(Rabanan of Kisarin citing R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): Wherever it says "Lo Ye'achel'', you put an Isur Hana'ah just like the Isur to eat. The precedent from which we learn all of them is "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah El Ohel Mo'ed Lechaper ba'Kodesh Lo Se'achel ba'Esh Tisaref.'' (We explained this like GRA.)

Note: The Tzeirei in Ye'achel makes it passive; the same applies to Se'achel. 'It will not be eaten' alludes to Hana'ah, in which he himself does not eat it (rather, his dog, or a Nochri to whom he sold it, eats it). It likewise forbids benefit other than eating.

Support (for R. Yochanan - Chizkiyah - Beraisa) Question: Since it says "Kol Chelev Shor v'Chesev va'Ez Lo Sochelu'' (the Torah forbade only eating), why [must] it say "v'Chelev Neveilah v'Chelev Tereifah Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah''?

This teaches that it is permitted even for Melachah of Hash-m (for Kodshim).

Question: Since it says "Rav Es ha'Dam Lo Sochelu'' (the Torah forbade only eating), why [must] it say "Al ha'Aretz Tishpechenu ka'Mayim''?

Answer: [This teaches that] just like water is Machshir [enables food to be Mekabel Tum'ah], so blood is Machshir.

Question: Since it says "Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah'', why [must] it say "la'Ger Asher bi'Sh'arecha Titnenah va'Achalah''?

Answer: This teaches that a Ger Toshav (a non-Jew who accepted to guard his Mitzvos; he may live in Eretz Yisrael) may eat Neveilos.

Question: Since it says "u'Vasar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu'' (the Torah forbade only eating), why [must] it say "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso''?

Answer: You cast it (a Tereifah) to a dog, but you may not cast Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah (the latter is Asur b'Hana'ah).

A Beraisa supports this one (R. Lazar), and [the Seifa of the very] Beraisa supports this one (R. Yochanan).

Support (for R. Lazar - Beraisa): "V'Lo Ye'achel Chametz'' makes one who feeds [Chametz] like one who eats;

Suggestion: You say so - or perhaps the verse comes only to forbid Hana'ah?

Rejection: It says "Lo Sochal Alav Chametz'' - this teaches Isur Hana'ah. Why does it say "v'Lo Ye'achel Chametz''? It is to make one who feeds like one who eats. R. Yoshiyah says so;

Rebuttal (R. Yitzchak): It is not needed [for this]. Sheratzim are lenient (there is no Kares for them), and the Torah made one who feeds like one who eats. Chametz, which is stringent, all the more so we make one who feeds like one who eats!

Why does it say "v'Lo Ye'achel Chametz''? The verse comes to forbid Hana'ah.

Inference: It is because it says "v'Lo Ye'achel.'' Had it said Lo Sochal, you would not learn from here any [Isur Hana'ah]. This supports R. Yochanan!

If one drew a picture in land [using Orlah], obviously, the land is not forbidden (even regarding idolatry, what is attached cannot become forbidden - GRA).

Note: Similarly, the coming cases discuss dying with Orlah.

Question: If one dyed something alive - had he bowed to it, he did not forbid it. Because he dyed it (an action, perhaps) he forbade it?

Question: If one dyed tufts - this is a question. (They are made to fill things, so their color is not significant.)

Question: If one dyed a large garment and cut it to tufts - do you consider it like Musgar (a garment quarantined due to Tzara'as - cutting it to pieces less than the Shi'ur for Tzara'as is Metaher it) or Muchlat (absolutely Tamei - cutting it is not Metaher it)?

If you consider it like Musgar, it is permitted. If you consider it like Muchlat, it is forbidden.

Question: If one dyed a large garment in order to cut it to tufts - this is a question.

Question: If one dyed it, and returned and dyed it and burned [the dye, what is the law]?

Answer: If we will say that it needed the second dying (the first dying alone did not improve it), it is permitted. If not, it is forbidden. (SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL)

Question: If one dyed [a garment] with Orlah nut shells, and returned and dyed it with Chulin pomegranate rinds [and it became mixed with garments dyed with Chulin pomegranate rinds, what is the law]?

Answer #1: This is like the following [Mishnah]. Big fig cakes are Mevatel small ones, and small ones are Mevatel big ones.

(Rav Huna): The Mishnah means that big fig cakes are Mevatel small ones through weight (even if there are not 100 times as many cakes of Heter as of Isur), and small ones are Mevatel big ones through number (even if the Heter cakes do not weigh 100 times as much as the Isur).

Rebuttal: There it is proper to cut them (and they are all the same). Here it is not proper to cut them (so you cannot learn from there.)

What resembles [that Mishnah? If one dyed a garment with Orlah nut shells and] cut it [into pieces] in order to make Dordasin (PNEI MOSHE - a thin cushion to put under shoes) [and returned and dyed it with Chulin nut shells].

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): What resembles it? A big garment dyed with intent to cut it to make Dordasin.

Answer #2: This is like the following [Beraisa]. R. Yehoshua says, black figs are Mevatel white, and white are Mevatel black.

Rebuttal: There it is Min b'Mino. Here it is Min b'Eino Mino (so you cannot learn from there).

What resembles [that Beraisa]? If one dyed [a garment] with Orlah nut shells, and afterwards dyed it with Chulin nut shells of a different color, and it became mixed with similar garment dyed with Chulin. (It is the same species, but a different color. We explained this like GRA.)