Implied question: Rather than challenging him from R. Eliezer, we should support him from Rabanan who say that even if all of them were offered except for one of them, all of them go to Beis ha'Sereifah, and regarding cups of blood, they are spilled to the Amah!

Answer: Perhaps Rabanan do not disqualify due to Dichuy, rather, for another reason.

Explanation: This is because mid'Oraisa it is Batel in a majority, like we explained. Therefore they were lenient here.

Limitation: This is only if it fell by itself, but if he made it fall, even b'Shogeg, we fine him due to Mezid.

Limitation: This is only if it fell to Yam ha'Gadol, that it is not intact, but not if it separate, like is proven in the case below of 40 that separated to one place. Its separation does not help to permit the others.

This is proven also from [the Gemara], which says that Rav taught like R. Eliezer. (We conclude that he permits only two at a time, lest the Isur is still there).

And regarding Meduma [Terumah mixed with Chulin. Chachamim say that it] forbids a mixture only according to the calculation [of Terumah in it - Terumos 5:5,6], we know that R. Eliezer [is stringent, and] says that the Se'ah [of Terumah] that fell [into Chulin] is the [same] that was removed, but the others (what remains in the mixture) were not fixed (permitted).

Question: R. Eliezer's reason is because it says "Mum Bam" - then (Vadai Ba'alei Mumim) they are not accepted, but amidst a mixture they are accepted, like it explains in Yoma (64a), but normally, not!

Answer: We need the verse not to offer one [Ba'al Mum] mixed with two [Tam animals], for without the verse it is Batel in a majority, rather, it is needed to offer one mixed with one;

The Gemara brings the verse because since the Torah permitted so much, it is not proper to be stringent mid'Rabanan to [offer to] Hash-m.

Explanation #1: We need "from 10,000 to 10,000" only to say that the one who forbids, forbids all of them, like I explained above.

Explanation #2: It is because there is a distinction between the first 10,000 and the second 10,000. The first 10,000, if he benefits from all of them at once, it is forbidden, for he benefits from one Safek, since he benefits at once;

However, the second 10,000, even if he benefits from all of them at once, it is a Sefek-Sefeka, and it is permitted.

Similarly, if [one] separated from 10,000 to three, and from three to three, it is permitted, but one may not benefit from the first three at once, but from the second three is permitted from this reason that I explained.

Explanation #3: Rashi did not explain like this. (He said that the first 10,000 to which the Isur fell are forbidden. However, if one of the 10,000 separated to three, and from the three one separated to elsewhere, even the three in the middle are permitted, for a Sefek-Sefeka is Batel.)

Version #1 (Rashi): Shmuel, who said above (74a) that Safek idolatry and a Sefek-Sefeka are forbidden, and in other Isurim he does not [forbid a Sefek-Sefeka]...

He said like R. Eliezer, who forbids a Sefek-Sefeka about idolatry.

Source: A Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 49b) teaches that if he took wood from [an Asheirah], it is Asur b'Hana'ah. If he ignited an oven with it, [if the oven is] new, it must be broken. If it is old, he must let it cool (before baking in it. If he did not, and) baked bread in it, the bread is Asur b'Hana'ah. If it became mixed with other [loaves], and the others with others, which is a Sefek-Sefeka, all are Asur b'Hana'ah.

R. Eliezer says, he casts the benefit to the Dead Sea.

Inference: R. Eliezer holds that a Sefek-Sefeka about idolatry [is forbidden], since he requires redemption!

Question #1 (R. Tam): Why does [Rav Nachman] say that [Rav] holds like R. Eliezer? Also Rabanan forbid!

Poor answer: He means that [Rav] holds like R. Eliezer and the Tana who argues with him.

Question #2: R. Eliezer forbids there (Pesachim 27a) also regarding other Isurim!

Question #3: He should have said "d'Tanan" and brought the Mishnah there, since [that Mishnah] was not brought in our entire Sugya!

Question #4: Above [R. Tam] explained that the text does not say "and others in others"!

Question #5: It is written in all Seforim "he holds like R. Eliezer according to R. Elazar"! (R. Elazar did not explain R. Eliezer's opinion in the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah.)

Version #2: Rashi's latter version is correct. R. Shimon holds like R. Eliezer (in our Mishnah on 77b, which the Gemara cited at the top of Amud A), who says that we attribute about the Isur to be lenient, and say that the Isur went away;

[R. Eliezer] said that if the head of one of them was offered, we offer all the heads, and R. Elazar said that R. Eliezer permitted only two at a time.

Here, the Isur fell into 10,000. They are forbidden, for this is the first Safek, and pomegranates of Badan are not Batel;

[When one fell] from the 10,000 into three, it is a Sefek-Sefeka. We say that the Isur is in the 10,000.

Whereas [if it fell into] four, it is permitted, and we require four in order to sell two at a time;

If it fell into two, and it is the third, it turns out that one remains in its Isur when he sells the two (for R. Eliezer permits only two at a time). Obviously, one may not benefit from all of them at once, like I explained above (74a DH Piresh).

And similarly R. Eliezer, who said that they offer all the heads, does not permit to offer one at a time, rather, two at a time.

Pesak: The Halachah does not follow Shmuel, who forbids even a Sefek-Sefeka about idolatry, for we hold like Rav in Isurim (Bechoros 49a);

Even the first Safek, it seems that it is permitted through casting the benefit to the Dead Sea, for we hold like R. Eliezer in Avodah Zarah (49b).

Even for other Isurim, the Rashbam said that they can be redeemed, like I explained above (72b DH Kulan).

Explanation: Even according to the opinion that [when a pregnant animal was Nirva,] it and its fetus were Nirva (both are forbidden to be offered), we do not say that if [if the mother became Tereifah,] it and its fetus became Tereifah;

This is because the fetus has its own life, and it does not become Tereifah with the mother.

Question: It says in Chulin (53b) that if it is a Safek if [a goose was Nidras through] a cat or [wounded] through a stick, I say that it was through a stick. We can clarify! [The former] is long, and [the latter] is round!

Answer: This is only for [Drusah] through a wolf or above (bigger animals), but [through] a cat is not recognized.

Question: If so, we should answer that [an animal] wounded through a thorn became mixed with [Drusah] through a cat, and regarding kids and lambs! (A cat would not make bigger animals Tereifah.)

Answer: They prefer to answer for all animals.

Implied question: Why didn't we answer that [an animal] Drusah through a dog became mixed with Drusah through a wolf.

Answer: Perhaps it is possible to clarify (which is which).

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that it refers to a bird, like it answers in Gitin (28b) regarding one who sent his Chatas from overseas? [The Gemara] asks that it requires Semichah, and answers that it refers to Chatas ha'Of.

Answer #1: Here we discuss Zevachim (animal Korbanos).

Answer #2: Grazing and redemption do not apply to birds.

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that Min b'Mino refers to [Korbanos that do not require Semichah,] e.g. Bechor with Bechor, or Ma'aser with Ma'aser?

Answer: We discuss all Kodshim.

Question: We should establish it to discuss an heir, and like R. Yehudah (Erchin 2a), who says that an heir does not do Semichah!

Answer: It taught similar to Chatas and Asham, which are not brought after death.

Question #1: We should establish it to discuss an Arel or Tamei, who send their Korbanos (in any case they cannot do Semichah), like we say in Pesachim (62a)!

Suggestion: That discusses only birds (which do not require Semichah, but they may not send Zevachim, which require Semichah)!

Rejection: We say there that an Arel or Tamei may send all Zevachim... A bird is not a Zevach.

Suggestion: It refers to Bechor and Ma'aser.

Rejection: It says "all Zevachim"!

Question #2: It is difficult in Gitin (28b) about one who sent his Chatas from overseas? [The Gemara] asks that it requires Semichah;

What was the question? An Arel or Tamei send their Zevachim without Semichah. (Perhaps the same applies to one who is overseas!)

Partial Answer: In the case in Gitin, since there is still a Safek in the matter, that we must offer based on the Chazakah that [the owner] is alive, we should not offer, since also we cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of Semichah;

However, here we cannot answer like this. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)