Question: Why would I think that he is Pasul?

Suggestion: It is because the Torah called it "Chatas" [and Tevul Yom is Pasul for Kodshim].

Rejection: Haza'ah is unlike other Avodah. A Zar is Kosher for Haza'ah!

Answer: It is because the Torah was particular to place [the ashes] in a Tahor place.

Question: How can we learn from Haza'ah to be Machshir a Tevul Yom for other Avodos? We can ask that [Haza'ah is more lenient, for] a Zar is Kosher for Haza'ah!

Answer: Even so, since the primary Taharah comes through Haza'ah, and the Torah was Machshir a Tevul Yom, all the more so this applies to other Avodos.

Suggestion: We should include [to be Kosher] a Mechusar Kipurim who had ha'Arev Shemesh (night came after he immersed. He is no longer a Tevul Yom;) he lacks only Kaparah (a Korban), but not include a Tevul Yom!

Answer (Ri): We establish the verse to discuss a Tum'ah in this Parshah, e.g. Tum'as Mes, to which Kaparah does not apply.

Support: We say in Zevachim (17b) that the one who is Machshir Mechusar Kipurim holds that we are Machshir [from "v'Hizah ha'Tahor" even one who is partially Tamei, i.e.] Tevul Yom of any Tum'ah in the entire Torah, even if he is [also] Mechusar Kipurim;

The one who disqualifies [Mechusar Kipurim] holds that [we are Machshir] Tevul Yom only of Tum'ah in that Parshah, i.e. Tum'as Mes, which does not require Kaparah;

We are not Machshir [one who was] a Zav, Metzora or Yoledes, even after ha'Arev Shemesh.

Question: What was the question? Obviously, he cannot learn lenient from stringent!

Answer #1: He was unsure how he learns Pesach from Ma'aser. If he learns from the Gezeirah Shavah from Mimenu, he learns also Ma'aser from Pesach, even though it is lenient from stringent;

Or, perhaps he learns from a Kal va'Chomer, and not from the Gezeirah Shavah;

Answer #2: [He knew that he learns from the Gezeirah Shavah, but] he was unsure whether or not the Gezeirah Shavah is Mufneh.

Question: Since the Tana taught that one (a Zar who ate them b'Shogeg) is liable a Chomesh, there is no need to teach that they are forbidden to Zarim!

Suggestion: He taught this because he wanted to teach "these do not apply to Ma'aser", i.e. that it is permitted to Zarim.

Rejection: In Chalah (1:9), it says that for Chalah and Terumah, one is liable Misah and Chomesh, and they are forbidden to Zarim, even though it does not conclude there "these do not apply to Ma'aser"!

Answer #1 (Aruch, Erech Ta'an): It needs to teach that [even] Chetzi Shi'ur is forbidden to Zarim, [both] according to the opinion that Chetzi Shi'ur [of all Isurim] is forbidden mid'Rabanan, and according to the opinion that it is forbidden mid'Oraisa.

Answer #2 (Aruch): It is forbidden to Zarim even though through redemption.

Rebuttal: The Gemara says below that "they cannot be redeemed" is one of the matters that the Tana omitted! (According to the Aruch, "it is forbidden to Zarim" teaches this!)

Explanation: In Chulin (131a), it explains that Bikurim are called Nichsei Kohen to teach that he may buy with them slaves, land and Tamei animals;

These are forbidden with Ma'aser Sheni. A Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:7), brought in Kidushin 56a, says that one may not buy Tamei animals, slaves and land with coins of Ma'aser Sheni.

Inference: Only these are forbidden, but one may buy clothes [with Ma'aser coins].

Support (Ma'aser Sheni 5:12, brought below 74a): "Lo Nasatiu Mimenu l'Mes" - (I did not buy with Ma'aser coins) a coffin or shrouds for a Mes.

Inference: The corresponding matters for a living person I bought [with Ma'aser coins], i.e. clothes. The Gemara infers like this below regarding anointing.

Question #1 - Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: What does "Lo Nasati Mimenu l'Mes" discuss?

Citation (cont.): It cannot include [an Isur to buy] a coffin or shrouds. This is forbidden both for the living and for a Mes!

Inference: One may not buy clothes for a living person.

Question #2: Several Mishnayos in Maseches Ma'aser Sheni (1:7) forbid all business with Ma'aser. It is given only for eating and drinking and anointing!

Answer #1 (Ri): We can say that the Mishnayos that forbid are like R. Meir, who holds (Kidushin 52b) that [Ma'aser] is considered Hash-m's money. (He permits us only to eat, drink and anoint with it.)

The other [Mishnayos] are like R. Yehudah, who holds that it is the person's money. (One may use it for other needs of the living, e.g. clothes.)

Implied question: Kidushin 54b connotes that there is only one Stam Mishnah like R. Yehudah. [Also] the Mishnah that permits clothing is like him!

Answer: In any case, there are more Stam Mishnayos like R. Meir.

Answer #2 (Ri): The Mishnayos do not argue with each other. Mid'Oraisa, only slaves, land and Tamei animals are forbidden, but clothing is permitted. Mid'Rabanan, we forbid even clothing.

Implied question: The Yerushalmi expounded that "Lo Nasati Mimenu l'Mes" cannot discuss a coffin or shrouds, for this is forbidden also for the living! (I.e. the Torah forbids clothing even for the living.)

Answer: It is a mere Asmachta.

Assertion: We permit an animal to eat Ma'aser Sheni while it is threshing, according to the opinion that it is a person's money. It seems that while it is not threshing, it is forbidden mid'Rabanan;

According to the opinion that it is Hash-m's money, the Torah forbids feeding it to an animal.

Question: Below (Amud B), we learn Bikurim from Ma'aser, that they are forbidden to an Onen, since the Torah equated them to Ma'aser Sheni;

We should learn also Ma'aser from Bikurim, to obligate Misah for a Tamei who eats it!

We understand why we do not learn to forbid to Zarim, for the Torah explicitly permitted it to Zarim.

Answer: We expound "u'Mesu Bo Ki Yechaleluhu" - Bo (for Terumah, there is Misah), but not for Ma'aser.

Support #1: We expound like this below (86a) "Bo" (for Terumah, there is Misah), but not for Ma'aser Rishon. Even R. Meir, who forbids Zarim (he permits only Leviyim and Kohanim to eat it), does not obligate Misah.

Support #2: We expound also in Sanhedrin (84a) "Bo" (for Terumah, there is Misah), but not for Me'ilah.

Implied question: Why is Ma'aser Sheni Batel in a majority, when it is Ein Lo Matirim? We should learn from Bikurim, which are Batel only in 101 (i.e. a mixture with at least 100 times as much Chulin!

Note: Tahor Ma'aser is Yesh Lo Matirim, i.e. it is permitted in another situation, i.e. in Yerushalayim. Such matters are never Batel. Tamei Ma'aser is Ein Lo Matirim.

Answer: This is because mid'Oraisa, Bikurim themselves are Batel in a majority [of Chulin].

Implied question: The Sifri expounds from "Es Mikdesho Mimenu" (that Terumah, from which we learn Bikurim, is Batel only in 100, just like Terumas Ma'aser is one part in 100 of the Tevel)!

Answer: That is a mere Asmachta.

Support #1: It says in Gitin (54b) about (important nuts of Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem, which are never Batel,) if they fell and broke, "mid'Oraisa, they are Batel in the majority."

Inference: Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem are Batel in a majority [of Heter] mid'Oraisa.

Note: Mid'Rabanan, they are Batel in 200 parts of Heter. Presumably, if mid'Oraisa Terumah is Batel in 100, the Gemara should have said that Chachamim saw a need to be more stringent about their decrees (Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem) than Torah law (Terumah)!

Support #2: Below (82a) regarding "I say, Chulin fell into Chulin", we are lenient to say so when there is a majority of Chulin over Terumah.

Inference: Mid'Oraisa it is Batel in the majority. (Even if the Terumah fell in, it is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, therefore we are lenient about a Safek.)

Question: We should learn Bikurim from Ma'aser, to teach that it is not the Kohen's property, to be stringent, and not from Terumah, to be lenient!

Suggestion: It is only mid'Rabanan that one may not buy Tamei animals, slaves and land [with coins of Ma'aser Sheni. Therefore, we learn from Terumah].

Rejection: This cannot be, based on what I explained above that mid'Rabanan, everything is forbidden [except for eating and drinking and anointing].

Question: Regarding an Arel, when we say that the Tana omitted cases, why don't we learn Ma'aser from Bikurim?

Answer: Based on what I explained above (71a DH Bo), that we can exclude it from "Bo", this is fine.

Question: Why does it say regarding Netilas Yadayim "this does not apply to Ma'aser"?

Citation (Chulin 33b - Beraisa - R. Meir): Anyone who must immerse mid'Rabanan is forbidden to Terumah and is permitted Chulin and Ma'aser;

Citation (cont.): Chachamim forbid Ma'aser.

Answer (Ri): That refers to eating. Here we discuss touching (one may touch Ma'aser with Stam hands. The Maharsha points out that the question was not difficult. We could say that our Mishnah is like R. Meir, like it says in Chagigah 18b! Tosfos answered like the conclusion, that even Chachamim can agree.)

Question: It should teach [exemption from] Chalah! Bikurim and Terumah are exempt from Chalah, and Ma'aser is obligated!

Answer: A Mishnah (Chalah 1:3) teaches that if Ma'aser Sheni or Hekdesh was redeemed, it is obligated in Chalah;

Inference: This is only if it was redeemed (and then, it is Chulin, and not Ma'aser). If it was not redeemed, no (it is exempt like Bikurim and Terumah).

Implied question: Also Terumah we learn from Bikurim. This is clear from Chulin 120b!

Answer: Perhaps it is not proper to learn that it must be brought to Yerushalayim.

Implied question: We expound in Ma'aser Sheni (5:10) that "v'Gam Nesativ l'Levi" refers to Terumah!

Answer (Ri): Viduy about Terumah is only along with Ma'aser. However, if the Ma'aser was lost, he does not confess about Terumah by itself.

Explanation #1 (Rivan): Bi'ur of Ma'aser is not like Bi'ur of Bikurim. Bi'ur of Ma'aser is in the fourth year [of the Shemitah cycle];

Bi'ur of Bikurim is after Sukos, like it says (Makos 18b) if one separated Bikurim before Sukos, and Sukos passed, they must rot.

Rebuttal (Ri): This (leaving them to rot) is not Bi'ur! There, they must rot because they were proper for Keri'ah (to recite Viduy Bikurim over them), and they were pushed off.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Bi'ur of Bikurim is like of Ma'aser. If he gave them to the Kohen before Sukos or separated them after Sukos, he may keep them until the fourth year.

Question: Also Terumah requires Bi'ur, like a Mishnah says (Ma'aser Sheni 5:6) "how is Bi'ur done? He gives Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser to its owners (Kohanim)..."!

Answer: Terumah requires only that he gives it to the Kohen, and the Kohen can keep it as long as he wants. Ma'aser Sheni and Bikurim must be eradicated from the world, wherever they are.

R. Shimon exempts Bikurim [from Bi'ur], i.e. the Kohen need not destroy them, but the Yisrael must give them to the Kohen, like Terumah.

Support (Ma'aser Sheni 5:6 - Mishnah): Erev Yom Tov (Pesach) of the fourth and seventh years [of the Shemitah cycle] was Bi'ur;

Citation (cont.): How is Bi'ur done? He gives Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser to its owners, Ma'aser Rishon to its owners (Leviyim), but Ma'aser Sheni and Bikurim are eradicated wherever they are;

Citation (cont.): R. Shimon says, he gives Bikurim to the Kohen, like Terumah.

Question (Ri): Why isn't he lashed also for Terumah? We should learn from Bikurim!

Answer: Above (70a) I wrote [and left this difficult. There, we brought from Tosfos Menachos 15a that Bikurim are called Terumah, but Terumah is not called Bikurim.]

Explanation: It says regarding them "Yad" - "v'Lakach ha'Kohen ha'Tene mi'Yadecha."

Question (Ri) Citation (Makos 17b - R. Shimon): What does this (Terumas Yadecha) come to teach us? If it forbids eating [Bikurim] outside the wall [of Yerushalayim], we learn from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, which is more lenient!"

Citation (cont. - Rava): Is Bikurim more stringent than Ma'aser because it is forbidden to Zarim? Just the contrary, Ma'aser is more stringent, for it is forbidden to an Onen!

Question: Why don't we learn to forbid Bikurim to an Onen from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, which is permitted to Zarim?

Answer: It is because the Torah called [Bikurim] Terumah (which is permitted to an Onen), like it says here.

Summation of the Ris' question: If so, for this very reason that the Torah called them Terumah, we should not learn from Ma'aser [a Lav to eat them] outside the wall!

Answer: Since Ma'aser and Bikurim must be brought to Yerushalayim, and Terumah need not be brought to Yerushalayim, regarding outside the wall we can compare Bikurim to Ma'aser more than to Terumah. (However, for other matters, e.g. Aninus, we compare Bikurim to Terumah more than to Ma'aser, because the Torah called them Terumah.)

Explanation: This is because the Torah called them Terumah.

Question (Ri): Here it connotes that we do not learn a Lav for eating [Tamei Ma'aser] from "Lo Vi'arti";

Citation (Pesachim 24a): We do not need "veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel" for itself (eating Tamei Kodshim), for we learn this from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, which is lenient, and it says about Ma'aser Lo Vi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei;

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Perhaps we need "veha'Basar...", because Ein Mazhirin Min ha'Din! (We cannot learn a Lav to give lashes based on a Kal va'Chomer.)

Citation (cont.) Rejection: This is a Hekesh. It says "Lo Suchal Le'chol bi'Sh'arecha [Masar... v'Chol Nedarecha...]"

Inference: If Mazhirin Min ha'Din, we would properly know a Lav from Lo Vi'arti!

Question: Since there is a Lav when it itself is Tamei, why do we need a Lav to forbid when the person is Tamei? (He is Metamei all food that he touches!)

Answer: This is relevant if someone [Tahor] inserted the food in his throat, or if it was not Huchshar to receive Tum'ah. (Until one of the seven liquids is put on a food after it was detached, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah.)

Question: From this verse itself, from which we learn Tum'ah of the food, we should learn Tum'ah of the person!

The case in which I (the Torah) told you "you will eat it in your gates" (blemished Korbanos after redemption), whether the person or food is Tamei, here (Ma'aser) you may not eat.

Question: Why would we think one may not burn Tamei Terumah?

Suggestion #1: Since Terumah is called Kodesh, we would have learned it from Kodesh.

Suggestion #2: Even though Kodshim are more stringent [than Terumah], since Terumah is burned, like Tamei Kodshim, we would have learned it from Kodesh, that one may not benefit from it while burning it. It is a Giluy Milsa (reveals, that this Isur of Kodesh applies also to Terumah).

Rejection (of both suggestions): If so, what was the question "why do you learn this way? Perhaps Mimenu excludes Kodesh (you may burn Tamei Kodesh for benefit), but Terumah is forbidden [to burn for benefit]!

Now, since Kodesh is permitted, what is the source to forbid Terumah?!

Answer #1: We would have learned Terumah from Bikurim.

Objection: However, in our entire Sugya, we do not learn Terumah from Bikurim!

Answer #2 (Ri): We ask what is the source for Terumah, because we should have learned a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, like it says below (74b);

Question: How can we learn from Ma'aser? It has [five stringencies over Terumah. An acronym for them is] HaDaSTaV (it must be brought to Yerushalayim, one must recite Viduy over it, it is forbidden to an Onen, one may not burn Tamei Ma'aser, and one who eats it is lashed, and Bi'ur applies to it.)

Answer: Regarding Tum'ah, we find that Terumah is more stringent than Ma'aser. (A Sheni l'Tum'ah is Metamei Terumah, but not Ma'aser.)

Question: We cannot learn from Ma'aser, for one who eats Tamei Ma'aser is lashed!

Answer: We would learn from the Kal va'Chomer that also one who eats Tamei Terumah is lashed!

Conclusion: According to the conclusion, one may burn Tamei Terumah [for benefit], so we cannot learn [lashes for] one who eats Tamei Terumah.

Implied question: Why doesn't it mention Mechusar Kipurim?

Answer: [We know that Mechusar Kipurim is forbidden to Kodshim and permitted to Terumah only] from this reason itself (that Kodshim has more stringencies than Terumah), like we learn below (74b).

Question: Why doesn't it mention the following [stringencies of Kodesh over Terumah]?

It makes a Revi'i l'Tum'ah, and Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir [Kodesh to be Mekabel Tum'ah], and [a Bas Kohen widowed or divorced from a Yisrael] returns to eat Terumah, but not to eat [Kodesh special to Kohanim, e.g.] Chazah v'Shok;

A Kli joins it contents [to be like one regarding Tum'ah] regarding Kodesh, but not for Terumah. A Mumeres disqualifies Kodesh..., and Tum'ah is Metamei its own kind (a food is Metamei a food) for Kodesh, but not for Terumah, according to one opinion in Pesachim (14a);

It applied before Matan Torah, e.g. Pesach and Tamid, according to the opinion (Chagigah 6a) that the Olah that Bnei Yisrael offered in the Midbar was Olas Tamid.

Question: Initially, he held that Kares is more stringent [than Misah b'Yedei Shamayim], and at the end, he holds that Misah is more stringent!

Answer: Now, we do not ask from eating when the person is Tamei [and say that Terumah, which has Misah, is more stringent than Kodesh, which has Kares];

Rather, we discuss a Zar who eats. This does not apply to Kodesh, for some Kodshim are permitted to Zarim, e.g. Shelamim (but a Zar who eats any Terumah is Chayav Misah);

Even Kodshim permitted only to Kohanim, there is no Misah for a Zar who eats them. There is only a Lav.

Even Kodshim to which Me'ilah applies, there is no Misah according to Rabanan [of Rebbi], who hold that who transgressed Me'ilah b'Mezid transgresses [just] a Lav.