan.

Proof: In fact, in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Saf 35.) it calls it a Ma'alah.

Refutation #1: This is no proof however, since it also calls a Ma'alah the Din of 'Heivi Kaparaso Ochel be'Kodshim', even though it is min ha'Torah, as the Gemara Darshens in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos 74:).

Refutation #2: And what's more, the Gemara states explicitly in the second Perek of Chulin (36:) that the D'rashah "ve'ha'Basar" 'to include wood and frankincense' is not an Asmachta ...

Refutation #2 (cont.): Since it is evident there that we learn from it that Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir mi'd'Oraysa.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems to the Ri that as he explicitly states, that Rebbi extrapolates that Tziruf is de'Rabbanan from the statement in the Reisha 'that if a Tamei person touched some of it, he is Metamei all of it'- a Din which is de'Rabbanan, seeing as the ashes of the Chatas are not Kodesh, but Chol ...

Source: As is evident in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos 52. & 52:) where it states that 'The ashes of the Parah are not subject to Me'ilah'. And it continues with the words 'Rebbi Akiva added', implying that it is de'Rabbanan, just like the Reisha.

Question: The Ri asks as to why one would even think that they should be Tamei, seeing as there is no Hesech ha'Da'as with regard to them?

Suggested Answer: And if it is because of the Gemara in the last Perek of Chagigah (Daf 24. & 24:) 'Whatever invalidates T'rumah renders the hands Tamei to become a Sheini' ...

Rejection: Then why does the Gemara ask that both decrees were issued on the same day? (cont. on the following page)

Rejection (cont.): Seeing as 'the hands that invalidate T'rumah' is talking about S'tam Yadayim, whereas 'Whatever invalidates T'rumah renders the hands Tamei to become a Sheini' is confined to Kodshim, as is evident in Chagigah?

Answer: The Ri answers to be sure the current decree is not the same one as the one in Chagigah

Answer (cont.): Yet we can assume that when they decreed that S'tam Yadayim should be Sheniyos for T'rumah, they decreed simultaneously that hands which touch a Rishon should become a Sheini for T'rumah.

Conclusion: In which case, those hands that touched Basar which was a Rishon, should have become Sheniyos - unless we say that there is no Tum'as Yadayim in the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Question: The Ri asks how the K'li could have possibly become Tamei. It cannot be via liquid, since 'The liquids of the bei Matbechaya are Tahor' (Dachan)?

Answer: The current author is Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the Tum'ah of liquid to be Metamei others is d'Oraysa, in which case he cannot hold 'Dachan'.

Answer (cont.): And he does not want to say that Rebbi Akiva holds 'Dachan' to be Metamei other Keilim (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Question: Perhaps when Rebbi Akiva said 'Zachinu ... ', the decree of Keilim had not yet been issued, whereas the decree of Yadayim with regard to Kodesh had, like we learned in the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 15. & 15:) - that Sh'lomoh decreed on Kodesh, and they decreed on T'rumah?

Answer: The decree of Keilim is that of the 'Eighteen Things, which preceded Rebbi Akiva.

Question: From where does the Gemara know that the Tum'ah of Keilim does not apply in the Beis ha'Mikdash? Perhaps 'the Eighteen Things' included that of Keilim in the Beis ha'Mikdash, and the Mishnah which rules that 'the knife is Tahor' was learned prior to the 'Eighteen Things', seeing as it was part of the testimony of Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim.

Answer: If they had decreed Tum'ah on Keilim in the Beis ha'Mikdash in the 'Eighteen Things', it should have been mentioned somewhere, so that we should know that the the Mishnah of 'Sakin Tahor' was learned earlier.

Question: But surely Sh'lomoh was the one to decree that hands are Metamei Kodesh?

Answer: Rebbi Akiva is speaking with reference to the 'eighteen things' that had only recently been decreed, and what he means is that with regard to those eighteen things when they were dealing with the Din of hands, they did not want to decree Tum'ah on hands in the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Clarification: And he holds that the Mishnah (in Iduyos) is speaking where there is no liquid.

Clarification: This does not go like Rav Yehudah, who establishes it by a needle that is Tamei Meis, since that is a case of a K'li Metamei K'li.

Clarification (cont.): But like Rebbi Yossi (b'Rebbi Avin) who establishes it by a cow whose mouth was tied shut.

Question: But one needs to establish it in the R'shus ha'Rabim (not for the implication, but) because of the hands, which, in the R'shus ha'Yachid, would be Tamei.

Clarification: This 'needle' really means a K'li that touched a needle ...

Reason: Since by Tum'ah it is only the one that is becoming Tamei that one needs to be able to ask ...

Proof: Otherwise, every case of Tum'as Meis and Tum'as Sheretz should always be Tahor, even in the R'shus ha'Yachid.

Alternative: The Gemara could have cited Ze'iri, who answers in Nidah (Daf 5:) that by Nidah, twenty-four hours retroactively makes Mishkav and Moshav, even though Mishkav and Moshav cannot be questioned - where her friends are carrying her in the bed.