Clarification: The Ri explains that this refers exclusively to those things that contain a La'v ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei, but not to anything else.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains this to mean that one transgresses 'Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei'. The Riva too, explains that the expression 'Ovrin' implies that it must be removed from the world.

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam disagrees however, since all the things listed in the Mishnah are included in "Kol Machmetzes Lo Socheilu". Indeed, even eating them would be permitted if the Torah had not specifically included them. So how can one possibly ascribe to them the Isur of 'Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei'?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that 'Eilu Ovrin' refers to the food, and that what the Mishnah means is that they must be removed from the table because they may not be eaten. But 'Bal Yera'eh ... ' does not apply to them.

Explanation #1: This is Chametz Nokshah.

Explanation #2: Though in fact, even if it is Ta'aroves Chametz (proper Chametz that is mixed with other things), nevertheless, since Rebbi Eliezer says 'also', it seems that he agrees with the Tana Kama (See Maharsha).

Implied Question: Now the Gemara states that plain Nokshah is not Chayav anything (is permitted to retain).

Answer: Consequently, the authorof either the Mishnah or the Gemara must be Rebbi Elazar.

Clarification: When the Gemara claims that there is a Chazakah that it comes from Temed, it is referring to Temed of Purtz'ni (that is made from the pits), but the Temed of Ravkani (that is made from the dregs) is good quality, and never turns into vinegar.

Implied Question: In Perek Bameh Ishah Yotz'ah (Shabbos 66.) where Rebbi Yossi forbids a lame man to go out with his stump, the Gemara gives the sign as 'Samech' 'Samech', which is better than the one here.

Answer: Only the Gemara could not possibly have given that sign here, since 'Sa'ari' is spelt with a 'Siyn' (and not with a 'Samech').

Question: In that case, this is synonymous with 'Tachshitei Nashim' (which we just rejected)?

Answer: The Ri from Orleans answers that here, it is speaking about the upper face (i.e. 'Panim' literally), and the ointment that is spread on it does not become disgusting; whereas 'Tachshitei Nashim' is speaking about the lower face (the intimate part of the woman's body), on which they rub the ointment to remove the hair, which becomes disgusting.