Answer: Even so, we can say that the Talis and garment of our Sugya are different, for they are Kelim, and they are called Kelim, and when they are torn, since they lose the status of Kelim, they are totally Tahor;

However, in Chulin (72b), we discuss a mere piece of a garment, and it is not called a Kli, and it is not Tahor from Maga Midras, even though it is Tahor from Midras.

Answer #2 (to Question (b), 94b - Rashi in Chulin 123b): The case of "but it is Tamei Maga Midras" is when there were two Tum'os - severe Midras, and it touched a Zav;

The division helps to be Mevatel the [Tum'as] Midras, for it is no longer proper for it. Tum'as Maga remains, for it is proper for [a garment of at least] three fingers;

However, the case there (Chulin 123b) discusses when there was only one Tum'ah - either a Zav touched it without pressing down on it (so there is no Midras), or it touched a Sheretz or Neveilah, and it is one name [of Tum'ah];

It is all Tum'ah of three by three fingers, and tearing helps to be Mevatel its name from it, and no [Tum'ah] remains on it.

Rebuttal: There is illogical to distinguish like this between one Tum'ah and two Tum'os. Since three by three fingers remains in the Talis, which is the Shi'ur of Tum'as Maga, how does it become Tahor?!

Answer #3: At the beginning of the Sugya there, Rashi explained that a Talis that he began tearing it and to be Mevatel it from the law of a Talis, once it is not proper for its initial use, and its name is not on it, it becomes Tahor;

Even though the remnants are three by three fingers, and it is still proper to receive Tum'ah, it is Tahor from its first Tum'ah, similar to a Kli Cheres. Breaking it is Metaher it, and its shards receive Tum'ah, like it says in Chulin (54b) "they and their bottoms [receive Tum'ah if they can hold enough to anoint a small limb]."

Objection: There is no proof from there. There it discusses when he designated the shards afterwards, but without designation, no (they are not Mekabel Tum'ah), like I explained there.

Answer #4: It seems that tearing a garment or Talis, both discuss when he tears it into many pieces, and each is not three fingers. Therefore it says that it is totally Tahor;

Even though all the pieces are connected at theirs ends, this is not considered connected;

Since each tear was torn until the majority of the Talis, less than three by three fingers, it is as if each [tear] finished until the end;

The case is, there did not remain in the minority of the Talis (that was not cut) enough for a turban. If enough remained, it is Tamei mid'Rabanan, like we conclude here.

Question: This is astounding! Why is Tum'ah different, that mid'Oraisa it is not considered a garment, even though he left enough for a turban, and regarding Dam Chatas it is considered a garment?

Similarly, it is difficult below about a Kli Cheres that became Tamei... He punctures it... [The Gemara] asks [why must he break it?] "The Torah said [to break] a Kli, and this is not a Kli!", and answers that he punctures enough for a small root [to leave];

If so, it is not a Kli, for it became Tahor from its Tum'ah!

Answer: It seems that since designation helps for that garment in which he left enough for a turban, that he did not totally separate the pieces to tear them totally off...

And for the Kli punctured enough for a small root, if he would designate it for olives or pomegranates, it would receive Tum'ah from now and onwards, it is considered a Kli or a Beged for Dam Chatas, since it is not lacking an action, rather, mere designation.

Citation: It says below regarding a copper Kli that he makes a big hole in it, [and asks] "the Torah said Kli, and this is not a Kli!", and answers "d'Ratzif Lei Martzif";

Implied suggestion: [D'Ratzif Lei Martzif] means like Ratzfinhu Martzif in Shabbos (16b), i.e. that he fixes the opening, that he beats on it with a sledge hammer, and it returns to be called a Kli.

Rejection: If so, we should answer so also for a Beged, that he returned to sew it after he tore it!

Explanation: Rather, you are forced to say that it is considered like a new Beged or a new Kli, and it is not the first;

Ratzif Lei means that he reverses the inside to the outside and the outside to the inside, and the inside becomes the outside and the outside becomes the inside, and this is Metaher it from its Tum'ah.

Question: What is the connection of the Shi'ur for a small root to Taharah of a Kli? That Shi'ur is for Hechsher of Zera'im, in Shabbos (95b)!

If the Kli is special for food, the Shi'ur [of the hole to be Metaher] is for olives [to fall out], but not for a small root!

If it is special for liquids, the Shi'ur is for liquid to enter!

Answer #1: Rashi explained that there is an opinion that enough for a small root is the Shi'ur of a puncture to be Metaher.

Rebuttal: One cannot say so. Amora'im argue about this in Shabbos (95b, whether the Shi'ur is) enough for a small root, or enough for pomegranates to fall out. Rashi explained there that they argue about Hechsher Zera'im;

[They cannot argue about Tum'ah, for] regarding Tum'ah, a Mishnah in Kelim (3:1) teaches that [a Kli] made for food, its Shi'ur is olives. [If it is made] for liquids, the Shi'ur is for liquid to enter.

Question: Also that Perush (of Rashi in Shabbos) is difficult, for a Mishnah in Uktzin (2:10) teaches that to be Machshir Zera'im, the Shi'ur is for a small root. (How could Amora'im argue about this?)

Answer (R. Tam): They argue about a Tzamid Pasil (a hermetic seal on a Kli Cheres), to be considered an opening in Stam Kelim (they were not designated for pomegranates), but they do not argue about [being Mekabel] Tum'ah.

Answer #2: With difficulty, we can say that this Kli Cheres is made for food and liquids, for they cook Chatas in it, and there is soup (the water in which it was cooked received taste from Chatas);

Therefore, its Shi'ur is for a small root. It does not have the law of a Kli made for liquids, and not the law of a Kli made for food.

Implied question: Why is this unlike the text [of the Mishnah] in Kelim (3:1, a Kli) made for this and this (food and liquids), we are stringent [that it is Tahor only through a hole that lets out] olives?

Answer: That is when at the time they put in it liquids, they do not put food in it, and when they put in it food, they do not put liquids in it. Rather, they put in it food by itself, and [sometimes] liquids by themselves;

However, here, a pot in which they cook meat, it is made to be used for food and liquids mixed together;

The reason why the Shi'ur is not for liquid to enter is because it is still proper to cook in it, for he can put meat by the opening (to hold in the soup). Also, the soup is thick, and the fire keeps the soup from leaving. Therefore, the Shi'ur is for a small root.

Implied question: Why doesn't it say in Shabbos (95b) that there are six laws of a Kli Cheres? (There is a sixth, i.e. a Kli for food and liquids together!)

Answer: This law of a small root was [already] taught regarding Hechsher Zera'im.

Question: It was taught explicitly in Kelim (3:2) that the Shi'ur for a frying pan and pot is k'Zeisim!

Answer: If we would say that the Shi'ur of olives is needed [to be Metaher] mid'Rabanan, it would be fine, like it says about a garment (if most was torn, and he left enough for a turban, mid'Oraisa it is Tahor, but mid'Rabanan it is connected and still Tamei. Also here,) mid'Oraisa if it was punctured the size of a small root, it is Tahor.

Citation: In Shabbos (47a), regarding "a garment of Aniyim is permitted for Aniyim [to move on Shabbos]", Rashi connotes that three by three fingers in the hands of an Ashir is not Mekabel Tum'ah at all;

Implied question: A Mishnah (Kelim 27:2) teaches that three by three fingers is the Shi'ur to be Mekabel Tum'as Mes!

Answer: That is only for Aniyim, but for Ashirim, three by three Tefachim are required.

Question #1 (R. Tam): Our Sugya about the Me'il is difficult! Rav Ada challenges [Reish Lakish's teaching about the Me'il] from [the Mishnah of] thick or felt (unwoven) garments;

Why does he ask from [that Mishnah]? Bigdei Kehunah are of Ashirim, for there is no poverty in the place of wealth (above, 85b), so their Shi'ur should be three by three Tefachim!

Question #2: A Beraisa in Shabbos (26b) says "what is the source for three by three fingers? It says "veha'Beged". There it does not distinguish between Aniyim and Ashirim, not in the verse and not in the teaching!

Answer (R. Tam): Regarding Tum'as Mes and Sheretz, there is no distinction between Aniyim and Ashirim. It discusses only Midras there, that it requires three by three Tefachim for Ashirim;

The reason is because Midras depends on designation, and it is not normal for an Ashir to designate less than three by three Tefachim, and even if he designated it, Batlah Daito (we ignore this, since normal Ashirim do not do so).

Support (R. Tam): Regarding Midras we distinguish between Aniyim and Ashirim, for in (Kelim 27:2) a Mishnah teaches that a Beged three by three Tefachim receives Tum'as Midras, and three by three fingers receives Tum'as Mes.

You are forced to say that it discusses Ashirim, for if it discusses Aniyim, a Mishnah (Kelim 28:8) teaches that Bigdei Aniyim, even if they are not three by three Tefachim, receive Tum'as Midras!

Remark: In some Mishnayos the text says "even if they are not three by three fingers." It seems that this is a printing mistake.

Implied question: According to the opinion above (32b) that Bi'ah b'Miktzas is considered Bi'ah (this should be forbidden)!

Answer: A Beged is different. Since one could cut it, it is not considered as if it totally entered.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He challenges our Mishnah.

Question: [The Makshan] should have asked above!

Explanation #2: He challenges only Reish Lakish, who explicitly discusses Bigdei Kehunah. We could establish our Mishnah to discuss a commoner's garments, which one can pass soap over them and launder them with soap;

However, one cannot launder the Kohen Gadol's Me'il with soap, because we say in Nidah (62a) that it removes even dye! (It would remove the Techeles from the Me'il.)

Observation: [The Makshan] could have challenged Rabah bar Avuha himself, who said that Dam Chatas and appearances of Tzara'as in a garment, one must pass the seven ingredients over them. He could have asked that one may not enter urine in the Mikdash!

Opinion #1: R. Tam derived from here that Iruy (pouring from a Kli Rishon) is like a Kli Rishon, since it is considered like cooking.

Objection: Just the contrary, from here is difficult [to say that Iruy k'Kli Rishon], for below it is called absorbed without cooking!

Answer: One can say that it is called absorbed without cooking because it does not cook due to the Kli [into which it was poured]. It was cooked in another Kli.

Opinion #2 (Rashbam): Iruy is like a Kli Sheni, because a Mishnah (Shabbos 42b) says that if a frying pan or pot was removed from the fire boiling, one may not put spices in it. This implies that one may pour from it on the spices!

Additional source (Rashbam): We hold like Shmuel, who says that Tatah Gavar (when hot and cold are mixed, the law depends on whatever is on bottom. Cooking occurs only if the bottom is hot), for a Beraisa is like him in Pesachim (76a).

Consequence: [The Rashbam] used to permit to pour boiling [liquid] from a Kli Rishon onto a chicken in order to cook it this way.

Objection #1 (R. Tam): Just the contrary, one may infer from the Seifa (Shabbos 42b) "but one may put [spices] in a bowl (a Kli Sheni)." This implies that one may not pour from a pan [onto spices!

Objection #2: According to the Rashbam, the Mishnah is difficult for the opinion that Ila'a Gavar (it depends on what is on top)!

Rather, since the Reisha taught that if a frying pan was removed [from the fire] one may not put cold [water] in it, but one may put water in a cup (a Kli Sheni), also the Seifa taught that if a frying pan or pot was removed, one may not put spices in it, but one may put in a bowl.

Support #1 (for Opinion #1): The Yerushalmi connotes that Iruy is like a Kli Rishon, for we say about this in the Gemara "may one put spices below and pour on them from above? R. Yonah says, Iruy is like a Kli Rishon";

Citation (Yerushalmi): R. Yonah learns from "v'Chol Kli Cheres Asher Tevushal Bo Yishaver." This teaches only about a Kli in which one cooked. What is the source to include if he poured Rose'ach (boiling water) into it? "Asher Tevushal Bo Yishaver" - in any case;

R. Yosi rejected this. There, a Kli Cheres absorbs, but it does not cook spices. I.e. a Kli Cheres absorbs more than other Kelim.

R. Yosi bar Bun asked, it was taught "even a copper Kli is so. Will you say that a copper Kli absorbs!" I.e. does it absorb more than other Kelim?!

Inference: Now, it compares there, just like it absorbs through Iruy, so it cooks through Iruy. Since a Beraisa supports R. Yonah, this shows that the Halachah follows him.

Implied question: We hold like Shmuel, who says that Tatah Gavar!

Answer: Shmuel agrees that [Iruy] cooks Kedei Klipah (the thickness of what can be peeled off, i.e. from what it was poured onto), for the Beraisa that supports [Shmuel] taught "hot into cold - he rinses it", and the Gemara asks "before it cools off, it absorbs!" I.e. before the hot above cools off, it is somewhat absorbed into the lower;

It answers "say that hot into cold, he peels."

Support #2 (for Opinion #1 - R. Tam): It says in Pesachim (37b) that Ma'isa (this will be explained), Beis Shamai exempt it from Chalah, and Beis Hillel obligate it. Chalitah (this will be explained), Beis Shamai obligate it, and Beis Hillel exempt;

Citation (37b): What are Ma'isa and Chalitah? Ma'isa is flour put on Muglashin, i.e. boiling water. (Chalitah is boiling water put on top of flour.) It asks, why is Ma'isa different than Chalitah? It answers that different Tana'im taught these (there is no reason to distinguish them);

Inference: The one who exempts from Chalah when flour is put on boiling water, because it was kneaded with boiling water, he exempts also boiling water put on top of flour, even though they were poured into a Kli Sheni. This shows that Iruy is like a Kli Rishon!

Question: Why is it exempt? [Iruy] cooks only Kedei Klipah, according to Shmuel, who says that Tatah Gavar, and we hold like him!

Answer: We discuss when there is the minimum Shi'ur to be obligated in Chalah, or slightly more. After [deducting] a layer, the Shi'ur for Chalah does not remain.

Support #3 (for Opinion #1 - R. Tam): It says in Avodah Zarah (74b) that one uses boiling water [to Kasher] a winepress. This shows that Iruy is like a Kli Rishon, for the only way to be Machshir it is through Iruy! (It is infeasible to boil water in the winepress itself.)

Support: It must discuss through Iruy, for in a Beraisa there (75a), R. Yosi taught that one who wants to be Metaher it immediately, he does Hag'alah with boiling water or Choltan (this will be explained) in water in which olives were cooked.

Chalatah is only Iruy, like it explains in Pesachim (37b) boiling water on flour.

Rebuttal: There is no proof from there to other matters, for in several ways we are lenient about [Kashering from] Yayin Nesech that we are not lenient about other Isurim;

"Choltan in water in which olives were cooked" connotes even cold, just like "he is Cholet it in vinegar" in Chulin (111a) regarding liver.

Similarly, Iruy for three days from hour to hour, drying, and leaving until the next pressing season - all of these do not help for other Isurim. (Here, "Iruy" refers to filling a Kli with cold water, and spilling it out after 24 hours. He does so three times.)

The reason is because with Yayin Nesech, there is no hot Isur at all, just [Chachamim] were stringent to boil [water used to Kasher from it].

Even R. Tam permitted pouring boiling water into a barrel that [once] had Yayin Nesech in it, and to flip the water from one side to the other in the barrel;

[This suffices] even though [the water] was already in a Kli Sheni immediately when he poured it into the barrel. There did not fall on all sides of the barrel [from a Kli Rishon. Some was only] from a Kli Sheni, for he flips it from this side to this side. There is not even Iruy from a Kli Rishon!

Remark: Even so, Iruy is like a Kli Rishon for other Isurim, like I proved.

Implied question: The Piyut about Pesach that begins "Adir Dar Mesuchim..." says that preparation of bowls and their laws - they are used as a Kli Sheni. Just like we pour from a pot into them [when using them, also likewise to Kasher,] so we pour boiling water onto them.

Rebuttal (R. Tam): This is wrong. All Kelim in the world, it helps to pour boiling water into them, for Iruy is like a Kli Rishon.