(R. Yosi bei R. Chaninah): (Our Mishnah said that a dough kneaded with fruit juice is obligated in Chalah). It is like R. Elazar ben Yehudah Ish Birsusa;

(Mishnah - R. Elazar ben Yehudah Ish Birsusa citing R. Yehoshua): [If a dough was Huchshar to receive Tum'ah through a liquid, and it was kneaded with fruit juice, and a Tevul Yom touched it,] he disqualified all of it (fruit juice is a connection for Tum'ah);

(R. Akiva citing R. Yehoshua): He disqualified only the place he touched.

(Reish Lakish): When do they argue? It is when it was Huchshar, and afterwards kneaded with fruit juice. It is a connection for Tum'ah. However, if it was kneaded and afterwards Huchshar, [all agree that] fruit juice is not a connection for Hechsher (i.e. Tum'ah. Seemingly, also here the text should say 'l'Tum'ah' - PF.)

(R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): [Our Mishnah] is like everyone. Even though R. Akiva said there that fruit juice is not a connection for Tum'ah, he agrees here that fruit juice is a connection for Chalah.

(R. Ba citing R. Chiyah citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): The only matters that connect are the seven liquids (wine, blood, olive oil, milk, dew, bee's honey and water).

Question (R. Yosi): Did he say so for Chalah, or for Tum'ah?

If you will say that it is for Chalah, all the more so [nothing else is a connection] for Tum'ah (we find that R. Yochanan holds that fruit juice is a connection for Chalah, but not for Tum'ah). If you will say that it is for Tum'ah, for Chalah, no (other matters can be a connection, e.g. fruit juice according to R. Yochanan).

R. Yonah held that surely, it is for Chalah, and all the more so for Tum'ah.

R. Yonah holds like he taught elsewhere, for R. Yonah taught in the name of R. Shimon ben Yochai, R. Tarfon says, it says here "Chalah'', and it says there "Chalas Lechem Shemen.'' Just like Chalah said there is made with [olive] oil, also Chalah said here is made with [a liquid] like oil, and [olive] oil is one of the seven liquids.

(R. Yosi citing R. Shabsi, and R. Chiya citing Reish Lakish): For Chalah (to be able to separate it b'Taharah), or to wash his hands [for a meal], one must go four Mil.

(R. Avahu citing R. Yosi ben Chaninah): This is only in front of him (the direction he is going), but in back, we do not exert him [so much].

Question: People who guard gardens and vineyards (later, they will need to go to get water for the crops), do you consider that [the water is] in front of them (for later, they must go there) or in back of them (for now, they want to eat here)?

Answer (Mishnah): A woman may sit and separate Chalah [with a Brachah] while naked;

Inference: Is this woman not inside the house [and she could get clothes], and you say that we do not exert her? [Also] here, we do not exert [people who guard gardens and vineyards! We explained this like R. SHLOMO SIRILIYO.]

(Beraisa): Water (Netilas Yadayim) before a meal is Reshus. (Usually, this means optional; here it means Mitzvah. It is called Reshus in contrast to Mayim Acharonim, which is more obligatory.) After the meal, it is Chovah. However, the first water one washes and interrupts, but the latter water, one washes and does not interrupt (this will be explained).

Note: Our text of the Tosefta (5:1) says that one may interrupt in Mayim Rishonim if he wants, but not in Mayim Acharonim. It seems that the Yerushalmi's text was different, especially since below R. Shmuel asks that Mayim Rishonim is more stringent than Mayim Acharonim, and this is left difficult.

Question: What does it mean 'one washes and interrupts'?

Answer (R. Yakov bar Acha): He washes and repeats (for the first washing is Metaher the hands, but the water on his hands is Tamei. He washes again to be Metaher the water.)

Version #1 - Objection (R. Yakov bar Rav Yitzchak): He must wash and repeat, and you say that it is Reshus?! (This is more stringent than Mayim Acharonim, which you call Chovah!)

Version #2 - Objection: Some say, he must go four Mil [in order to wash], and you say that it is Reshus?!

(R. Yakov bar Idi): Due to [omission of] Mayim Rishonim, a man was [assumed to be a Nochri, and he was] fed pork. Due to [omission of] Mayim Acharonim, a woman was expelled from her house. (It enabled someone to see what her husband had eaten, and thereby trick her. Her husband was angry, and divorced her.) And some say that through this, three people were killed (R. SHLOMO SIRILIYO, based on RASHI Chulin 106a).

Inference: [Since a woman may sit and separate Chalah while naked,] this shows that buttocks are not considered Ervah.

Limitation: This is regarding Brachah (she may bless when they are exposed), but [for a man] to look, even any amount is forbidden.

This is like it was taught, one who gazes at the heel of a woman, it is as if he gazes at the womb, and one who gazes at the womb, it is as if he had Bi'ah with her.

(Shmuel): A woman's [singing] voice is Ervah.

What is the source? "V'Hayah mi'Kol Zenusah va'Techenaf Es ha'Aretz...''

(Rav Huna): One may stand over excrement and pray, as long as his flesh does not touch the excrement.

Question: If one sat (defecated) and did not clean [his anus], what is the law (may he pray)?

Answer (R. Mana): Even though Rav Huna did not say this, he said similar to it (and we can infer from what he said);

(Rav Huna): One may stand over excrement and pray, as long as his flesh does not touch the excrement.

If one sat and did not clean, his flesh touches the excrement (presumably, something remained on his anus).