Explanation: In Menachos (22a), Rashi explained that according to Rav Chisda, who says that it depends on the Mevatel (if it could become like the Batel), this is unlike R. Chiya.

Remark: Above (73a DH R. Yehudah), I explained that even according to R. Chanina, who says that it depends on the Batel, there are several Mishnayos and Beraisos unlike R. Chiya.

Explanation #1: When he chews them in his mouth, one is mixed in the other. The minority of this is in the majority of this, and the minority is Batel in the majority;

What is Batel in each kind (of Isur, i.e. Pigul or Nosar) is added to the Mevatel, and it becomes like it and is called on its name, and it is detracted from it. It is impossible to arrange that there will not be more of one kind Batel in the other, than the amount of the other Batel in it;

It turns out that in that kind (that more of it was Batel, than the amount of the other that was Batel in it) is less than its Shi'ur (since initially it was a k'Zayis), and we do not know which was decreased. When we warn him, we do not know for which to warn him, and one must warn him for the Isur (which has a Shi'ur, in order to lash him);

Therefore, when they warn him for Pigul, it is Hasra'as Safek, for perhaps there is no Chiyuv for it (if it was decreased). The same applies to [warning for] Nosar.

Even though at the end he transgressed one of them, at the time of warning it is a Safek about each whether or not he will transgress it, and Hasra'as Safek is not Hasra'ah. This is from Rashi.

Question #1: If they warned him about all three of them, obviously he is lashed, even according to the opinion (Makos 16a) that Hasra'as Safek is not Hasra'ah!

Note: It seems that Rashi's text mentioned only Pigul and Nosar, and likewise Explanation #2 of Tosfos below.

Where do we find Hasra'as Safek like this, that he Vadai transgressed, just we do not know which of the three - Pigul, Nosar and Tamei?

And if they warned him only for one, obviously he is exempt, even according to the opinion that Hasra'as Safek is Hasra'ah, for even at the end, perhaps the one they warned him for was already Batel!

What is the case of Hasra'as Safek? E.g. after the matter is finished, he Vadai transgressed what they warned him about, just we do not know at the time of the Hasra'ah whether or not he transgresses at the time;

E.g. (if we are unsure which of two men is Ploni's father, and) he hit this one and afterwards hit this one (Yevamos 101a), and similarly Gid ha'Nasheh, that we do not know whether the left or right Gid is forbidden (Chulin 91a, and he ate one, and afterwards the other).

Question #2: How is he liable at all due to one of them? The minority that is Batel in the majority does not join with the majority to complete the Shi'ur;

Even Heter does not join with Isur [to complete the Shi'ur - Pesachim 43b]. All the more so Isur does not join with [another] Isur!

If so, even if you will say that Hasra'as Safek is Hasra'ah, here he is exempt, for it is impossible that each will not mix somewhat with the other, and it is less than the Shi'ur.

Question #3: If we will explain Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, all three together, why must we say that it is impossible for one not to be the majority over another? Surely, here there are two that are Mevatel the third! He is exempt for all of them, for each is Batel and is Mevatel [the others]!

Explanation #2: We discuss when there are two k'Zeisim of Pigul and one k'Zayis of Nosar together in one piece, and there are two k'Zeisim of Nosar and one k'Zayis of Pigul together in another piece, [and they were mixed] together;

He ate one of the pieces, and they warned him "do not eat Pigul." [He is exempt, for] perhaps this is the piece that has a majority of Nosar;

Afterwards, after Kedei Achilas Pras, or even within Kedei Achilas Pras, he ate the second piece, and they warned him "do not eat Pigul", like the first time. [He is exempt, for] perhaps this is the piece that has a majority of Nosar that he eats now at the end.

Support: Now, this is just like he hit this one and afterwards hit this one. According to the opinion that Hasra'as Safek is not Hasra'ah, he is exempt.

Explanation #3 (R. Baruch): It seems that it discusses two of them. He took two of these three [Isurim] and mixed them together and ate them, e.g. he took four k'Zeisim of from two kinds of Isur and mixed them in one bowl and ate them. It is impossible that there will not be a majority from one, and it is Mevatel the other;

Therefore, we do not know which Isur, if it is considered Pigul or Nosar, for Isurim are Mevatel each other, and he is exempt due to Hasra'as Safek;

E.g. he ate two times within Kedei Achilas Pras, and the first time they warned him for Pigul, and the second time for Nosar.

Alternatively, even in less than Kedei Achilas Pras he is exempt when he ate in two times, for when they warned him the first time for Pigul, perhaps Nosar was the majority, and they did not warn him properly;

And the second time, when they warned him for Nosar, perhaps Pigul was the majority, and they did not warn him properly.

Implied question: They already warned him for Pigul at the first eating, and we say in Kidushin (77a) that if [a Kohen Gadol] had Bi'ah with five widows, he is liable for Reuven's widow, and Shimon's widow....

It discusses one Hasra'ah, for if there were two Hasra'os, even for one widow he is liable [for each Bi'ah], for the Hasra'aos divide!

Inference: Since he is engaged in Bi'ah, and they warned him at the beginning, it is warning for each. Also here, the entire time he is engaged in eating. The first Hasra'ah should help!

Answer: These are different. Here, it seems that [the one who warned] retracted from his initial Hasra'ah when he later warned about Nosar. It is as if he said to him "you need not refrain from Pigul, rather, from Nosar."

Question: A Mishnah in Me'ilah (17b) says that Pigul and Nosar do not join with each other because they are two Shemos (different Isurim), and it says in the Gemara that this is only for Tum'as Yadayim mid'Rabanan, but regarding eating, they join;

Citation (17b - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem" puts a Lav on eating any Pasul Kodshim!

Answer #1: That is when they are not mixed. Here that they are mixed, they are Batel, for Isurim are Mevatel each other.

Answer #2: Here we discuss lashes for Pigul or Nosar. There it discusses transgressing eating Pasul Kodshim.

Answer #3: There, granted there is an Isur, but there are no lashes, for it is Lav shebi'Chlalos (one Lav that forbids different Isurim), like it says in Pesachim (24a).

Question: Why didn't he ask from the entire Torah? We hold that Ta'am k'Ikur (if one can taste Isur is a mixture, it is forbidden to eat it - below, 79a)!

Question: In Menachos (23b) it asks from the case of one who seasoned [Matzah] with black cumin against the opinion that it depends on the Mevatel;

What is the comparison to whether it depends on the Batel or on the Mevatel, in which the taste is the same, to the case of one who seasoned with black cumin, in which the taste is not the same?

Since the spices have (received) the taste of Matzah, it is proper to fulfill the Matzah with them, like we say here "if it has the taste of grain, Chalah must be separated, and one is Yotzei through it on Pesach"! In the entire Torah, we hold that Ta'am k'Ikur!

Implied question: We can challenge also our Sugya from what it says in Pesachim (115a) that one should not wrap Matzah and Maror together, lest Maror, which is mid'Rabanan, be Mevatel Matzah, which is mid'Oraisa!

Answer #1: There, the strength of the bitterness is Mevatel the taste of Matzah. However, rice is not Mevatel the taste of grain.

Answer #2: There is when he eats a k'Zayis of Matzah. When Maror is Mevatel [even a little] Matzah, there is not the taste of a k'Zayis of Matzah. However, if he eats much, it is permitted.

Explanation (Rashi): Since when we can taste it, as long as it gives taste, it is not Batel, also when we cannot taste it (e.g. Min b'Mino), why do we belittle Isurim to be quick to be Mevatel them [in a majority]?

We should view that if it were Min b'Eino Mino, the taste would be recognized, and it would not be Batel. [Why do] you say that Min b'Mino is Batel mid'Oraisa in a majority, even though if it were Eino Mino, it would give taste?!

Comment: Even though Rashi did not mention [mid'Oraisa], do not explain that he asks [that it should not be Batel] mid'Rabanan, for the Mishnah discusses mid'Oraisa, and so does the entire Sugya.

Explanation: I.e. the blood is Pasul, for Min b'Mino is Batel in a majority, just like water is Pasul for Zerikah.

Implied question: Why is this unlike the Beraisa in Shabbos (120b)? Wet ink and milk are not a Chatzitzah!

Answer: Here, since that the majority of the bucket is [full] of milk, the water does not penetrate [to reach the walls of the bucket];

This is unlike milk resting on a Kli or on a person, and he immersed [it or himself. The water of the Mikveh is the majority, so it penetrates, and the Tevilah is valid.]

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes Kesav Yad and Tzon Kodoshim say that the following begins a new Dibur.

Citation: We follow the majority.

Explanation: If [the wine or milk] was not half, once he immersed it and it filled with the water of the Mikveh, the water became the majority over the wine, so [the bucket] is Tahor.

Question: We say (Shabbos 77a) that any wine that does not tolerate dilution with three parts of water is not [proper] wine. (I.e. even when a quarter is wine, the mixture is considered wine);

All the more so here that there is more wine (than a quarter, i.e. up to half), it does not lose the status of wine, and Hashakah should not help, for it is called mixed wine, like we say in Makos (3a)!

Note: Hashakah, i.e. touching water to a Mikveh, is Metaher the water, for then it is considered attached, like the Mikveh itself. It helps only for water.

Answer #1: Here we discuss diluted wine. (When it is mixed with a majority of water, it loses the status of wine, and is considered water.)

Answer #2: We discuss weak wine. It cannot tolerate dilution with a majority of water. (It becomes so weak that it loses the status of wine.) Not all wines are the same, like we say in Shabbos (77a) that Sharoni wine is different, for it is weak.

Support: So we can explain in Yevamos (82b). It says that if one added a Se'ah [of liquid] to a Mikveh and removed a Se'ah, until the majority, it is Kosher. Rashi explained that we discuss Mei Peros.

Implied question: If it discusses wine, why is it Kosher (when the Mikveh is half wine)? It is absolute wine to bless Borei Peri ha'Gefen on it and for every law [of wine. One who immerses in the Mikveh,] he immerses in wine!

Answer #1: Rather, it discusses weak wine.

Rejection (of Support, and Answer #2): We can say that it discusses Mei Peros other than wine.

Reference: [The Mishnah] is taught in Mikva'os (7:2). It refers to other liquids, Mei Peros, brine, fish oil and Temed (water that absorbed taste from grape seeds or skins) from when it fermented.

Explanation: It is thick, and it blocks the water [from getting to the bucket].

Observation: "Full" is not precise. Rather, since he needed to teach "full of urine", which is precise, to teach the Chidush that there is no need to be Mevatel [the urine]...

Since the Mikveh water passed over the mouth [of the bucket] and touched [the urine] inside, it became connected to it, and it is Tahor (due to Hashakah), for urine is a kind of water. [Therefore,] he taught "full" also regarding saliva.

Citation: We view [the urine] as if it is water.

Explanation: Even though its appearance is slightly different than the appearance of other water, even so, since it is a kind of water, we do not require a majority to be Mevatel it. Rather, we view it [like water].

If it is full of Mei Chatas, since [Mei Chatas] is an Av ha'Tum'ah, and it is important due to its Kedushah, it is Batel only in a majority;

Whom do we know that he says Ro'in? It is R. Yehudah, and he says that when the appearance of the Batel is the same as the appearance of the Mevatel, e.g. Mei Chatas, whose appearance is not different [than water], it suffices to be Mevatel in a majority. We do not view it as if it was red wine to be stringent.

Explanation #1: The Mishnah above, which says "Ro'in [the blood] as if it were red wine", is from his Rebbi, who is stringent about Bitul, just like he is stringent about Min b'Mino. So Rashi explained.

Question #1: How does Ro'in regarding urine relate to wine and milk above, which are not Mino (kinds of water)? Hashakah does not apply to them. However, Rashi holds that urine is absolute water, so Hashakah helps for it;

If so, how does Ro'in apply to [urine]? Because it changed a little, is it not considered water, and Hashakah does not help for it?!

It is like dye water, which did not lose the status of water, in Makos (3b)!

Question #2: Without the Sugya above, one can ask the Reisha against the Seifa!

Question #3: What was the answer "this [R. Yehudah] taught himself, and this was from his Rebbi"? Still, in the Mishnah of Mei Chatas, the Reisha is unlike the Seifa, according to the Gemara's reasoning!

It said that the Tana who taught "we view urine like water" holds that also wine and milk, we view them like red wine. On this it asks why we are Machshir Mei Chatas through a majority of Mikveh water;

Also a minority of Mei Chatas, we should say that we view them like red wine. He did not answer anything about this, for still urine and Mei Chatas are contradictory.

Comment - Question #4: If the case of white wine and milk is like his Rebbi, when their appearance is weak, why is it Kosher? Min b'Mino is not Batel, and it is considered Min b'Mino, since they have the same appearance!

Question #5: He should have asked from this Beraisa against our Mishnah, that R. Yehudah said that blood is not Mevatel blood, for Min b'Mino is not Batel. Mei Chatas are Batel in water!

Also, urine is called Eino Mino regarding water, like we say below (79b) regarding a urinal of a Zav.

Comment - alternative text: It seems that the text says "urine - we view it as if it is wine."

Support: It teaches like this in the Tosefta of Taharos, Perek Dam Tamei (5:2). If urine became mixed with wine, we view it as if it is water...

Citation (5:2): If [Tamei urine] it became mixed with other [Tahor] urine, we view it as if it is wine in water. If the appearance [of the wine] would be Batel [in the water, the mixture of urine] is Tahor. If not, it is Tamei.

Explanation #2: The contradiction asked here is against our Mishnah, in which R. Yehudah said that blood is not Mevatel blood.

[The Sugya] means as follows. If a bucket full of saliva was immersed, it is as if it was not immersed. If it is full of urine, we view it like wine, and it is not Batel in a majority;

If it is full of Mei Chatas, [the Tevilah is valid] only if the water [in the bucket] will be more than the Mei Chatas, i.e. he will pour out the majority, and when it will fill, it will be Tahor.

Possibility #1: Hashakah does not help to be Metaher [the Mei Chatas], like Rashi explained (since it is an Av ha'Tum'ah, and it is important due to its Kedushah).

Possibility #2: It is a mere stringency (that Hashakah is not Metaher Mei Chatas), because Zeri'ah (being connected to water in the ground) does not apply to Hekdesh, like we say in Pesachim (34b), and all the more so Mei Chatas, for even clothes of people who eat Kodshim are Midras (considered Tamei regarding anything connected with) Parah Adumah (Chagigah 18b. I.e. we are more stringent about Mei Chatas than about Kodshim.)

However, when there is more water, Mei Chatas are Batel, and they become Mikveh water.

Explanation #2 (cont.): [The Gemara asks] who says Ro'in for Min b'Eino Mino that have the same appearance? It is R. Yehudah, who taught regarding white wine "we view it as if it were red wine";

And also urine is Min b'Eino Mino, like is proven below (79b) regarding a urinal of a Zav and it has the same appearance.

And he taught that a majority [of water] suffices for Mei Chatas. This shows that Min b'Mino is Batel according to R. Yehudah!

Explanation #2 (cont.): [Abaye] answers "this is his opinion, and this is his Rebbi's. Our Mishnah is his Rebbi's opinion that Min b'Mino is not Batel, and the Beraisa is his own opinion;

Implied question: We could have asked from the Beraisa above "we view it as if it were red wine. If the appearance would weaken, it is Kosher" against our Mishnah. [The Beraisa] shows that Min b'Mino is Batel according to R. Yehudah!