Question: According to Reish Lakish, who said above (72b) that bundles of clover according to R. Meir is Kol she'Darko, this is difficult, for R. Meir himself holds that a Litra of dried figs is Batel, even though it is Kol she'Darko!

Answer: However, in Yevamos (81a) it connotes that Reish Lakish said that Kol she'Darko is Mekadesh only Terumah mid'Oraisa, but not for Terumah nowadays, which is mid'Rabanan.

Question: If Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan, if so Kedushas ha'Aretz is Batel. If so, also Kil'ai ha'Kerem is mid'Rabanan. Why did he teach Kol she'Darko?

Answer #1: Kil'ai ha'Kerem is mid'Rabanan for only one reason. If not that Kedushas ha'Aretz is Batel, it would be mid'Oraisa;

However, here it is mid'Rabanan for two reasons. Firstly, Kedushas ha'Aretz is Batel. And further, Terumah of figs is mid'Rabanan, for the Torah obligates only grain, wine and oil.

Answer #2: Above, it means as follows. R. Meir said that Kol she'Darko Limnos is Mekadesh mid'Oraisa. Since mid'Oraisa Kol she'Darko Limnos is Mekadesh, it is proper that for [Isurim] mid'Rabanan, Es she'Darko, such as bundles of clover, is Mekadesh.

Answer #3: Since Kil'ai ha'Kerem is Asur b'Hana'ah, even though Kedushas ha'Aretz is Batel, it is stringent like mid'Oraisa.

Question #1: In Megilah (10a), how did [the Gemara] want to say that R. Eliezer holds that the first Kedushah was permanent?

Question #2: R. Yehoshua himself, it says there explicitly that he holds that the first Kedushah was not Batel. According to R. Yehoshua, why is a Litra of dried figs Batel according to Reish Lakish?

Answer #1: We can say that according to R. Yehoshua, Kedushas ha'Aretz is not Batel, and even so, a Litra of dried figs is Batel, because Terumah of figs is mid'Rabanan.

Source: For this reason they were lenient to say that bottom figs help to [comprise a Shi'ur] be Mevatel, even though they were not mixed with the ring.

Implied question: In Yevamos (81a) it connotes that according to Reish Lakish, if Terumah nowadays were mid'Oraisa, a ring [of dried figs] would not be Batel in rings;

Reish Lakish said "I teach that a ring is Batel in rings only for Terumah mid'Rabanan";

What proof is this? R. Yehoshua holds that we offer even though there is no Mikdash, for Kedushas ha'Bayis is not Batel, and all the more so Kedushas ha'Aretz [is not Batel], and even so he holds that a ring is Batel!

Answer #1: R. Yehoshua holds that only six matters are Mekadesh, and R. Meir, who holds that Kol she'Darko [is Mekadesh] argues with him about this.

Answer #2: With difficulty, we can say that there in Yevamos discusses Terumas Bikurim, which is mid'Oraisa for figs. We find that [it says] Stam Terumah and it refers to Bikurim;

Citation - Mishnah (Parah 11:3): If a Terumah fig-cake fell into Mei Chatas, and he took it and ate it - if it was [the size of] k'Beitzah, whether it was Tamei or Tahor, the water is Tamei, and the one who eats it is Chayav Misah;

Explanation: When the person took it, immediately his body became Tamei due to carrying Mei Chatas (what was on the cake). He cannot be Chayav Misah for Stam Terumah, for Terumah of Peros (i.e. not grain, wine and oil) is mid'Rabanan, unless we say that it discusses Terumas Bikurim.

Also due to this, Reish Lakish deduced from here that a ring is Batel in rings even for Bikurim mid'Oraisa.

Rebuttal (and Answer #3): This is difficult. Rather, we can distinguish that regarding Kedushah that depends on Mechitzos, e.g. Kedushas ha'Bayis, R. Yehoshua said that it is not Batel, like he expounds there in Megilah (3b) "Asher Lo Chomah" - even if it does not have [a wall] now, but it had before.

Support: We must distinguish like this also above, like I explained above (61a DH Mai).

Explanation: Even though [the bottom figs] are not in the Safek of what is mixed, [Chachamim] were lenient about Terumah of Peros, which is mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: A Mishnah in Terumos (4:9) says that if a white [Terumah] fig fell into white and black [figs], the white are forbidden and the black are permitted, and the black do not help to be Mevatel the white!

Answer: There is different, for the black are not proper to be in a Safek of Dimu'a (a mixture of Terumah and Chulin), for they are always recognized from the white.

Question: According to R. Yehudah, why do [R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua] discuss something that is normally counted? Everything forbids any amount, for R. Yehudah holds below (79a) that Min b'Mino is not Batel!

Also in the Seifa, which teaches that R. Yehudah says that all agree that it is Batel, why is it Batel?

Also below (74a), why did R. Yehudah discuss pomegranates of Badan? The same applies to everything!

Also in Gitin (54b), if [nuts of Parech] fell and broke b'Shogeg, they are Batel according to R. Yehudah. What is the reason? R. Yehudah holds that Min b'Mino is not Batel!

Note: In our text there, R. Yehudah says that whether they fell b'Shogeg or b'Mezid, they are not Batel, and so Tzon Kodoshim corrects the text of Tosfos in Menachos (22b). Tosfos there adds that it connotes that mid'Oraisa, there is Bitul in a majority, and it is only a fine to say that there is no Bitul.

Also, in a Mishnah (Shabbos 141b), R. Yehudah teaches that we may remove [an amount equal to the Terumah from] Meduma if there is 101 (times as much as mixture as Terumah)!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): R. Yehudah said that Min b'Mino forbids any amount only regarding something wet, like blood of the bull and blood of the goat, from which he learns (Menachos 22b). It is something that mixes.

Implied question: It says in Beitzah (38b) that wheat in wheat is not Batel according to R. Yehudah!

Answer: That discusses flour, which mixes.

Proof: Regarding wheat in barley, it says there that it is Batel, for it is Min b'Eino Mino;

Why is it Batel? They are recognizably different from each other! Rather, surely it discusses flour.

The text in Gitin does not say "they fell into the winepress and broke", rather, they fell and broke. It does not discuss something wet, rather, something dry.

Support: Like this, R. Tam explains R. Yochanan's teaching in Avodah Zarah (73b). If there were two cups, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, and he diluted them (with water) and mixed them together, remove Mino (the Chulin wine) as if it is not, and b'Eino Mino is the majority [over the Terumah], and it is Mevatel it.

Question: Since Terumah is Batel in 101, if so also Mino should help Eino Mino to be Mevatel the Terumah!

Answer #1: This teaches that b'Mino forbids any amount.

Implied question: R. Yochanan taught there (73b) that all Isurim in the Torah, Min b'Mino forbids if it is Nosen Ta'am (gives taste), except for Tevel and Yayin Nesech. Why didn't he mention Terumah?

Answer: It is because it is included in Tevel, since there is one reason [for both]. It explains there that the reason for Tevel is that its Isur is like its Heter. One wheat [kernel] exempts a stack [of Tevel of any size];

The same applies to Terumah. Its Isur is like its Heter. Everywhere that Terumah is Batel in 101, this is for dry [mixtures].

Implied question: The Mishnah in Menachos (23a) of two Menachos from which Kemitzah was not taken [that became mixed together. If one can take a Kometz from each by itself, they are Kesherim. After taking one Kometz], the Shirayim [of that Minchah] is not Mevatel [some of] the Tevel (the Minchah that still needs Kemitzah, even though surely some of the Tevel is mixed among a majority of Shirayim.) We establish it there (23b) like R. Yehudah!

Answer #1: It discusses Minchas Soles, which totally mixes, like a wet matter, and not [Menachos] baked in an oven or cooked in a shallow or deep pan. (He would agree that Bitul applies for those Menachos.)

The case of Neveilah that became mixed with a majority of Shechutos (Amora'im argue about whether Bitul applies only if the Mevatel can become like the Batel (minority), or vice-versa, and we establish them like R. Yehudah - Menachos 23a-b), is when they melted. (If not, he agrees with Chachamim that Min b'Mino is always Batel.)

Question (R. Yom Tov of Plantzi, to R. Tam): In Pesachim (15a) it says that if a barrel of Terumah broke in the upper winepress, and the bottom winepress has Tamei Chulin, we say there (21a) that if it fell (i.e. is falling) into 100 [times as much] Chulin, all agree that [we let it] descend and become Tamei (if he has only a Tamei Kli, and he cannot stop the Terumah from mixing without overtly being Metamei it).

Inference: Even something wet is Batel in 101! (Since the mixed together will be permitted, all forbid to overtly be Metamei the Terumah.)

Observation: He could similarly have asked from the case of Se'or (sourdough) of Chulin and of Terumah that fell into a dough. Wet does not mix more than that!

Also, a Tosefta in Terumah (6:9) teaches that if a Log of clear [Terumah] oil fell into 100 Lugim of cloudy [Chulin] oil (it is Batel).

Retraction: R. Tam retracted. Surely there is no difference between wet and dry.

Answer (to Question (h), and Answer #2 to Question (a) - R. Tam): Terumah is Batel in 101 when it fell into fixed Chulin (from which Terumah was taken). It is impossible for the Mevatel, i.e. the Chulin, to be like the Batel, i.e. Terumah;

The case of two cups, one of Terumah and one of Chulin [discusses Chulin] that was not fixed. It is possible for the Chulin to become Terumah;

R. Yochanan holds like the opinion in Menachos (23b) that it depends on the Mevatel (if it can become like the Batel, it is Mevatel), so it is [considered] Min b'Mino.

The case in Pesachim (21a) is not difficult even for the opinion that it depends on the Batel, for when liquids spoil, they are not considered liquids, so Terumah cannot become like Chulin. (Even though the Isur vanishes when it spoils, then it is not like Chulin wine.)

Question: What is the case that Tevel forbids b'Mashehu? The Mevatel, i.e. the Chulin, cannot become Tevel!

Answer #1: Tevel from which Terumah was not taken fell into Tevel from which Terumah was not taken (but Ma'aser was not taken, so it is considered Tevel). This is Min b'Mino, since both are called Tevel.

Answer #2: Tevel that was brought into the house [became mixed with] Tevel that was not brought into the house.

Answer #3: Tevel fell into fixed Chulin, and while the owner still has the Terumah. It is possible to ask (retract his declaration of Terumah, like Hataras Nedarim, and the Terumah reverts to be Tevel).

Answer #2 (to Question c:1): According to this, we can establish the case of two cups to discuss fixed Chulin, e.g. the owner still has the Terumah. The case in Pesachim is when the Kohen has the Terumah (one cannot ask then).

Defense #1 (of Answer #1 of R. Tam): The case in Pesachim (21a) is like R. Chiya, who holds according to R. Yehudah that Neveilos and Shechutos are Batel in each other. (It suffices that the Mevatel can become like the Batel, or vice-versa);

Therefore, it is considered Min b'Eino Mino regarding Mashehu (Mashehu does not forbid), even though they are considered Min b'Mino regarding 101, and 60 does not suffice (like it does for Min b'Eino Mino. Ayeles ha'Shachar did not understand the distinction. Yad Binyamin explains that this is because they have the same taste.)

However, R. Yochanan does not hold like R. Chiya. It is proven in Menachos (23b) that not all hold like R. Chiya.

Rashi in Menachos explained that the Mishnah (below, 78a) that blood is not Mevatel blood, according to Rav Chisda, who says that it depends on the Mevatel (if it can become like the Batel, there is never Bitul), [the Mishnah] is unlike R. Chiya;

And even according to R. Chanina, who says that it depends on the Batel, it seems that there are many [Tana'ic teachings unlike R. Chiya, e.g.] saliva is not Mevatel saliva, and urine is not Mevatel urine (below, 79a), and regarding blood of (a bird or Chayah, which requires) Kisuy ha'Dam that became mixed with Dam Behemah (Chulin 87b), R. Yehudah said that blood is not Mevatel blood...

In all of these, one cannot become like the other, even according to R. Chanina;

It is unlike Dam Kodshim which can become Chulin, like Rashi explained in Menachos (23b) that after Linah of one night it loses its Kedushah, and it is like Chulin.

According to Rav Chisda, the entire Stam Gemara is unlike R. Chiya, e.g. what [Rav] says in Chulin (100a) that a piece itself [that absorbed the taste of Isur] becomes Neveilah (i.e. like pure Isur) and forbids all the pieces according to R. Yehudah...

And regarding the cooked foreleg (of Eil Nazir - Chulin 98b, Abaye) said that it is a Chidush only according to R. Yehudah, who says that Min b'Mino is not Batel.

And regarding [fish] brine, R. Yehudah says that its Shi'ur for Bitul is [one Revi'is in] two Sa'im (192 Reviyos), and it asks that R. Yehudah holds that Min b'Mino is not Batel, and answers that [brine] is different...

Question: The case in Beitzah of Min b'Mino is not Batel according to R. Yehudah, and Dam Tevusah, which we say in Nidah (71b) that blood is not Mevatel blood according to R. Yehudah, and even according to R. Chanina - this requires investigation, for it seems that there are [Tana'ic teachings] from those that I brought unlike R. Chiya.

Note: Even Rav, the Talmid of R. Chiya, was a Tana, and he can argue with Tana'im! It seems that it is difficult to say that R. Chiya argues with all the sources Tosfos brought, and says that they all erred about R. Yehudah's opinion.

Defense #2 (of Answer #1): R. Tam distinguished between wet and dry. The case in Pesachim (21a) is not difficult for R. Yochanan, for he did not say according to everyone that Tevel and Yayin Nesech forbid any amount. R. Yochanan admits that according to Rabanan of R. Yehudah, b'Nosen Ta'am [forbids];

Rather, R. Yochanan holds like Rabanan regarding other Isurim, and like R. Yehudah regarding Tevel and Yayin Nesech, and so [holds] the Beraisa like R. Yochanan.

Consequence: Now, the Gemara in Pesachim (about Terumah wine falling into Chulin) is like Rabanan, that Min b'Mino is Batel everywhere. There is a three-way argument among Tana'im about this:

There is a Beraisa like R. Yochanan (only Tevel and Yayin Nesech forbid any amount);

And the Beraisa in Nedarim (58a) "R. Shimon said a general rule. Anything that has Matirin [is not Batel. Anything without Matirin has a Shi'ur for Bitul.]"

They said to him, "Shevi'is has no Matirin, and a Mishnah teaches that Shevi'is forbids any amount b'Mino!" He said to them, "it was taught that Shevi'is [forbids any amount] b'Mino only for Bi'ur, but not for eating."

[Rabanan] could not ask from Yayin Nesech, for there they hold like Rabanan [of R. Yehudah], that all Isurim are Batel even Min b'Mino.

Answer #2 (to Question (f) - Ri ha'Lavan): R. Yehudah taught one [teaching] according to his own opinion, and one according to his Rebbi;

Note: It seems that this is also Answer #3 to Question (a). The argument of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua is fine according to R. Yehudah himself, but not according to R. Gamliel, who holds that Min b'Mino forbids any amount. He must argue with his colleagues, R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua.

The [Mishnah] below (78a) that says that blood is not Mevatel blood, R. Yehudah taught it in the name of R. Gamliel.

Support: Abaye answers like this below (79a).

Question: Rava argues with him!

Answer #3 (to Question c:1): The case of two cups, the Chulin [wine] does not help the water to be Mevatel the Terumah. This is not because b'Mino forbids any amount;

Rather, it is because this (Terumah wine in Chulin wine) is Batel in 101, and this (Terumah wine in water) is Batel in 60. He says that [the Chulin wine] does not help to be Mevatel in 60, since its law is to be Mevatel in 100;

The case is, between the water and Chulin wine [together] there is not 100 [times as much as the Terumah]. However, there is 60 times as much as water as Terumah;

If we would not say "remove Mino as if it were not", the Chulin wine would be forbidden because there is not 100 (to be Mevatel the Terumah), and everything would be forbidden, because the water is not 60 times as much as the Chulin and Terumah [wine together].

Explanation: The case is, they separate from the Kavu'a not in front of us, for if they separate in front of us, they would be forbidden as if they were taken from the Kavu'a place.

Proof: This is proven in Pesachim (9b). If there were nine piles of Chametz and one of Matzah, and a mouse came and took (and we do not know from which), we say that every Kavu'a [Safek] is like an even Safek.

And in Chulin (95a), we say about nine stores [in a city that sell Shechutah, and one sells Neveilah, if meat is] found, we follow the majority, even if it was found in a Nochri's hand;

The reason is because regarding piles, we discuss when the mouse took in front of us. The Safek arose in a place of Kevi'us. (The entire pile was Isur, or it was all Heter.) Therefore, it says that we should force them to go away. Once they separate from their place of Kevi'us, we say that each that separates is (assumed to be) from the majority;

We say similarly in Yoma (84b) regarding nine Nochrim and one Yisrael among them (and a house fell on one of them). If it was in that Chatzer, we excavate (to save him even on Shabbos, for it is like an even Safek. If one went to) another Chatzer (and a house fell on him, we assume that he is from the majority, and), we do not excavate.

Inference: Since they decreed due to Kavu'a, it seems that if he took one from the Kavu'a, it is forbidden mid'Oraisa, and we do not say that it separated from the majority, since it is important, and it is not Batel when it is Kavu'a. It is like an even Safek.

Rejection: We cannot say so, for Rav said below that if a ring of idolatry became mixed with 100 rings and one of them fell into the sea, all are permitted;

It seems that he holds also that our Mishnah, in which one became mixed in 10,000 and one of them died, we say that the Isur died and the rest are permitted;

Question: What is the reason? Just the contrary, we should say that [the rest are forbidden, lest a ring or animal of] Heter fell or died!

Answer: Rather, the reason they were lenient is because mid'Oraisa they are Batel in a majority. Mid'Oraisa, everything is Batel in a majority, since it is not known (which is the Isur), and even the six matters, since it became mixed and it is not known, and similarly Terumah is Batel in 101.

Note: These last words of Tosfos connote that mid'Oraisa Terumah is Batel in 101. However, Tosfos elsewhere and almost all Meforshim say that the verse that teaches 101 is an Asmachta. Tosfos said "and similarly", which connotes that Terumah is like the six matters, which mid'Oraisa are Batel in a majority. He said that mid'Oraisa, everything is Batel in a majority! Most explain that Tosfos means that mid'Oraisa Terumah is Batel in a majority, and mid'Rabanan in 101.

"Everything fixed" applies only to something known, e.g. nine stores, nine piles [of Matzah], nine frogs (and a Sheretz), and nine Nochrim, in which the Heter and Isur are recognized in their places.

Observation: This Mishnah is not taught like this in Maseches Kinim. Rather, it is a Perek that begins so, and refers to everything taught above.