Explanation: R. Meir does not hold that we establish two witnesses against two (and they cancel each other, and the Chazakah remains. Rather, it is a Safek.)

Implied question: In Kesuvos (20a), we say "establish two against two..." even for Torah laws!

Answer: Here is different, for now it is surely Tamei.

Implied question: He could have countered "it is deficient in front of you!", like it says in Nidah (2a)!

Answer: Here we do not discuss a Mikveh that was measured and found to be deficient.

Question: R. Yosi is Metamei even Taharos, if he touched them, for regarding to say to [the person] "go immerse", even R. Meir agrees, like we say regarding Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim. If so, just the contrary, we should say "establish Taharos in their Chazakah'!

Answer: In a Safek mid'Rabanan like here, we do not say "go immerse" according to R. Meir, and they argue about a person, whether or not he must immerse, but R. Yosi agrees that we are not Metamei Taharos.

Example: E.g. there were two piles in front of him - one Tamei Terumah and one Tahor Terumah, and he was Me'arev with one of them. There is no Chazakah at all.

Explanation #1 (Rashi's second Perush): Tevel became mixed with Chulin. This is correct. This is unlike Stam Dimu'a in the Gemara (Terumah mixed with Chulin).

Explanation #2: Rashi's first Perush is that Terumah became mixed with Chulin. This is like Sumchus (who says that an Eruv must be proper for the one it permits).

Rebuttal: The Beraisa teaches that we are Me'arev with Terumah. It is difficult to say that this discusses Terumah for a Kohen. (Obviously, he may! If the Chidush is that a Yisrael may not, the Beraisa should say so explicitly!)

Question: Rava himself said below "this shows that an Eruv takes effect at the end of the day." If an Eruv takes effect at the end of the day, Rav Nachman's teaching is fine! Why did Rava ask "why is this different?"

Answer: You are forced to say that Rava holds that an Eruv takes effect at the beginning of the day, for in Beitzah (4b) he ruled like Rav, who says that an egg laid on one day is forbidden on the next day, and Rav's reason is due to Hachanah;

The one who holds [that there is an Isur due to] Hachanah holds that an Eruv takes effect at the beginning of the day, like is proven below (38b);

Rava, who said "this shows that an Eruv takes effect at the end of the day", said so according to the Beraisa, but he disagrees. (Maharshal asks that it is a Mishnah, and not a Beraisa.)

Question: He should say that because he is unsure (if it is night now), Tevel is not uprooted, and it does not become Terumah amidst Safek, like it says above!

Answer (Ri): There is different. Surely, when he says "today it is Chulin and tomorrow it is Kodesh", he is adamant that the Eruv not get Kedushah today;

However, here he wants it to become Terumah immediately, if he could. He says "when it will be dark" only so the flask will cease to be a Tevul Yom.

Explanation: It needs to teach so even if one of them is his fixed Rebbi.

Question: Still, we should reject Ayo's Beraisa and the [Beraisa] of one who buys [wine from Kusim] due to our Mishnah here...

And due to the Mishnah in Gitin (73a) of [one who received a Get 'from today if I die']. What is her status in the interim? (R. Yehudah says that she is fully married.) We infer from this in Gitin (25b) that R. Yehudah holds that Ein Bereirah...

And due to the Beraisa in Bava Kama (69a). R. Yehudah said that in the morning, a Ba'al ha'Bayis says "whatever [Kerem Revai that people] will pick [from my vineyard today is redeemed on these coins]." In all of these, R. Yehudah holds that Yesh Bereirah!

Answer: Rav distinguishes between one who is Toleh b'Da'as Acherim (makes contingent on others' mindset) and one who is Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo (his own decision), like Abaye distinguishes in Gitin (25a).

The cases in Gitin and Bava Kama are Toleh b'Da'as Acherim (he cannot decide whether or not he will die, so it is considered Da'as Acherim). There, he holds that Yesh Bereirah. Regarding Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo, he holds that Ein Bereirah (because he could have decided now, but he did not).

This is why he rejected our Mishnah, which teaches that R. Yehudah holds that Yesh Bereirah even b'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo, due to Ayo, and the Mishnah of one who buys.

Question: Why did we challenge Ayo's [Beraisa] "why is it different when [if a Chacham comes] to here or to here, I will go where I want' that we say that Ein Bereirah?" (This is like Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo. Yesh Bereirah for "if a Chacham comes to the east", for it is Toleh b'Da'as Acherim!)

Answer: This question was not against Rav. Since he distinguishes Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo from Toleh b'Da'as Acherim, it is fine. Rather, it is against the opinion that does not distinguish;

Also R. Yochanan, who answered that a Chacham already came, does not distinguish. He surely rejects Ayo's [Beraisa] due to all these sources (that R. Yehudah holds that Yesh Bereirah).

Question: In Beitzah (37b), regarding two who bought an animal and barrel in partnership, the Gemara infers that R. Yochanan holds that Ein Bereirah, since he explains Ayo's words. You are forced to say that R. Yochanan argues with Ayo, like I explained!

Answer #1: Surely, we could have answered [in Beitzah that R. Yochanan rejects Ayo due to all these sources that R. Yehudah holds that Yesh Bereirah. The Gemara] preferred to answer that we need not switch the opinions [of R. Yochanan and R. Oshaya. Really, R. Yochanan holds that Ein Bereirah, like we said initially.]

Answer #2: Granted, R. Yochanan holds unlike Ayo, who says that R. Yehudah holds that Ein Bereirah. In any case, it is properly proven that R. Yochanan holds that Ein Bereirah, since he answered [for Ayo].

Question: Even regarding Toleh b'Da'as Acherim, we find that R. Yehudah holds that Ein Bereirah! In a Mishnah in Shekalim, brought in Yoma (55a), R. Yehudah says that there were not boxes for [people to put money for] Kinei Chovah (Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of), due to mixtures;

The Gemara explains that it is due to a Chatas whose owner died. (It must die. If we find out that someone who put money in the box died, all the Chata'os must die, lest it was bought with the Mes' money.) This is because he holds that Ein Bereirah, like is proven in Ayo's teaching. (If he held that Yesh Bereirah, we could select one Chatas, and say that it was bought with the Mes' money.)

Now, R. Yochanan disagrees with Ayo (and holds that R. Yehudah holds that Yesh Bereirah), and Rav holds that R. Yehudah holds that Yesh Bereirah when he is Toleh b'Da'as Acherim! (Kinim is not Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo.)

Answer: R. Yehudah holds that Yesh Bereirah when he is Toleh b'Da'as Acherim, only when he stipulates [from the beginning]. Without a stipulation, it does not help.

Correction: The text says "d'Tanya", for the Mishnah in Demai teaches only R. Meir's words.

Implied question: R. Meir decreed to forbid their (Kusim's) wine, like it says in Chulin (6a! How can he permit drinking it?)

Answer: This was taught before he decreed.

Implied question: R. Yosi and R. Shimon hold that Kusim converted only due to lions (that were eating them), like it says in Menachos (66a) "we may tithe Peros of Nochrim on those of Kusim (for also Kusim are really Nochrim, so their Peros are exempt from Terumah. Their wine should be forbidden!)

Answer #1: [They hold that] since [Kusim] refrain from idolatry more than other nations, and they observe the written Torah, and [in Bayis Sheni] they did not serve their gods, like they did in Bayis Rishon, they did not decree about their wine, even though they decreed about their bread (lest Yisraelim mingle with them, and come to marry them);

This is like R. Meir held, before he decreed. Their bread was forbidden, and their wine was permitted.

Answer #2: Here we discuss when a Yisrael processed the Kusi's wine. (The Kusi never touched it, so it is permitted.)