1) DISCONNECTED PARTS OF A “MINCHAH”

(a) Question (Benei R. Chiya): If an Isaron (i.e. a Minchah) is in a Kli in two parts (they do not touch each other) and a Tevul Yom touched one of them, what is the law (is the other Pasul)?
1. A Mishnah teaches that a Kli joins Kodesh that is inside – perhaps this is only when it is connected, not when it is in two parts;
2. Or, perhaps the law applies in any case.
(b) Answer (R. Chiya): The Mishnah does not say that a Kli *connects* (connoting that the Kodesh is connected, and the Kli causes it all to be considered like one), rather, a Kli *joins* (even if the Kadosh is disconnected!)
(c) Question (Benei R. Chiya): If part of another Minchah was placed between the two pieces (and a Tevul Yom touched the middle piece), what is the law (are the others Pesulim)?
(d) Answer (R. Chiya): A Kli joins its (Kodesh) contents only if they need to be in the same Kli (e.g. parts of one Minchah – this middle piece need not be with the others.)
(e) Question (Benei R. Chiya): If a Tevul Yom put his finger in between the two (disconnected) parts of the Minchah in the Kli, what is the law (do we consider it as if the Minchah is connected there, and he was Posel it?)
(f) Answer (R. Chiya): The only Kli that receives (and causes its contents to receive) Tum’ah from its airspace (without physical contact) is earthenware.
(g) Question (R. Chiya): May one take Kemitzah (on behalf of the entire Minchah) from one of the parts?
1. If Tziruf (all Kodesh in a Kli is considered one) is mid’Oraisa, it always applies, whether this is a stringency or leniency;
2. If Tziruf is mid’Rabanan, this is only a stringency.
(h) Answer #1 (Benei R. Chiya): We can learn from the following:
1. (Mishnah): If two Menachos became mixed together before Kemitzah – if one can take a Kometz from each of them by itself they are Kesherim, if not, they are Pesulim.
2. Inference: (In the first case) it helps to take a Kemitzah from each Minchah, even though part of it is disconnected (mixed with the other Minchah!)
(i) Rejection (Rava): Perhaps each Minchah is connected, they are (not truly mixed, rather,) intermeshed like prongs of two forks.
1. Question: What was the conclusion?
(j) Answer #2 (Rava – Beraisa): “V’Herim *Mimenu*” – from a connected Minchah, Kemitzah may not be taken from a Minchah in two Kelim.
1. (Assumption: Even though the Minchah is disconnected, the reason Kemitzah may not be taken is because the Minchah is in two Kelim.)
2. Inference: Kemitzah may be taken from a disconnected Minchah in one Kli!
(k) Rejection (Abaye): Perhaps the Kelim are joined, one is a cavity hollowed out in the other, and the Minchah is connected above (the brim of the Kelim;)
1. Even though it is connected above, the walls of the Kli separate them below (therefore, Kemitzah may not be taken.)
(l) Question: What is the corresponding case of a Minchah in one Kli (which may be Nikmetzes?)
(m) Answer: If it was in a feeding trough for chickens (with compartments for water and bran separated by a low divider), and the Minchah is connected above the divider within the vessel, Kemitzah may be done. (n) Here, the Minchah is connected – we cannot resolve our question about a disconnected Minchah.
(o) Question (R. Yirmeyah): Can water join (for Tum’ah) to something joined through a vessel? (If two disconnected parts of a Minchah were in a Kli, and water connected one of them to Kodshim outside the Kli, and a Tevul Yom touched the part outside the water, we know that the other part (in the Kli) is Nifsal – does it Posel the Kodshim outside the Kli?)
1. Perhaps Tziruf Kli only takes effect regarding what is in the Kli, but not regarding what is outside;
2. Or, since we consider it to be connected, it is connected in every respect.
(p) Question: If you will say that it is connected, can a Kli Metzaref something joined through water? (If the Tevul Yom touched the Kodshim outside the Kli, we know that the part (in the Kli) touching the water is Nifsal – is the other part Nifsal also?)
1. Perhaps Tziruf Kli only takes effect when Tum’ah touches inside the Kli, but not if it touches outside;
2. Or, perhaps it applies in both cases?
(q) This question is not resolved.
2) “SAVA LAH TUM’AH”
(a) Question (Rava): If an Isaron was in two parts and one of them became Tamei, and both parts were put in a Kli and a Tevul Yom touched the Tamei part, what is the law?
1. Do we say Sava Lah Tum’ah (if Tum’ah touches something that was already Tamei, this has no effect, e.g. to Metamei other Kodesh through Tziruf Kli), or not?
(b) Answer #1 (Abaye): We do not say this!
1. (Mishnah): If a garment was Tamei Medras (an Av ha’Tum’ah) and was made into a curtain, it is no longer Tamei Medras, but it is (a Rishon l’Tum’ah,) like a Kli that touched a Medras.
24b—————————————24b

2. R. Yosi: It did not touch a Medras! However, if a Zav touched it, it is Tamei Maga Zav (like a Kli that touched a Zav, i.e. a Rishon.)
3. Inference: Even if the Zav touched it after it was Tamei Medras, it becomes Tamei Maga Zav – we do not say Sava Lah Tum’ah!
(c) Rejection (Rava): Perhaps this is only if the Zav touched it before it was Tamei Medras;
1. Surely, if the second Tum’ah (Medras) is more severe than the first, we do not say Sava Lah Tum’ah.
2. My question was when both are light Tum’os, perhaps we say Sava Lah Tum’ah.
(d) Answer #2 (Mishnah): R. Yosi admits that if two garments were folded on top of each other and a Zav sat on them, the top garment are Tamei Medras, the bottom is Tamei Medras and Tamei Maga Medras. (Right now, there is no significance to (also) being Maga Medras – however, if it will be was made into a curtain (or be torn less than the Shi’ur for Tum’as Medras), R. Yosi admits that it will be Maga Medras.)
(e) Rejection: There, the Tum’os came at the same time – Rava’s question was when the Tum’os came one after the other.
3) AN UNNEEDED PART OF A “MINCHAH”
(a) (Rava): If an Isaron was in two parts and one of them was lost and more flour was separated to replace it and then the lost part was found (either of these may be joined to the intact part to comprise the Minchah), and all three piles of flour are in one Kli:
1. If Tum’ah touches the (previously) lost pile, the intact pile also becomes Tamei on account of Tziruf Kli, the replacement pile is Tahor (since it was never intended to be joined to the lost pile);
2. If Tum’ah touches the replacement pile, the intact pile also becomes Tamei, the lost pile is Tahor;
3. If Tum’ah touches the intact pile, the other two piles also become Tamei (since each was intended to be joined to the intact pile);
(b) (Abaye): In all cases, all of them become Tamei, for all were designated on account of the original Minchah.
(c) (Rava): The same applies to Kemitzah:
1. If Kemitzah was taken from the lost pile, its Shirayim and the intact pile may be eaten, the replacement pile is forbidden (it will not be part of the Minchah, therefore the Kometz does not permit it);
2. If Kemitzah was taken from the replacement pile, its Shirayim and the intact pile may be eaten, the lost pile is forbidden;
3. If it was taken from the intact pile, (its Shirayim may be eaten,) the other piles are forbidden (for we do not know which of them is part of the Minchah);
(d) (Abaye): In all cases, the other two may not be eaten, for all were designated on account of the original Minchah.
(e) Question (Rav Papa): You hold that Shirayim of the intact pile may be eaten? But the Kometz was separated for all three piles, (a third of a Kometz from each, instead of half (a Kometz) from each of the two piles comprising the Minchah), a sixth is Chaser from each of them!
(f) Question (R. Yitzchak brei d’Rav Mesharshiya): How can the Kometz be offered? A third of it is ‘Chulin’ (it was for the pile that is not part of the Minchah!)
(g) Answer to both questions (Rav Ashi): The Kometz is taken on behalf of what the Kohen intends for, he intends for one Isaron.