1)

(a)The Beraisa states that if strands that hold back the Milah remain, the owner is not permitted to eat Terumah, Pesach, Kodshim or Ma'aser. Ma'aser cannot mean Ma'asar Behemah - because Ma'asar Behemah is included in Kodshim.

(b)The Tana nevertheless needs to insert Pesach, because, had he only mentioned ...

1. ... Pesach - we would have confined the prohibition to Pesach, since that is where the Isur of Arelus is mentioned.

2. ... Kodshim - we would have interpreted Kodshim to mean Pesach (and gone on to restrict the prohibition to the Pesach, using the same argument that we just used).

(c)To avoid being forced to resolve the She'eilah whether an Arel is forbidden to eat Ma'aser Sheni or not - we might interpret Ma'aser to mean Ma'aser Rishon ...

(d)... establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Meir, who forbids a Zar (a non-Levi) to eat Ma'aser Rishon. Consequently, he will also be stringent with regard to an Arel eating it.

2)

(a)The two Ma'asros the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya bar Rav Difta is referring to when the Tana says 'Arel Asur bi'Shtei Ma'asros' are - Ma'asar Behemah and Ma'aser Rishon, according to Rebbi Meir.

(b)Another Beraisa discusses the differences between an Onen, a Tevul Yom and a Mechusar Kipurim. An Onen is Asur b'Ma'aser; besides eating Terumah he is permitted to - prepare the Parah Adumah.

(c)A Tevul-Yom is Asur bi'Terumah, but permitted - to eat Ma'aser and to prepare the Parah Adumah.

(d)The Tana then forbids a Mechusar Kipurim - to prepare the Parah Adumah, and permits him to eat Terumah and Ma'aser.

3)

(a)An Onen and a Tevul Yom are permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah - because it is only Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (and not Kodshei Mizbe'ach).

(b)A Tevul Yom who is also a Mechusar Kipurim - is not permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah, because if a Mechusar Kipurim even after nightfall is forbidden to do so, it is obvious that before nightfall he will not be permitted.

4)

(a)Seeing as an Arel is forbidden to eat Terumah and permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah, we try to prove from the fact that the Tana omits Arel from his list - that an Arel must be forbidden to eat Ma'aser; otherwise, the Tana should have inserted 'Arel Asur bi'Terumah, u'Mutar b'Parah uv'Ma'aser'.

(b)We reject this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa like Tana d'Bei Rebbi Akiva - who considers an Arel, Tamei, forbidding him even to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah

(c)The Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva is the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yosef ha'Bavli. Rebbi Yosef ha'Bavli permits an Onen to burn the Parah, but forbids a Mechusar Kipurim. The Tana Kama - permits even a Mechusar Kipurim, too.

(d)This proves that he is the Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva - because, we assume that, just as he argues with the Tana of the Beraisa with regard to a Mechusar Kipurim, so too, does he argue with him with regard to an Arel, permitting both, whereas the Tana of the Beraisa forbids them.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak (like Rebbi Akiva) forbids an Arel to eat Ma'aser - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mimenu" "Mimenu" from Pesach.

(b)The 'Gezeirah-Shavah' must be Mufnah because otherwise we could ask - that Pesach is different, inasmuch as it is subject to Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah.

6)

(a)The Torah writes "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na", because it belongs there, and "v'Lo Sosiru Mimenu* ad Boker" for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'. It might write "v'ha'Nosar Mimenu ... ", because it goes together with the phrase which comes as an Aseh to rectify the Lav. Alternatively - iot comes to teach us that whatever is left over until the morning (the first morning of Yom Tov) must be burned on the following morning (from which we learn the prohibition of burning Kodshim on Yom Tov).

(b)We need the Pasuk (by Ma'aser) "Lo Achalti Mimenu b'Tamei", because it belongs there. We need the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lo Bi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei" for the Derashah of Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who learns from there that one may burn Tamei Terumah as fuel (as we learned on the previous Daf).

2. ... "v'Lo Nasati Mimenu l'Mes" for the Derashah of Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Samya - who learns from there 'le'Mes Hu d'Lo Nasati, Ha l'Chai Dumya d'Mes Nasati', from which we derive the concession of using Ma'aser Sheni oil to anoint oneself.

(c)We know that the latter Derashah is speaking about Tamei Ma'aser - because "Mimenu" also relates to the previous Pasuk, "Lo Bi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei".

(d)If not for the Pasuk permitting it - we would have thought that anointing with Tamei oil is forbidden, because of the principle that we find by Terumah 'Sichah ki'Shesiyah' (anointing is akin to drinking), and drinking it (the Tamei Ma'aser) is certainly forbidden.

7)

(a)We suggest that perhaps "l'Mes" means that he did not buy a coffin and shrouds with the money of Ma'aser (rather than that he did not anoint with the actual oil), in which case - we would deduce from there that for a live person, one may use it to buy clothes (but not to anoint).

(b)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua answers that "Mimenu" implies from the Ma'aser itself and not from its proceeds. Rav Ashi learns the same thing from the Hekesh of "Lo Nasati" to "Lo Achalti" (that the former, like the latter, refers to the actual object and not to the proceeds.

(c)In any event, it is only "Mimenu" by Pesach that is Mufnah (and not the one by Ma'aser). Those who learn that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufnah on only one side (as we learned earlier in the Perek) can be refuted, will learn the concession of burning Tamei Terumah as fuel from Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah. He learns it from the Pasuk "va'Ani Hinei Nasati Lecha es Mishmeres Terumosai" - written in the plural, implying that the Torah gave the Kohen two Terumos, Terumah Tehorah and Terumah Teme'ah, both of which are "Lecha", for him to use (if not to eat, then as fuel.

8)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon ... v'Hu Tzaru'a O Zav, ba'Kodshim Lo Yochal" - that a Kohen who is Tamei is forbidden to eat Terumah. We know that the Pasuk is referring to Terumah, because of the words "mi'Zera Aharon", which implies something pertaining to all Kohanim (and not just to the males, like Kodshei Kodashim do).

(b)We suggest that perhaps the Torah is referring to Chazeh v'Shok, which female Kohanim are also permitted to eat. 'Chazeh v'Shok' is - the chest and the right calf of each Shelamim, which went to the Kohen.

(c)We refute this suggestion however - because a Kohenes who married a Yisrael, and who returns to her father's house to eat Terumah, is not permitted to eat Chazeh v'Shok.

(d)That is quite different than Terumah, which is also forbidden to a Chalalah - because a Chalalah is not considered a Kohenes. It therefore transpires that all the 'seed of Aharon' are permitted to eat Terumah, but not Chazeh v'Shok).

9)

(a)The problem we have in establishing the Pasuk "Ad Asher Yit'har" by nightfall is - that perhaps it refers to after one has brought one's Kaparah!?

(b)To resolve this problem, we cite a Beraisa, which establishes the Pasuk "Ad Asher Yit'har" by a Zav who had two sightings - who is not obligated to bring a Korban.

(c)He learns that the Pasuk is not referring to a Zav who had three sightings - because the Torah juxtaposes it next to a Tamei Mes, who is never Chayav to bring a Korban.

(d)The equivalent regarding a Metzora (mentioned in the same Pasuk) is - a Metzora Musgar (who has been 'locked up').

10)

(a)As further proof to what we just learned, we cite a Mishnah in Nega'im, which differentiates between three levels of Tum'ah, which Rava Amar Rav Chisda learns from three Pesukim. Ahe learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Emor "Nefesh Asher Tiga Bo ... v'Lo Yochal min ha'Kodshim Ki im Rachatz Besaro ba'Mayim" - that as soon as he has Toveled, he is permitted to eat Ma'aser.

2. ... in Emor "u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher v'Achar Yochal min ha'Kodshim" - that immediately after nightfall, he is permitted to eat Terumah.

3. ... in Tazri'a "v'Chiper Alehah ha'Kohen v'Taherah" - that the following day, after he has brought his Korbanos, he may eat Kodshim.

(b)Terumah is more stringent than Ma'aser in four regards (Mi.Ch.Pi.Z. - the same Chumros that it has over Kodshim, as we learned earlier in the Sugya). The Chumros of Ma'aser over Terumah are contained in the acronym Ha.D.As.Tu.B - which represent Havah'as Makom; Viduy; Asur l'Onen; Asur l'Ochlan b'Tum'ah; Chayavin b'Bi'ur.

(c)Despite the fact that Ma'aser has more Chumros than Terumah, Terumah is more stringent (in the above context) than Ma'aser, for one of two reasons. One of them is because it is punishable by Misah. Rava maintains that even without that, the Pasuk "v'Lo Yochal min ha'Kodshim ... " could only be speaking about Ma'aser - because the Pasuk begins with the word Nefesh, implying everyone, and not just Kohanim (which would have been the case had it referred to Terumah).

11)

(a)From the Pasuk (written in connection with a Yoledes) "ad M'los Yemei Taharah" - that even a Kohen who will require a Korban may eat Terumah as soon as the day (in this case it is days - forty for a boy and eighty for a girl) ends, the Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah, and from "v'Kiper Alehah ha'Kohen v'Taherah" - that Kodshim only becomes permitted after the subsequent Korban has been brought.

(b)We would otherwise have thought - that it is only a Tevul Yom who does not have to bring a Korban who is permitted to eat Terumah at nightfall, but a Mechusar Kipurim must wait until after he has brought his Korban (even to eat Terumah).

(c)We have already learned how Kodshim is more Chamur than Terumah. Rava, inferring from the word "v'Taherah", proves that this latter Pasuk can only be referring to Kodshim (and the former one to Terumah) - because the word "v'Taherah" implies that before bringing her Korban (i.e. a Mechuseres Kipurim, referred to in the Pasuk "ad M'los ... "), the Yoledes is still Tamei. So bearing in mind that the Torah writes in Tzav "v'ha'Basar (shel Kodshim) Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel", how could the Pasuk of "ad M'los ... " be speaking about Kodshim, seeing as she is still considered Tamei?

12)

(a)The Beraisa derives from the Pasuk (in Tazri'a) "Daber el Bnei Yisrael ... Ishah ki Sazri'a ... " - that even a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres are subject to Tum'as Leidah.

(b)The problem with the previous Derashah now is - that we established the Pasuk of "ad M'los ... " (written in the same Parashah) with regard to Terumah, whereas a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres (who are both forbidden to a Kohen) are prohibited from eating Terumah!

(c)On the other hand, we prove from the Pasuk (in the same context) "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" - (which can only be referring to Terumah, as we learn from the Sugya in Makos) that this Parashah must be speaking about Terumah.

(d)We reconcile the fact that, on the one hand, the Pasuk is referring to a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres, and on the other, it is speaking about eating Terumah - that this Parashah incorporates different topics; on the one hand it teaches us about when a Kohen may Terumah and Kodshim, on the other, which women become Tamei Leidah.