Question: In Pesachim (44a) regarding Chulin porridge, and the garlic and oil are Terumah, it says that if a Tevul Yom touched part, he disqualified all of it through his touching!

Answer: There we discuss when it is a separate [mass] in the bowl (it is not mixed with the porridge).

Inference (Riva): This proves that mid'Oraisa, Terumah is Batel is a majority.

Question: We expound in Sifra "Es Mikdasho Mimenu" that Terumah is Batel in [a mixture with Chulin at least] 101 [times the amount of the Terumah]!

Answer: That is a mere Asmachta;

Also, [it is an Asmachta] what we say there that Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem, since the Isur is double, and also their Hana'ah is forbidden, also the amount needed for Bitul is double, i.e. 200.

Disclaimer: We can reject the proof from here. Really, mid'Oraisa it is forbidden to Zarim due to a mixture of Terumah, which is not recognized;

However, this that also the Chulin is considered like Terumah to be exempt from Chalah, as if it is all Terumah, this is only mid'Rabanan.

Support #1: However, we can bring a proof regarding nuts that fell and broke, in Gitin (54b).

Some texts [there] say "here, mid'Oraisa it is Batel is the majority."

Support #2: In Yevamos (82a), regarding two boxes, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, and in front of them are two Sa'im (measures, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, and we are unsure which fell in which. We are lenient to say that the Chulin fell into the Chulin.) R. Yochanan said that this is when there is a majority of Chulin over the Terumah. (I.e. the box of Chulin is more than a Se'ah, so even if the Terumah fell in, the majority is Chulin);

I.e. [even if the Terumah fell in,] it is permitted mid'Oraisa. Therefore, we [are lenient to] say "I say [that the Chulin fell into the Chulin]."

Support #3: Also there (73b) we say that Terumah is more stringent than Ma'aser, due to MaCHPaZ (an acronym of four stringencies - there is Misas Beis Din for a Tamei] who eats it, a Zar who eats it b'Shogeg pays its value and an added CHomesh, it has no Pidyon (redemption), and it is forbidden to Zarim.) We do not list 101 parts [required for Bitul, for it is only mid'Rabanan]!

Assertion: [The text does not say] "had it said "Ki Savo'u", one might have said that once two or three Meraglim entered [Eretz Yisrael, the Mitzvah of Chalah applies].

Proof: The Reisha of this Beraisa in the Sifri (and it is brought in Kidushin) says "this entrance [into Eretz Yisrael, written] regarding Chalah is different." (Rashash - Tosfos means that there (37b DH Midi), Rashi brings the Sifri.)

Citation (Sifri): Normally, it says "Ki Savo'u" or "Ki Yevi'acha." Here it says "b'Vo'achem", to teach that [they are obligated] immediately, once they entered, before conquering and dividing.

Inference: "Ki Savo'u" connotes a significant entrance, i.e. after conquering and dividing. How could we say "[even] after two or three Meraglim [entered...]"?!

Conclusion: Rather, the text says 'had it said "b'Vo'achem", one might have thought that once two or three Meraglim...' It refers to what was written above (the Reisha says that "b'Vo'achem" connotes immediately).

Question: We apply "all its residents are [dwelling] on it" regarding Yovel, since part of every Shevet ascended, according to R. Tam, who says that Yovel applied in Bayis Sheni due to this reason!

Answer: "B'Vo'achem" connotes that all came more [than "Kol Yoshveha" does].

Question: How could we initially think that Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa according to R. Yosi, and this supports Reish Lakish above?

Reish Lakish himself holds that according to R. Yosi, Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan, in Yevamos (81a)!

Answer: We could have said "[also] according to you [this is difficult]."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We discuss Simanim of Bagrus. R. Yosi, who says in the Gemara "from when the crown is surrounded", this is also what he says here, when he puts his hand on the "Oketz" [and it sinks in and delays returning].

Objection #1: If it is the same Shi'ur, why did R. Yosi change his words?

Objection #2: All the Tana'im in the Gemara, not one of them mentions the Shi'ur in our Mishnah!

Objection #3: If so, no Siman was given for Bochel. The Gemara says that if above is Bochel, it is known that she brought two hairs;

(How can we know whether above is Bochel?) We did not hear the Simanim of Bochel!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "What are its Simanim?" here refers to Bochel.

Support: This is fine that we say in the Gemara that the Halachah follows all of them to be stringent regarding Mi'un. (They are Simanim of adulthood.)

Explanation: He gave to her to escape punishment.

Proof: R. Yehudah says in Bava Kama (87a) that [payment for] embarrassment does not apply to slaves;

Even according to the opinion that embarrassment applies to slaves, it is paid to his master.

Remark: Rashi said that it is a Safek [what this is]. It was not explained.

Reference: In Sukah (35b), regarding an Esrog, it mentions Pituma, Oketz and Chotem.

Inference: [Since all three are mentioned in both places], it connotes that on an Esrog, all three off them are on the top side, and not one is towards the stem, similar to a Dad;

Regarding a Dad, we cannot explain so, like [Rashi] explained [there] about an Esrog.

Inference: A Shifchah Kena'anis is permitted to a Nochri, and similarly an Eved Kena'ani is permitted to a Nochris. [Chachamim] did not decree about him regarding Nashgaz (an acronym for Nidah, Goyah, Shifchah, Zonah. Mid'Rabanan, a Kohen who has Bi'ah with a Nochri is liable for these four Isurim, and a Yisrael is liable for the first three.)

Implied question: The Isurim of Nidah and Eshes Ish apply mid'Oraisa to a slave!

If so, at the end of Avodah Zarah, when Shevor Malka (the Persian king) told Bati (a slave) "remember what you did last night!", that he accepted (had Bi'ah with) a Nochris Zonah that his host handed over to him, and Yehudah did not accept a Nochris Zonah...

Bati did not transgress, for he was permitted, for he was a slave, like it says in Kidushin (70b) that Bati bar Tavi in Ramos Ruchei did not receive a Get Shichrur (he is still a slave).

Explanation: Due to Safek, he rules like this opinion to be stringent, and like this opinion to be stringent, like I explained above (36a).

Question (R. Tam): In Bava Metzi'a (88a), R. Yanai said that Tevel is exempt from Ma'aser until it enters the house!

Answer (R. Tam): Mid'Rabanan, a Chatzer is Kove'a. Mid'Oraisa, it must enter the house [to be obligated].

Explanation: Her relatives bring a proof.

Alternate texts: If the text says "she brings", she herself brings a proof;

If the text says "he brings", it refers to the husband. He brings a proof that she is an Ailonis and his Kidushin was a Ta'os (mistaken) if he wants to marry her sister.

Question: In Yevamos (80a) it says "if he ate Chelev from 12 years until 18 years, and signs of Seris appeared in him..."

Why did we abandon Beis Hillel, who say [that he becomes an adult through Simanei Seris after] 20 years, and adopt Beis Shamai's opinion?!

Even according to R. Eliezer, the law of a male is like Beis Hillel, and there we discuss a male!

Answer: There we teach according to Rebbi, who rules below that [he is a minor] until 18.

Explanation: After this he is an adult, and he is a Vadai Seris.

Explanation: In some Seforim, the text says "they fall out" [due to obesity or slenderness].

Observation: In Zevachim (25b), it says that hours disqualify Kodshim. (E.g. if an animal was born at three hours of the day, its second year begins at three hours of the same day in the next year.)

This is unlike the others, in which we do not require me'Es la'Es of hours, like I explained above (44b) regarding "they argue about 30 days." (See Tosfos Erchin 31a.)