1)

(a)We learn from Ma'aser - that an Onen is forbidden to eat Korban Pesach.

(b)They asked Rav Sheshes whether an Arel is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheni. Although we can learn Pesach from Ma'aser with regard to Onan, we might not be able to learn Ma'aser from Pesach with regard to Arelus - because Pesach is more stringent than Ma'aser (and how can one use a 'Kal va'Chomer' to learn a stringency from a strict case to a more lenient one?) - see Tosfos DH 'Kal'

2)

(a)In reply, Rav Sheshes cited a Mishnah in Bikurim, which discusses Terumah, Bikurim and Ma'aser. Terumah and Bikurim have seven points in common (all of which do not apply to Ma'aser. One is Chayav ...

1. ... Misah (b'Yedei Shamayim) for eating them - when one is Tamei.

2. ... to pay an extra fifth - if one is a Zar (a non-Kohen) who ate them b'Shogeg (whereas a Zar is permitted to eat Ma'aser).

(b)Seeing as only a Kohen is permitted to eat them - 'v'Hen Nichsei Kohen' means that he may use them to betroth a woman or to purchase with them anything he wishes.

(c)Ma'aser-Sheni money is restricted to the purchase of food, drink and oils (for anointing).

3)

(a)Terumah and Bikurim become Bateil in a hundred and one - Ma'aser requires only a majority.

(b)Fruit of Ma'aser requires wahing one's hands (because hands are assumed to be Sheniyos l'Tum'ah) - whereas someone who washes his hands for fruit of Chulin or of Ma'aser (as opposed to bread) is termed 'conceited'.

(c)And a Kohen who Toveled must wait for nightfall before he is permitted to eat them - whereas the owner is permitted to eat Ma'aser the moment he has Toveled.

4)

(a)Rav Sheshes tries to resolve the She'eilah that they asked him (whether an Arel is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheni or not) from the above Beraisa - by the fact that the Tana does not insert that Terumah and Bikurim are Asur to an Arel, whereas Ma'aser is permitted (insinuating that an Arel is Asur to eat Ma'aser as well).

(b)Our rejection of this proof is based on the principle 'Tana v'Shayer' (that the Tana sometimes leaves out cases - which is perfectly legitimate as long as the case in question is not the only one to be omitted).

(c)All Tana'im agree - that Ma'aser and Bikurim must be taken to Yerushalayim and that one is obligated to read a Parashah (neither of which applies to Terumah - which falls under the category of 'Kodshei ha'Gevul', which may be eaten anywhere within the borders of Eretz Yisrael).

(d)According to the Tana Kama, they are also forbidden to an Onen and are Chayavin b'Bi'ur. 'Chayavin b'Bi'ur' means - that if one failed to take them to Yerushalayim and to do whatever is necessary, one has to take them at the end of the third year and make a declaration (as laid out in Ki Savo). Failing which, they had to be destroyed wherever they are.

5)

(a)Rebbi Shimon permits Bikurim to an Onen and exempts them from the Chiyuv of Bi'ur.

(b)One is also not permitted to burn Ma'aser and Bikurim as fuel - and one receives Malkus for eating them when they (the fruits) are Tamei ('b'Tumas Atzman').

(c)Terumah may be burned as fuel, and one does not receive Malkus for eating it when it is Tamei. The Tana does not add these two distinctions to the above list of differences - because of the principle 'Tana v'Shayer'.

(d)This helps us to answer the Kashya we asked previously (why the Tana omitted the [alleged] distinction between Terumah and Bikurim (which are forbidden to an Arel), and Ma'aser (which is permitted) - because 'Tana v'Shayer' in the Seifa, enables us to omit this case in the Reisha.

6)

(a)In the Pasuk "Lo Suchal l'Echol bi'She'arecha Ma'aser Degancha ... u'Terumas Yadecha", "Terumas Yadecha" refers to Bikurim (by which the Torah uses the word "Yad" - v'Lakach ha'Kohen ha'Tene mi'Yadecha"). It cannot refer to Terumah - because Terumah is Kodshei ha'Gevul (as we explained in 4c.), which can be eaten anywhere.

(b)The Tana Kama learns from the Hekesh of Bikurim to Ma'aser - that Bikurim, like Ma'aser, is forbidden to an Onen.

(c)Rebbi Shimon permits Bikurim to an Onen - because, as we just explained, the Torah calls it Terumah, which a Kohen who is an Onen is permitted to eat.

(d)The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon, who exempts Bikurim from Bi'ur, and the Rabanan, who include them in the obligation - is that the Rabanan compare Bikurim to Ma'aser, whereas Rebbi Shimon does not.

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon (and the Rabanan) learn from the Pasuk (by Ma'aser Sheni) "v'Lo Bi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei" - that Ma'aser is forbidden, irrespective of whether the person is Tamei and the Ma'aser Tahor, or vice-versa.

(b)The Pasuk "Nefesh Asher Tiga Bo v'Tam'ah ad ha'Erev v'Lo Yochal min ha'Kodshim" - is a Lav for someone who is Tamei to eat Terumah.

(c)Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael explains the Pasuk "bi'She'arecha Sochlenu, ha'Tamei v'ha'Tahor Yachdav ka'Tzevi v'cha'Ayal" to mean - that two people may eat Pesulei ha'Mukdashin from the same dish even if one of them is Tahor and the other Tamei (despite the fact that the one who is Tamei will render the meat Tamei, and the Tahor person will then eat it).

(d)We then learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "She'arecha" (in the Pasuk that we just quoted) "She'arecha" (in the Pasuk "Lo Suchal l'Echol bi'She'arecha Ma'aser Degancha") - that the same Tum'ah (of the object rather than of the person) which the Torah permitted by 'Pesulei ha'Mukdashin', it now forbids by Ma'aser.

8)

(a)Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates from the Pasuk "v'Lo Bi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei" - that it is permitted to burn Terumah that became Tamei as fuel.

(b)We opt to preclude Terumah (which is generally more stringent than Ma'aser) from the prohibition of burning it as fuel when it is Tamei, rather than Kodshim (which we include on the grounds that it is more stringent than Ma'aser) - because Kodshim is more stringent than Terumah.

(c)In fact, Kodshim has six Chumros over Terumah, whereas Terumah has only four Chumros over Kodshim. The acronym ... 'Pi.No.Ko.I.Ka.As'. stands for - Pigul, Nosar, Korban, Me'ilah, Kares and Asur l'Onan; that of 'Mi.Cho.Pi.Za' - stands for Misah, Chomesh, Ein Lah Pidyon and Asur l'Zarim.

(d)We conclude that, even if Kodshim did not have more Chumros than Terumah, we would still preclude Terumah from "Mimenu", and include it from the 'Kal va'Chomer' - because the fact that one is Chayav Kares for eating it b'Tum'as ha'Guf overrides all the other Chumros.

9)

(a)We infer from the Pasuk (by Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) "bi'She'arecha Tochlenu" - that, although there is no Malkus for eating Tamei Terumah, one does however, transgress an Aseh ("bi'she'Arecha Tochlenu", 'la'Zeh v'Lo l'Acher' - i.e. Terumah), because a Lav that is inferred from an Aseh is considered an Aseh.

10)

(a)We learned above (see last question on the previous Amud) that the Tana omits cases in the Seifa (regarding the Chumros of Ma'aser and Bikurim over Terumah) in order to authorize the omission (in the Reisha) of the Chumra of an Arel being prohibited by Terumah and Bikurim, but permitted by Ma'aser. Besides the fact that Terumah and Bikurim cannot be redeemed, whereas Ma'aser can. Rav Ashi points out that the Tana omitted in the Reisha itself - the Chumra that Terumah and Bikurim apply throughout the six years of the cycle, whereas Ma'aser Sheni is confined to the first and second, fourth and fifth years.