WHEN IS TUM'AH BATEL?
Answer: R. Yehudah holds like he taught elsewhere, that there is never Bitul Min b'Mino (when everything is the same species).
Inference: If it wasn't dissolved, it is not Batel.
Question: If so, why does the Seifa discuss a Tahor piece of Chatas mixed with Chulin? It should distinguish between Tamei pieces:
'This applies only if it was dissolved. If not, it is not Batel'.
Answer: The Tana prefers to teach about a Tahor piece among Tahor pieces. (It is a bigger Chidush to say that it is not Batel.)
Question: According to Reish Lakish, what is the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa? (If it is dissolved, in any case it should be Batel!)
Answer #1 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): The Reisha discusses Tum'ah due to liquids, which is only mid'Rabanan. The Seifa discusses Bitul (to permit a Zar to eat Kodshei Kodoshim, an Isur) mid'Oraisa.
Inference: If it became Tamei (mid'Oraisa) through a Sheretz, it would not be Batel.
Question: Why does the Seifa teach about a Tahor piece of Chatas mixed with Chulin? It should distinguish within the case of Tamei pieces:
It is Batel if the Tum'ah was from liquids. If the Tum'ah was due to a Sheretz, it is not Batel!
Answer #1: The Tana prefers to teach about a Tahor piece among Tahor pieces.
Answer #2 (Rabah): The Reisha permits (through Bitul to eat a Tamei piece, which is) Chayavei Lavin. The Seifa discusses (Bitul that would permit a Tamei to eat Kodshim, which is) Chayavei Kerisos.
Objection: Rabah himself taught that within mid'Oraisa laws we do not distinguish between Chayavei Lavin and Chayavei Kerisos!
This is left difficult.
Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The Seifa discusses Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim (it is permitted in another situation). Such a thing is never Batel, even if it is mixed with 1000 pieces.
Objection: Rav Ashi's answer makes no sense!
For a Kohen, the piece is always permitted!
For a Yisrael, it is always forbidden!
Conclusion: Rav Ashi's answer is rejected.
Question: R. Yochanan does not hold that Terumah is mid'Oraisa nowadays!
(Beraisa): There were two baskets, one of Chulin and one of Terumah. In front of them were two Sa'im (measures), one of Terumah and one of Chulin. The Sa'im fell into the baskets. The Chulin basket is still permitted, because we say that the Terumah fell into the Terumah and the Chulin into the Chulin.
(Reish Lakish): This is only if there was more Chulin (in the basket) than a Se'ah (even if Terumah fell in, it is the minority).
(R. Yochanan): It is even if there is not more Chulin.
Granted, Reish Lakish requires a majority even for mid'Rabanan laws. However, how can R. Yochanan be lenient about an Isur mid'Oraisa?
Answer: This Beraisa is like Chachamim (who say that Terumah is mid'Rabanan nowadays). R. Yochanan said above that R. Yosi holds that Terumah is mid'Oraisa nowadays:
(Beraisa - Seder Olam): "That your fathers inherited, and you will inherit" - there was a first inheritance and a second, but not a third (i.e. the second Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael never ceased).
(R. Yochanan): R. Yosi taught Seder Olam.
Question: Elsewhere, R. Yochanan requires a majority for mid'Rabanan Isurim!
(Mishnah): If a Mikveh had exactly 40 Sa'im, and a Se'ah (of fruit juice) was put in and a Se'ah was removed, it is Kosher.
(R. Yochanan): (We may add and remove) until a majority.
Suggestion: R. Yochanan requires that a majority remains. (Tosfos - this is only a Pesul mid'Rabanan regarding Temed. Alternatively, even regarding fruit juice, each Se'ah added is Batel, and mid'Oraisa it is Kosher.)
Answer #1: No, he requires that a majority is not removed (but half may be removed).
Answer #2: Only regarding Terumah he does not require a majority, for we can make a favorable assumption (the Terumah fell into the Terumah).
IS AN ANDROGINUS DEFINITELY A MALE?
(On 81a, Reish Lakish said that an Androginus permits his wife to eat Terumah, but not Chazah v'Shok.)
Question (Mishnah): An Androginus may marry (a woman. This shows that he is a Vadai male. If so, he should permit his wife to eat Chazah v'Shok)!
Answer #1: It means, if he married...
Objection: It says Nosei (he may marry)!
Counter-question: How will you explain 'Lo Nisa (a man may not marry him)'?
Answer: (If he is a Vadai male, you must say that) that is b'Di'eved.
Answer: Likewise, 'Nosei' is b'Di'eved!
Rejection: No! He may marry a woman connotes l'Chatchilah, but even b'Di'eved he may not stay married to a man! (The question against Reish Lakish remains.)
Answer #2: In the Seifa, R. Eliezer is Mechayev a man who has Bi'ah with an Androginus like with a male. This implies that the first Tana is in doubt!
Rejection: No, all agree, that he is a Vadai male. They argue about whether or not one is Chayav Skilah (death by stoning) for Bi'ah in the place of his female genitals;
The first Tana is Mechayev. R. Eliezer is Mechayev only (for Bi'ah in the anus,) like with a normal male.