Implied Question: Even though there is an opinion in Rebbi at the end of 'Kol ha'Tadir' (Zevachim 91:) and in the last Perek of Menachos (Daf 107.) that holds 'Don Minah, ve'Uki be'Asra (Learn from the other source but with reservations)' ...

Answer: We cannot say here 'Uki be'Asra' - to say that 'Just as the Me'ilah of Mamon is to the value of a P'rutah, so too, is the Me'ilah of food'.

Reason: Since we are learning eating by Hekdesh from eating of T'rumah,

Reason (cont.): And how can there be Misah (like there is by T'rumah), unless it is via the same Shi'ur as that of eating T'rumah ...

Reason (cont.): Bearing in mind that there is no Misah regarding someone who benefits from Hekdesh, only with regard to someone who eats it.

Question: Why can one not explain 'No! If you say by other Mitzvos where one is not Chayav Misah until one eats a k'Zayis in the Shi'ur of Achilas P'ras, say by Me'ilah that even if a k'Zayis is required, we learned in the Mishnah in Perek ha'Neheneh (Me'ilah 18.) that 'One is Chayav Me'ilah even if one combines the amounts over a long period of time'?

Answer: We can also ask - that we should learn from T'rumah that one cannot combine the amounts.

Question: The Ri asks that here it is implied that the opinion that learns 'Chet' 'Chet' from T'rumah holds that the Shi'ur Me'ilah is a k'Zayis, like that of T'rumah, and everybody holds of the Gezeirah-Shavah ...

Source: Like we find in Perek ha'Neheneh (Ibid.), where the Gemara learns Me'ilah from T'rumah regarding many issues.

Source (cont.): And the Rabbanan only disagree with Rebbi regarding Chiyuv Misah, since the Torah writes "Bo" (by T'rumah) 'but not by Me'ilah.

Conclusion: In that case, what is the reason of the Rabanan earlier in the Sugya, who rule that 'He only gives the Shi'ur of a P'rutah with regard to Me'ilah, but as far as T'rumah is concerned, there has to be a k'Zayis'?

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that what the Gemara means is that he intended to cut something that was Talush and discovered that it was really Mechubar ...

Reason: Because if he intended to cut this Talush and cut another Mechubar instead, why does the Gemara need to say that he intended to cut Talush'? Even if he meant to cut this Mechubar and by mistake, he cut another Mechubar, he would be Patur, since his initial thoughts were not fulfilled?

Reason (cont.): As we learned specifically in a Beraisa, in Perek Safek Achal (K'risus 20.) 'If two lamps were placed before him and he had the intention to extinguish the one, but by mistake, extinguished the other, he is Patur'.

Clarification: The Ri explains that it is only according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who holds that Chametz is Mutar be'Hana'ah, that one needs to Darshen from the word "Lo".

Reason: Because those Tana'im who hold that Chametz is Asur be'Hana'ah, learn it from "Venasan la'Kohen es ha'Kodesh" that one can only give the Kohen something that is fit to become Kodesh.

Reason: (cont.): Or they learn it from "Titein" alone, that one is only permitted to give him something that is least Mutar be'Hana'ah, to which Nesinah applies.

Conclusion: And this explains why they opt to Darshen from "Titein Lo" - something that is fit to eat, and not something that is only fit to use as fuel (i.e. T'rumah Teme'ah), which is all that it can be used for ..

Conclusion (cont.): Seeing as giving him Isur Hana'ah we already know from "Titein".

Question: Why does the Gemara then ask 'From where do we know this'? Bearing in mind that, seeing as the Tana'im of the Beraisa of 'Hifrish Chametz T'rumah, Divrei ha'Kol Einah Kedoshah', hold that it is Asur be'Hana'ah, it is obvious that it is not Kadosh - so what is his She'eilah?

Answer #1: The Gemara understood that the Beraisa did not need to insert 'Divrei ha'Kol', and that it is only really asking according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, because according to those who hold that Chametz is Asur be'Hana'ah, it is unnecessary to mention it.

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, it asks 'Mina Hani Mili' specifically according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili!

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak), who answers "Lo", 've'Lo le'Oro', who asked 'Mina Hani Mili', because it was clear to him that the Beraisa goes according to everybody.

Conclusion: And we find this format in many places.

Question: However, Shirehah Nikarin, which was initially forbidden to be used in a manner that destroys it (Hana'ah shel Kiluy), such as using it as fuel and the likes, just like Tevel Tamei, which one is forbidden to use as fuel, yet once T'rumah has been taken from it, it is permitted?

Answer: The Isur against burning is restricted to Tevel Tamei, as we Darshen from "es Mishmeres T'rumosai" - that 'The Torah is speaking about two T'rumos, T'rumah Tehorah and T'rumah Teme'ah and that just as the former only becomes permitted after it has been separated, so too, the latter.

Answer (concl.): One may however, burn Tevel of Chametz, since the Torah only forbids two T'rumos (and not three).

Explanation #1: Rabeinu asks from here on Rashi, who explains that a Kolshehu is subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah ...

Question #1: Since (according to him) as soon as the smallest amount of juice emerges from the fruit, the fruit becomes Muchshar, in which case the remainder of the fruit becomes Tamei, seeing as the liquid is absorbed in the fruit?

Answer: ha'Rav Yosef answers that even though food that is less than a k'Beitzah is subject to Tum'ah, it does not become Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah unless it measures a k'Beitzah.

Support: The Ri explains that this is because we learn the Din that food is Metamei others only if there is a k'Beitzah from the Pasuk "asher Ye'achel", from which we extrapolate 'food that can be eaten in one go is Metamei ..

Support (cont.): And it is in connection with this that the Torah writes "asher Yavo alav Mayim" (with regard to Hechsher); So we see that less than a k'Beitzah does not receive Hechsher.

Question #2: Furthermore, Rabeinu Tam asks from the Gemara in Perek Eilu Ovrin (Daf 44.) 'If a T'vul-Yom touches part of a stew of Chulinof which the garlic and oil are T'rumah, he only renders Tamei the part that he touches'.

Question #2 (cont.): According to most texts, the Gemara then asks that, seeing as the part that the T'vul-Yom touches does not comprise a k'Beitzah, why is it Tamei?

Question #2 (concl.): So we see that less than a k'Beitzah of food is not subject to Tum'ah?

Answer: Rashi erases the above text, and has difficulty in explaining the Gemara there.

Question #3: Rebbi Eliyahu brings another proof (against Rashi) from the Toras Kohanim, which Darshens, with regard to earthenware vessels, by which the Torah writes "And it you shall break'', 'It you shall break to render it Tahor, but not food, which does not become Tahor through breaking.

Question #3 (cont.): Now if a Kolshehu of food was subject to Tum'ah, then it would be obvious that breaking it would not help to render it Tahor?

Proof for Explanation #1: The Pasuk that Rashi cites which states that 'A Kolshehu of food is subject to Tum'ah' ...

Refutation: Is merely an Asmachta. In fact, it is common for the Toras Kohanim to cite Pesukim, even though they are no more than Asmachtos.

Retraction: As a matter of fact, Rashi himself retracted, in Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin 82.) in the Sugya of 'Parah Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin, where he asks why it requires Tum'as Ochlin, seeing as the Cow itself, is Metamei Adam and Begadim?

Retraction (cont.): And Rashi answers with the Gemara in K'risus in Perek Dam Shechitah (Daf 21.) which states 'where one covered it (a small piece of Neveilah) with less than a k'Beitzah of dough; if one considers it a food, then it will combine with the dough, to render it subject to Tum'ah should it touch Tum'ah, and to then render other food Tamei ...

Retraction (concl.): Whereas if it is not a food, then the dough will not become Tamei, since it does not possess the Shi'ur Tum'ah, and if food subsequently touches it, it too remains Tahor, seeing as it is not the Neveilah which it touched, but the dough'.