Question: Why don't we similarly require the father to cause the stone to fall out of his child's hands? Why is it permitted to carry the child when he is carrying the stone?

Answer: If he makes him throw down the stone, the child will scream and cry.

Question: Why don't we permit carrying the child unless he is going to severely miss his father holding him? Why isn't the stone he is holding considered nullified to the child just as the stone is nullified to the basket that is full of fruit?

Answer: The child does not really need to be carried so badly.

Question: Even if the basket is not full of fruit the stone should be nullified to the basket! This should be like the case in Beitzah (21b) where we say that leftover drops in a cup are normally nullified and considered part of the cup if they are not forbidden from benefit.

Answer: Drops in a cup are very insignificant and are therefore nullified to a cup (as opposed to a stone). This is apparent from the Gemara in Beitzah (ibid.) itself, as I explained earlier (47a DH "Haveh").

Question: Even so, why can't he take the fruit with his hands and leave the stone in the basket? Don't we say later that the case is only when the pure items are on bottom and the impure items are on top, but if the pure items were on top and the impure on bottom he should take the pure items and leave the impure items?

Question (cont.): This must mean that he takes them with his hands, as if he throws them with a vessel, he should do the same if the impure items are on top (throw them with a vessel)! Rather, it must be that he takes them with his hands. If so, here too he should take the fruit with his hands.

Answer #1: The case is where the mouth of the basket is narrow and he cannot stick his hands in to get the fruit.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the case later is regarding Terumah that is in small vessels in the box. This is especially understandable, as it is uncommon to put impure and pure things all together in a box. Rather, each is put in a separate (small) vessel into the box. This is why he can take the pure items that are on top with his hands. However, our case of the basket is where there are no small vessels in the basket and he therefore cannot take it with his hands lest it fall down.

Observation #1: According to this explanation the first answer of the Gemara that the fruit will get dirty is unnecessary. Since the stone itself is a wall of the basket, even if he would throw the fruit and stone, and then take the fruit and leave the stone behind, he would not have any vessel to hold the fruit. This is because there would be a large hole in the basket where the stone was previously. This was not mentioned explicitly in the Gemara because the Amora quoted previously did not mention it.

Observation #2: Alternatively, the case is regarding fruit that would get dirty. Otherwise, it is possible to throw the basket on the ground and to put a small amount of fruit in the basket, meaning as much as it can contain before the area in the basket where there is now a hole (due to the absence of the stone).

Question: He should still take them with his hand and put them in a different vessel or on a plate or headscarf, as is apparent later regarding Terumah. Rav Chisda later says that the case of the Mishnah is only when pure is on the bottom and impure is on top. However, if pure is on top and impure is on bottom, take the pure and leave the impure! This is despite the fact that we are discussing fruit that get dirty easily.

Answer: The case there is when the pure fruits are in small baskets, and the impure fruit are in small baskets. All of these baskets are in a large vessel, and the small pure baskets are on top of the impure baskets. He can take the pure baskets and put them on the ground. However, if the fruits are stacked on top of each other without small baskets as in our case where the fruits are all mixed together, he definitely would not say that he should leave the impure ones and take the pure ones.

Observation: The Mishnah implies that Terumah is nullified with one hundred parts that include the Terumah (99 parts Chulin and one part Terumah).

Opinion: Rashi did not give this explanation in Chulin (99b) regarding the rule that all of the prohibitions of the Torah are nullified in one hundred parts, as according to his understanding we do not conclude this way (99-1).

Explanation #1: Rashi says that this is because it is a lot of trouble to take the food.

Question: This does not appear correct to the Ri. If it is because of the trouble, what does the Gemara mean later when it says, "here too, since if he wants to take wine he can only do so if he takes off the stone, it is like more Pesoles than food?" Why does this make it like there is more Pesoles than food?

Answer: This is indeed why Rashi had to say that we do not have the text, "until he takes the stone."

Explanation #2: It therefore appears to Rabeinu Tam that the reason is that when there is more food than Pesoles, the Pesoles is somewhat nullified to the food and it is permitted to take it away from the food and throw it out. However, if there is more Pesoles than food it is not nullified to the food.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The text is now understandable. Regarding the barrel as well, since if he wanted to take wine he could not until he took away the stone, it is as if there is more Pesoles than food. Since he cannot take any wine at all until he removes the stone, it is not considered like it is nullified to the food since the food is not apparent at all, and he cannot take any wine when the stone is on top of it.

Observation: The Gemara in Beitzah (14b) that establishes this case as when there is a lot of trouble and a small amount is referring to the food and not the Pesoles. According to Rashi, it is referring to the Pesoles and not the food [and he therefore cannot separate the Pesoles as it is too tedious].

Question: Why do we need both statements of Rav (regarding both the stone and the money)?

Answer: One is (indeed) derived from the other.

Implied Question: One should not ask that the Mishnah should not have had to state both cases. (Why not?)

Answer: I would think that the stone certainly does not make the barrel a Basis l'Davar ha'Assur if he forgot it there, as it looks like a cover of the barrel. However, perhaps money on a pillow does not make the pillow a Basis even if he forgot it there. (This is why both cases had to be stated by the Mishnah.)