Question: Above (15b), [R. Yehoshua] said "I am afraid [to tell you the law] of Tzaros [of Ervah]. I will testify to you about children of Tzaros [who married without Chalitzah]";

According to Rav Hamnuna, from the law of children of Tzaros we can resolve that Tzaros are exempt from Chalitzah and Yibum, for if they were Zekukos to the brothers, children of Tzaros would be forbidden due to a Kal va'Chomer from a widow [to a Kohen Gadol! Her Isur is not Shavah b'Chol, and the children are Chalalim. All the more so a Yevamah l'Shuk, whose Isur is Shavah b'Chol, her children are Chalalim!]

Suggestion: We cannot learn from a widow, for she herself becomes a Chalah.

Rejection: According to Rav Hamnuna, also a Yevamah who was Mezanah is disqualified!

Answer (Ri): R. Yehoshua was not afraid to teach about children of Tzaros, for if they were upset, he could say that the Halachah does not follow Rav Hamnuna.

Note: I do not understand this. What is the Heter to falsify Torah, especially to be lenient? Perhaps one who hears this will be permit such a Yibum! Perhaps this will become the accepted Halachah for all generations! Perhaps he would say that mid'Rabanan we are stringent like Rav Hamnuna (therefore there is no Kal va'Chomer). However, this implies that we are lenient about a Safek! Perhaps he was not so concerned, for the case is not common. However, we do not find that Tana'im argued about Rav Hamnuna's law. Rav Hamnuna holds that all agreed to it. Why would R. Yehoshua say a Halachah that everyone disagrees with?!

Observation: In Kesuvos (25a), regarding "how is Chazakah great", it says "alternatively, they eat Terumah mid'Rabanan, but not Terumah mid'Oraisa."

That answer is unlike our Sugya, for we decree mid'Rabanan due to mid'Oraisa.

Implied question: in Pesachim (44a), regarding two mortars [one of Terumah spices and one of Chulin, which fell into two pots, we are lenient to assume that the Terumah fell into the Terumah, and the Chulin into the Chulin], we say that there is different, for Terumah of spices is only mid'Rabanan;

That answer is unlike our Sugya, for we decree mid'Rabanan due to mid'Oraisa.

Answer (Ri): There is different, for it was a mere occurrence, and there is no Chezkas Isur [in the Chulin pot], therefore we say that the Terumah fell into the Terumah;

Here, regarding a ring [of figs of Terumah] among rings, even though it was a mere occurrence, there is Chezkas Isur.

Implied question: Below (82a), we ask a contradiction in R. Yochanan based on the Beraisa of two boxes. We could have answered that Terumah of Peros [other than grain, wine and oil] is mid'Rabanan, like we answered in Pesachim!

Answer: We gave a good answer [without this, that it is like Chachamim who say that Terumah is mid'Rabanan nowadays].

Question: What forced Reish Lakish to say that she may not eat Terumah at a time when there is Chazah v'Shok?

Answer (Ri): We know that R. Yosi holds that an Androginus is a Safek. He said that Chachamim did not decide whether he is a male or female.

Question: R. Yosi holds that Terumah is mid'Oraisa nowadays. This is clear from a Beraisa in Seder Olam, which we bring below in our Sugya!

Answer #1: Reish Lakish holds that R. Yosi taught it (that Beraisa), but he does not hold like it;

Support: We find like this in Nidah (46b).

Answer #2: [Reish Lakish] taught, according to R. Yosi, that a ring is Batel among rings [because nowadays Terumah is mid'Rabanan].

R. Yochanan holds below (82b) that R. Yosi taught it (the Beraisa in Seder Olam) and he holds like it. This is like he infers from our Mishnah. He considers an Androginus to be a Vadai male, since it says that he may marry;

Below (82b), he challenges Reish Lakish from it. He (R. Yochanan) holds that the Beraisa (of rings) is wrong, due to our Mishnah.

Implied question: R. Yochanan himself holds below (82b) that according to Rabanan, Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan!

Answer: Here, we discuss according to R. Yosi. He means, do you hold that according to R. Yosi, Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan?!

Now, we must say that this that Reish Lakish answered "I learn that a ring among rings is Batel", was according to R. Yosi.

Question: Still, perhaps even though it is mid'Oraisa, it is Batel, for he holds like Rabanan, who say that only six things are Mekadesh (never Batel)!

Answer (Ri): If so, he should have discussed something mid'Oraisa, such as a Tereifah egg that became mixed;

Since he rather discussed a ring among rings, this shows that it is because Terumah is mid'Rabanan;

However, for something mid'Oraisa, everything normally [counted is Mekadesh].

Explanation: This is the Mishnah brought below, a piece of a Chatas...

Question: What is his source that this is like R. Yosi? Perhaps it is Rabanan, who say that only six things are Mekadesh!

Answer #1: The one who argues with R. Yehudah is R. Yosi.

Answer #2: Why did it discuss a piece, which is [included in] Kol she'Darko Limnos (everything that is counted, even only sometimes)?

It should have mentioned something that is "Es she'Darko" (always counted), since only six things are Mekadesh!

Since he mentioned specifically a piece, this shows that only a piece, which is included in everything that is counted, is Batel, but Es she'Darko forbids.

Similarly, we could have answered for Reish Lakish that he properly infers from the case of a ring among rings;

You are forced to say that it is unlike Rabanan, since it mentioned a ring, which is Kol she'Darko, and it did not discuss something that is Es she'Darko.

Question: According to Reish Lakish, since nowadays Terumah is mid'Rabanan, this shows that Kedushas ha'Aretz was Batel;

If so, also Kil'ai ha'Kerem is mid'Rabanan. Why does it teach Kol she'Darko? Regarding [an Isur] mid'Rabanan, Kol she'Darko does not forbid!

Suggestion: According to R. Meir, Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa.

Rejection: We know that R. Meir holds that a ring among rings is Batel (Beitzah 3b) regarding a Litra of dried figs...

Answer #1: Kil'ai ha'Kerem is mid'Rabanan for only one reason. When the Mikdash stands, it is mid'Oraisa;

A ring is mid'Rabanan for only two reasons. Firstly, Kedushas ha'Aretz was Batel. Also, even when the Mikdash stands, Terumah of figs is only mid'Rabanan.

Answer #2: Bundles of clover are Es she'Darko;

The Mishnah means that R. Meir used to say that Kol she'Darko [forbids] regarding [an Isur] mid'Oraisa, therefore it is proper that Es she'Darko is Mekadesh even regarding [an Isur] mid'Rabanan such as bundles of clover.

R. Tam's text: The text does not say "and [the] others became mixed with others."

Source: In Zevachim (74) we challenge Shmuel, who forbids a Sefek-Sefeka regarding idolatry, from a Beraisa that permits;

The only [Tana] we find like Shmuel is R. Yehudah in a Beraisa that forbids Sefek-Sefeka even regarding other Isurim;

Shmuel holds like him in one matter, i.e. idolatry, and disagrees regarding other Isurim.

If the text here, in Avodah Zarah and everywhere were like this Mishnah "and others in others", we should have supported Shmuel from all of these Mishnayos!

Rebuttal of Support: Some say that even if the text of all these Mishnayos says "and others in others", we could not support Shmuel, who forbids a Sefek-Sefeka;

Perhaps here it means that all of the others became mixed with others. There is only one Safek.

Implied question: [Why does the Mishnah discuss] when it became mixed twice? This is [is one Safek,] just like when it became mixed once!

Answer: It is a bigger Chidush. Even though there are two majorities, it is forbidden. Regarding other matters, we forbid one majority, and permit when there are two majorities;

E.g. regarding lineage (Kesuvos 15a), [Ze'iri] said that we follow the majority of the city, only if there is also a majority of traffic with (i.e. supporting) it;

We do not follow the majority of the city alone, or the majority of traffic alone.

Suggestion: We should scatter them (and then, any one we take is assumed to be from the majority)!

Rejection: We decree not to lest (e.g.) 10 people come at once... [to benefit from them, and this will be the majority of what remains, so presumably the Isur is among them], like it says in Zevachim 73b!

Note: Maharshal asks that the Gemara suggested so only regarding animals, which can scatter by themselves. Also, in Zevachim we retracted from this, and conclude that we decree lest one take from the mixture in a way that is Kavu'a, so it is considered Safek Isur! Zera Yitzchak answers that we can throw something at the bundles to cause them to scatter. Only regarding animals, we rejected the decree due to 10 men. Since they roam, it is unreasonable that 10 men will take them simultaneously. This is a proper concern regarding inanimate Isurim. Alternatively, Tosfos wrote "v'Chulei" to show that he refers to the conclusion there, that we decree lest one take from a Kavu'a mixture.

Question: Why doesn't R. Eliezer argue here, and in all the cases in Orlah (3:6), like he says regarding idolatry (Avodah Zarah 49b) that one casts to the Dead Sea the Hana'ah (the value of the Isur, and then the mixture is permitted)?

Answer #1: The Rashbam explained there that [indeed,] R. Eliezer says so regarding all Isurim.

Answer #2: It seems that he says so only regarding idolatry, for it forbids money paid for it. When he casts the benefit [to the sea], it looks like he casts away the Isur.

Answer #3: Only regarding an oven heated with wood of idolatry and he baked bread in it, or he took a spindle [from such wood] and wove a garment with it...

[Only in such cases] we say that he casts the benefit to the Dead Sea when it became mixed, for there is no intact Isur [in the bread or garment].

Implied question: A case occurred in which a barrel of wine (Yayin Nesech) became mixed [with permitted wine], and [Rav Chisda] said to cast the benefit [to the river, even though the Isur is intact]!

Answer: That is because he does not benefit from the Isur itself. One may not drink it [even after casting the benefit to the river], only he may sell it or give it to his [Nochri] workers.

Question: Why didn't Chachamim say regarding all the Isurim in Orlah (3:6) that he should sell the entire mixture to a Nochri, except for the value of the Isur, like R. Shimon ben Gamliel said in Avodah Zarah (74a) regarding Yayin Nesech?

Answer: The Yerushalmi asked that, and answered that regarding all of them we are concerned if he sells to a Nochri, lest the Nochri sell them to a Yisrael. The same applies to bread and a garment (Avodah Zarah 49b).

Implied question: (Why are we concerned lest the Nochri sell bread to a Yisrael?) Bread of Nochrim is forbidden!

Answer: Since one may benefit from it, we are concerned lest a Yisrael buy from him to give to his [Nochri] workers.

Implied question: A man's barrel [of Yayin Nesech became mixed with Kosher wine, and Rav Chisda told to cast the benefit to the river. He could have sold it to a Nochri, except for the value of the Isur. No Yisrael would buy a Nochri's wine!]

Answer: [Indeed,] had he wanted to sell all of the wine together, he could have sold it, except for the value of the Isur. (Perhaps it was better to cast the benefit to the river because wine of Yisre'elim sold for more than wine of Nochrim.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is the name of a place.

Explanation #2 (Ri): They are called Parech because they are Nifrachim (crumble).

Support: It says in the Pesikta (11) of "Yehudah v'Yisrael Rabim", after Parshah Ki Sisa, it expounds El Ginas Egoz Yaradti", that Yisrael are compared to a nut, which has three kinds. Nuts of Parech crumble by themselves.

Inference: However, baker's loaves, which are small, even R. Meir agrees that they are not Mekadesh.

Source: A Mishnah (Orlah 3:7) teaches that it is Batel in 201 (parts of mixture).

Implied question: Below, it connotes that a piece of Lechem ha'Panim [even if it is small] is not Batel in Chulin!

Answer: Lechem ha'Panim is different. It is more stringent, and it is proper to honor someone with it.

Implied question: If one baked bread in it (an oven heated or solidified through wood of idolatry) to, we taught (Avodah Zarah 49b) that if it became mixed with others, all of them are forbidden!

Answer: We must establish it to discuss loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Why didn't it teach also "what is proper for Terumah, [we can say that it] is Terumah"? Since they are important, they are not Batel in 101!

Citation (cont.) Answer #1: Terumah applies to all of them, therefore it is not proper to teach "what is proper for Terumah is Terumah."

Answer #2: We can answer that this Tana requires two [conditions to be Mekadesh any amount] - something that is counted, and Isur Hana'ah, like it says in Avodah Zarah (74a) on the Mishnah there.

Observation: The Yerushalmi connotes that only 10 things are Es she'Darko [Limnos];

It seems that they are the six things that Rabanan said, and bundles of clover are the seventh;

A garment dyed with peels of Orlah and it became mixed with others, and one who dyes a full Sit (as much as one can distance his index finger from his middle finger) [of a thread] with peels of Orlah and wove it in a garment. These are considered two, so this makes nine;

One who wove a full Sit of wool of a Bechor into a garment.

Some count loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis for the 10th. (They hold that a garment dyed with peels of Orlah, and a full Sit dyed with peels of Orlah, are considered one.)

Question (Ri): There are others, e.g. rings and cups of idolatry in Zevachim (74a), and all those in Avodah Zarah (74a) - Yayin Nesech, hides with a hole (through which the heart was removed)...

It says there that this Tana requires two [conditions to be Mekadesh any amount] - something that is counted, and Isur Hana'ah;

All these are Es she'Darko. If not, we could challenge R. Yochanan from the Mishnah!

Suggestion: This is the Tana of a Litra of dried figs (Beitzah 4a, who says that anything counted is never Batel, even for an Isur mid'Rabanan such as Terumah of figs).

Rejection: If so, we should have asked and answered so, like we ask on the Mishnah in Zevachim and in Beitzah (3b)!

Strengthening of question: Further, it seems that these are better than Es she'Darko, for he (the Makshan in Avodah Zarah) asks there that it should teach also Parech nuts, pomegranates of Badan, and teach also loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis, and he answers that all of these were taught there [in Orlah 3:6];

He does not ask from bundles of clover, which were taught here first. This implies that he wants to establish it like Rabanan, for whom Es she'Darko does not suffice! (I.e. even though bundles of clover are always counted, they are Batel.)

Answer (R. Yitzchak): The Yerushalmi considers only those taught in Orlah (Perek 3), but there are others.

Question: It counts Yayin Nesech there in Avodah Zarah. We must say that it discusses closed barrels, for we want to establish it like Rabanan;

If so, why do we count it? It was taught it Maseches Orlah!

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): It needs to teach that we are stringent about Yayin Nesech, even though its Isur is not written in the Torah, only in Kesuvim.

Answer #2: Perhaps it teaches that we are stringent only about Yayin Nesech, but not about Stam wine of Nochrim;

If this law (it is Mekadesh) applies to Stam wine of Nochrim, all the more so it needed to teach [barrels of wine] due to Stam wine of Nochrim!

Answer #3: It teaches that we do not permit through redemption, unlike R. Eliezer.

Question: Here it teaches Shor ha'Niskal (an ox sentenced to be stoned). In Zevachim (72a), it connotes that Shor ha'Niskal and Chata'os ha'Mesos (they must be left to die) are not even as important as bundles of clover!

Answer #1 (Ri): We ask in Zevachim only from Chata'os ha'Mesos, which are young (yearling) sheep. They are not considered something counted, for normally people sell the entire herd together;

Even if when it is slaughtered, it is considered Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskaved, when it is alive it is less important.

However, Shor ha'Niskal, which is big, is important even according to Rabanan.

Answer #2: The Yerushalmi establishes the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah to discuss a slaughtered Shor ha'Niskal. It is Re'uyah Lehiskaved.

Observation (Ri): However, it seems that the Bavli establishes it to discuss a live ox, for in Zevachim (71b) explains that we need the Mishnah there to teach about a Shor ha'Niskal mixed with Kodshim;

It says that we need to the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah to teach about a Shor ha'Niskal mixed with Chulin;

If the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah referred to a Chatichah, we would not need the reason of loss of Kodshim mentioned there!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is not Batel because he holds that Min b'Mino is never Batel.

Objection: R. Yehudah says only regarding something that mixes that Min b'Mino is never Batel, like I will explain below.

Explanation #2: Now, [we hold that] R. Yehudah's reason is because he holds that Kol she'Darko Limnos is not Batel;

R. Yehudah teaches like he taught elsewhere. He said in Zevachim (73a) and Beitzah (4a) that a Litra of dried figs is not Batel;

When we establish the case to be that it dissolved, then we say that R. Yehudah's reason is because Min b'Mino is not Batel.

Explanation: The reason for the Seifa, in which it became mixed with Chulin, is because after it is Batel, it is Re'uyah Lehiskaved. Therefore, all agree that it is not Batel;

However, in the Reisha it became mixed with Tahor pieces of Chatas. Even if it is Batel, it is not Re'uyah Lehiskaved, for honoring [a guest] does not apply to Kohanim in the Mikdash. (They eat from Hash-m's table.)

Therefore, the first Tana holds that it is Batel, for it is Kol she'Darko.

Question: [Tana'im] argue in a Tosefta in Terumos (5) about a piece of a Chatas, whether Tahor or Tamei, that became mixed with Chulin. Rabanan say that it is Batel, and R. Yehudah says that it is not! (Why do Rabanan say that it is Batel? If so, it is Re'uyah Lehiskaved!)

Answer: We must establish this to be when it dissolved. R. Yehudah teaches like he taught elsewhere, that Min b'Mino is not Batel.

Question: If so, why didn't we say that if a Tamei piece became mixed with Chulin [and did not dissolve], all agree that it is not Batel?

Suggestion: He prefers to teach about Tahor pieces that became mixed with Tahor pieces.

Rejection: It seems that this reason is needed only according to Reish Lakish!

Answer: According to R. Yochanan, it is a bigger Chidush to teach something that is counted and not Isur Hana'ah, that it is Mekadesh, than to teach about a Tamei piece, which is counted and Isur Hana'ah. It is not such a Chidush.

Question: In Avodah Zarah, why don't we list a Tamei piece of a Chatas mixed with Chulin? That Tana requires two [conditions to be Mekadesh any amount - something that is counted, and Isur Hana'ah], like it says there!

Answer #1: We can say that he does not discuss Kodshim.

Answer #2: According to Rashi, who says that it depends on a small loss, the Seifa could not have discussed a Tamei piece in Chulin. (If it is not Batel, one may not get any benefit from the entire mixture.)