Implied suggestion: We could learn from such a Kal v'Chomer from new (here, Chadash refers to Peros of this year) and old (last year's Peros). New and old are not Kil'ayim with each other (yet one may not tithe one on the other. Grapes and grain, or different kinds of grain, which are Kil'ayim with each other, all the more so one may not tithe one on the other!)

Rejection: We could say that Ma'aser of sheep and goats refutes this. They are Kil'ayim with each other, yet one may tithe one on the other. I can say that the same applies to Sirosh and Dagen, or different kinds of Degen.

Question: Also now that we make a Kal v'Chomer from grapes and olives, Ma'aser of sheep and goats refutes this!

Answer: We cannot [refute from there], for we do not find regarding Ma'aser Behemah matters of one year that are not Kil'ayim with each other, which cannot be tithed on each other;

[This is un]like we find regarding Ma'aser of grain. There are grapes and olives of one year, which are not Kil'ayim with each other, and they cannot be tithed [on each other].

Distinction: However, from the Kal v'Chomer of new and old, it is more appropriate [to refute it from Ma'aser of sheep and goats], for we find also in Ma'aser Behemah new and old that are not Kil'ayim with each other, and one may not tithe one on the other, and sheep and goats, which are Kil'ayim with each other, one may tithe one on the other!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Kil'ai Zera'im of grain and [a different kind of] grain is [forbidden only] mid'Rabanan.

Rebuttal: It seems that this is a printing mistake, for here it connotes that it is mid'Oraisa!

Rebuttal: And so it is proven in Kidushin (39a) and in Chulin (115a). It asks that Kil'ai Zera'im should be forbidden [to eat], for I [the Torah] forbade to you [to make them, i.e. plant them. "Lo Sochal Kol To'evah" forbids all such matters];

The only difference between Kil'ai ha'Kerem and Kil'ai Zera'im is that [the latter] is permitted to eat, and the latter is forbidden even b'Hana'ah.

Even R. Yoshiyah [who holds that the Torah forbids Kil'ai ha'Kerem only if he seeded together grapes and two other species] holds that Kil'ai Zera'im [is Asur mid'Oraisa], and one is liable even for wheat and barley alone due to Kil'ai ha'Kerem.

Implied question: Why does it say here "according to R. Yoshiyah, grapes and grain, or different kinds of grain, which are Kilayim with each other through another matter (a third species"? Different kinds of grain are Kilayim by themselves!)

Answer: Due to grapes and grain, it said "through another matter." One is liable for Kil'ai ha'Kerem only through three species, but he is liable for Kil'ai ha'Kerem even through two.

Support: It is proven like this in Chulin (82b). It brings there that one who seeds Kil'ayim Kil'ayim is lashed, and we conclude that it teaches a matter in passing, that there are two kinds of Kil'ayim;

[It says that the repetition] teaches unlike R. Yoshiyah, who says [that one is liable] only if he seeded together wheat, barley and a grape seed close at once. This teaches unlike him, that when one seeds wheat and grape seed [or] barley and a grape seed, also he is liable.

Explanation (A) Inference: R. Yoshiyah agrees about wheat and barley (that one is liable for them without a grape seed. This is why it did not say that it teaches unlike R. Yoshiyah, who obligates for wheat and barley.)

Explanation (B): Alternatively, it is called two kinds of Kil'ayim - Kil'ai Zera'im and Kil'ai ha'Kerem, e.g. wheat and barley, and wheat and a grape seed. R. Yoshiyah agrees about one of them that he is lashed, and one he argues about. However, wheat and a grape seed, barley and a grapes seed, it is all one kind (Kil'ai Zera'im. In Explanation (A) there are two kinds of Kil'ai ha'Kerem, and R. Yoshiyah argues about both of them, and agrees about Kil'ai Zera'im].

Alternative text: Some texts say explicitly wheat and a grape seed or barley and a grape seed (that R. Yoshiyah obligates for them without a third species).

And even Seforim in which it is written there and barley [and a grape seed], it is like "or barley and a grape seed."

Observation: Therefore, we cannot establish "Kil'ayim Kil'ayim" (that he is liable twice) at once, e.g. wheat and barley and a grape seed that he is lashed twice, to teach unlike R. Yoshiyah, for also according to R. Yoshiyah he is lashed twice.

Support: The Yerushalmi in Kil'ayim proves like this. It says there, it is written "Lo Sizra Kil'ayim Karmecha" - this teaches that he is liable only if he seeds two species in a vineyard (i.e. it is already Kil'ayim without the species of field, i.e. vineyard). R. Yoshiyah says so. R. Yonason says, even one species [in a vineyard is Kil'ayim];

According to R. Yonason, [since it already says] "Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim", why is it written "Lo Sizra Kil'ayim Karmecha"? It is to be stringent, that even one [other] species [is forbidden in a vineyard];

Question: According to R. Yoshiyah, it is written "Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim." Why is it written "Lo Sizra Kil'ayim Karmecha"?

Answer (Talmidim): It is for warning - if they warned him for [Kil'ayim in] your field, he is lashed. [If they warned him also] for [Kil'ayim in] your vineyard, he is lashed [twice].

Inference: If R. Yoshiyah did not obligate for Kil'ai Zera'im without grapes, what was the question "why does he need Karmecha"? (Obviously, it is to teach that he is liable only with grapes!)

Implied question: Perhaps we could explain that the question was why it says "Karmecha" in a second Lav. It should have said so in one Lav!

Rejection: The question about R. Yonason was not like this. Rather, it asks why Karmecha is needed at all.

Therefore, surely all obligate for Kil'ai Zera'im through two species. Rather, they argue about Kil'ai ha'Kerem. R. Yoshiyah obligates for a Kerem only when there are two species with the grape seed, e.g. wheat and barley. R. Yonason obligates even for one species with the grape seed.

Implied question: According to R. Yoshiyah, why is Kil'ai Zera'im different, that he obligates for two species, and for Kil'ai ha'Kerem he requires three species?

Answer: It connotes to him seeding Kil'ayim is two kinds of Zera'im, and a grape seed is not a kind of Zera'im. Therefore we can explain the verse like as follows. Do not seed together with your vineyard Kil'ayim, i.e. two kinds of Zera'im.

Remark: However, R. Yehudah, surely it connotes that in Maseches Kil'ayim that he does not obligate for Kil'ai Zera'im until he sows wheat, barley and spelt, or two wheat seeds and a barley seed or two barley seeds and a wheat seed, for we need Kil'ai Zera'im together with your field.

However, the verse "Behemtecha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim" it is impossible to explain it like this (to require Kil'ayim without Behemtecha).

Inference: All species that are not written in this verse are mid'Rabanan, and here it is written only grain, wine and oil.

Support #1: Also in Brachos (36a) it says that Ma'aser of caper is mid'Rbanan.

Support #2: Regarding a Litra of dried figs in Beitzah (3b) it says that Devar sheb'Minyan is not Batel even in 1000 for mid'Rabanan matters.

Support #3: In Rosh Hashanah (15b) it says that Ma'aser of Stam carobs is mid'Rabanan, even though in the Sifri it exempts only carobs of Shitah and Tzalmonah, but not Stam carobs.

Consequence #1: And all these Drashos of Sifri that include even pulse (a legume) and tree fruits and Yerek (vegetables that are planted to eat the leaves) regarding Ma'aser, they are mere Asmachtos.

And similarly we find like this all matters [forbidden on Shabbos] due to Shevus, of Reshus, and of Mitzvah, in Beitzah (36b), it expounds in Toras Kohanim from "Shabason" - Shevus, and it is a mere Asmachta.

Consequence #2: A Kohen who got a Tevel fig - in Makos (19b) it says that a Kohen who ate it is lashed... this is lashes mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: It says in Yevamos (81a) that a ring [of pressed figs of Terumah] is not Batel!

Answer: There, Rabanan enacted like Torah law.

Implied question: We say in Nedarim (55a) that "Degen" connotes everything that is piled up, even legumes!

Answer (R. Tam): This is for Nedarim, which depend on how people speak.

Implied question: R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua argue in Chulin (120b, about Terumah of fruit juice) about Dun Minah u'Minah (when one matter is learned from another, we learn from all laws from the source) and Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra (we learn the basic law from the source, but other laws are like the law of the matter being learned. This implies that such Terumah is mid'Oraisa!)

Answer: We find that they argue about [Terumah] mid'Oraisa, e.g. liquid that comes from grain, e.g. he diced and squeezed it, like it says in Shabbos (19a).

Implied question: A Mishnah in Parah (11:3) says that a fig cake of Terumah that fell into Mei Chatas... until it says that one who eats it is Chayav Misah!

Answer #1: It is not precise. Rather, the stringency mid'Rabanan is like an Isur Misah. This is relevant to lash him more than others lashed (mid'Rabanan), and to bury him among absolute Resha'im.

Answer #2: It mentioned a fig cake for a mere Siman, that if something for which Terumah is mid'Oraisa, if it fell into Mei Chatas, this law taught in the Mishnah would apply to it.

Implied question: We say in Yevamos that a ring [of figs] that became mixed with rings, if Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa... No matter what you will say [about Terumah nowadays], Terumah of Peros is mid'Rabanan!

Answer: Even so, it is reasonable to be more stringent [about Peros, if Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa]. This is a decree due to grain, wine and oil, which are mid'Oraisa.

Question: In the Yerushalmi in Ma'aseros, it connotes a little that the verse from which we expound a Chiyuv of Ma'aser of Peros and legumes is an absolute Drashah;

It says there "Aser Ta'aser" - I would say that everything is obligated in Ma'aser... I would know only grain. What is the source for legumes? It says "v'Chol Ma'aser ha'Aretz", to include garlic, and kinds of cress;

Perhaps I include even leaves, seeds of vetch, turnips, radishes, onions and other garden seeds that are not eaten! It says "mi'Zera ha'Aretz", and not all Zera ha'Aretz;

"Mi'Peri ha'Etz" includes all tree fruits. Or, perhaps I include even carobs of Shitah, Tzalmonah and Girmah! It says "mi'Peri ha'Etz", and not all tree fruits;

What is the source for Yerakos? Isi ben Akavya says, Ma'aser of Yerakos is mid'Rabanan.

Summation of question - Inference: This connotes that Ma'aser of Yerakos is mid'Rabanan, but [of] legumes and Peros is mid'Oraisa!

Answer: It means [that Ma'aser of Yerakos is] mid'Rabanan, i.e. it is unlike legumes and other Peros, for which there is no Asmachta from a verse.

Support: Also the Sifri in Parshas Aser Ta'aser does not bring any verse for Yerakos.

Implied question: It taught there "what is the source to include Yerakos for Ma'aseros?" (and it brought a verse)!

Answer: It discusses garlic and kinds of cress, like it teaches there explicitly. The Toras Kohanim in Parshas Bechukosai brings it briefly. It does not elaborate like the Sifri.

Conjecture: Perhaps [Chachamim] did not want to support [Ma'aser of] Yerakos on any verse, because there are matters that they considered proper to be lenient about Yerakos more than other things;

An example is what it says in the Yerushalmi in Chalah, in Perek Shtei Nashim. R. Yochanan said that our Rebbeyim in Galus used to separate Terumos and Ma'aseros, until the Rovim abolished them. Who are the Rovim? They are Turgaminiya (the last translators, i.e. R. Chiya's sons).

(R. Ze'ira and Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): Chalah of Chutz la'Aretz - one may eat and separate afterwards.

(Rava citing Shmuel): [Chachamim] were concerned for only for Terumah of grain, wine and oil.

(R. Aba citing R. Shmuel): [Chachamim] were concerned for only for Terumah Gedolah, but for Yerakos, they were not concerned even for Terumah Gedolah, for Isi ben Akavya taught that Ma'aser of Yerakos is mid'Rabanan.

Question: We cannot learn a Kal v'Chomer from new and old, which are not Kil'ayim with each other, and one may not tithe from one on another!

Answer: We can say that lambs and goats Yochi'ach. They are Kil'ayim, yet one may tithe [from one on another], like we included above from "Tzon..."

Explanation: The Gemara answers "it says Asiri", which comes to distinguish and give a 10th animal for this and a 10th for this.

It asks that also lambs and goats - granted, if not for "ha'Asiri", we would not learn from a Kal v'Chomer from new and old, since the Torah included "Tzon", like it says;

However, now that it is written "ha'Asiri", it comes to distinguish every species by itself, like "Reishisam" below (54b) regarding grain, which comes to teach that one must give "Reishis" (Terumah) for each species by itself.

Question #1: In Temurah (5a), regarding Abaye's teaching that anything that the Torah said not to do it, Iy Avid Mehani (if he did, it takes effect, the Gemara) asks from one who takes Terumah from one species to exempt a different species;

The Torah said "give Chelev (choice Peros) from this, and Chelev from this", and a Mishnah teaches that if he took Terumah, it is not Terumah, and answers that the Torah said "Reishisam";

Inference: Abaye establishes [Reishisam] even for wine and oil, to teach that [if one took Terumah from one on the other], it does not help. Here we establish it for types of grain, that one may not tithe from one on another!

Question #2: And Rava, who says here that even without Reishisam, you cannot say that "Degen" connotes that all grain is one, explicitly establishes it there for this!

It says there "and according to Rava, who says that Iy Avid Lo Mehani (if one transgressed, it did not take effect), had the Torah not said Reishisam, one might have thought that wine and oil, for which Chelev is written for each, one may not tithe from one on another;

Wine and grain, for which one Chelev is written for both, if he tithed from one on the other, one might have thought that he is not lashed! The Torah said "Reishis" [to teach unlike this].

Answer (to Question #1): According to Abaye, surely it connotes that "Reishis" comes to divide between kinds of grain, since the verse put it next to "v'Dagan", and he establishes it also to teach that [Iy Avid] Lo Mehani;

This is because it connotes that it refers to all the species written in the verse, and it is not needed to distinguish wine and oil. Rather, it teaches that Lo Mehani. And just like it does not help for wine and oil, it does not help for kinds of grain.

Answer (to Question #2): And Rava, who teaches here that it is not needed, it is because it comes from a Kal v'Chomer, like above. However, one cannot expound from Degen that it connotes that all grain is one, like it says here, for it is needed for the simple meaning, to exclude other species;

And there he learns from Reishis, like we find in several places that something learned from a Kal v'Chomer, the Torah wrote a verse for it.

Support: Now, it is fine that it brings here Reishis for two kinds of grain, and there Rava brings it for grain and wine, for surely we learn both from a Kal v'Chomer, both grain and wine, and two kinds of grain. And even so, the Torah wrote [Reishis] about both of them, like something learned from a Kal v'Chomer, and the Torah wrote a verse for it.

Question: According to Rava, since "Reishisam" applies to all of them, why was Chelev repeated?

Answer: It is because [if not for this,] we would not establish "Reishisam" to apply to wine and oil, since they are not Kil'ayim with each other.

Implied question: Why couldn't we say that it comes from the Hekesh above "Aser Ta'aser"?

Answer: Rava said above (53b) that it is equated only for the year, but not for anything else.

Explanation: [Bakar and Tzon] were written [after] one "Ma'aser". It did not [write it regarding each, i.e] "u'Ma'aser Tzon."

Explanation: Also in Bava Kama (4b) it says so. [The Gemara] often says so about Rav Papa, who reigned [as Rosh Yeshivah] after Rava, like it says in Mo'ed Katan (28b) and there are things that when he said them, people thought that he said them in the name of Rava.