Opinion: Rashi explains, in the second opinion that he quotes, that he planted the Orlah nut, and then when it became a plant he grafted it together with a tree that was permitted (and it is therefore permitted). This is the main explanation.

Question #1: Rashi continues that even if he did not graft it together with the other tree (and just put it in permitted ground) it is permitted. This statement is not correct.

Question #1 (cont.): "Zeh v'Zeh Gorem" (that there are two causes for one result) is only if both items (i.e. causes) are similar. This is similar to grafting a forbidden tree with a permitted tree. Both of them are trees, and are like the leaves of the Asheirah tree and the permitted ground that together fertilize the crops, as we discussed earlier (48b). (They are the same, as they are both fertilizer.) However, a nut and land are two different things.

Question #2: Rashi explained in his first explanation that if he grafted a shoot of an Orlah tree with a regular tree, it is like a young tree that is grafted with an old tree, and it is nullified to the old tree.

Question #2 (cont.): The cases are incomparable. The case of a young tree grafted with an old tree is permitted even according to the opinion Zeh v'Zeh Gorem Assur, being that it is considered "null" compared to the old tree. (In other words, it is not looked at as if there are two causes to the resulting fruit, but rather as if there is only one cause, namely the old tree.) This is the implication of the word "nullified."

Question: How are the growths of a nut of Orlah different from the growths of Tevel and Ma'aser Sheini which are Chulin? Even the growths of Terumah are Chulin, but a decree was made on them, as one of the eighteen things decreed by Beis Shamai, that they should be considered Terumah.

Answer: Being that Orlah is forbidden from benefit, it is understandable to forbid its growths, as this is also a benefit being received from the Orlah. However, the growths of something which is merely forbidden from being eaten (and not forbidden from benefit) should not be forbidden, as the growths which are being eaten are not forbidden.

Explanation: The case is where the fertilizer of idolatry is not longer extant (rather it seeped into the ground), causing this to be a case of Zeh v'Zeh Gorem which is permitted. This is as we explained earlier (48b) regarding the leaves of the Asheirah tree.

Explanation: When the Rabbanan earlier permitted a case where one planted and/or grafted (see Tosfos #1 above for different explanations of this case), it was not because they held Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is permitted. (If they held this way, they would not say that the case of the field or cow should be forbidden.)

Explanation (cont.): Rather, this is because they hold that what grew from the nut itself should be permitted. The Rabbanan indeed forbade the case of idolatry because it turns into fertilizer, and would prohibit this when it involves other prohibitions as well.

Explanation: This means that it would cause the mixture to be forbidden even if there is enough permitted yeast to make it turn sour.

Question: How do we know that the Rabbanan (of Rebbi Eliezer) say Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is permitted? Perhaps they differentiate between idolatry and other prohibitions?

Answer: Our Gemara is saying that based on Rebbi Eliezer's position we can understand the position of the Rabbanan. Just as Rebbi Eliezer forbids this regarding other prohibitions and does not differentiate between idolatry and other prohibitions, the Rabbanan who permit will also not differentiate.

Explanation: This means that Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is indeed permitted (even according to Rebbi Eliezer).

Explanation: Being that the Gemara entertained that the argument regarding Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan, it continues to seek a different possible argument between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan that fits this criteria.

Explanation (cont.): According to this answer the Beraisos are explained by saying that one Beraisa is like Rebbi Yosi and the Rabbanan who argue on him, as both hold Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is forbidden, and the other is like Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan who argue on him, as both hold Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is permitted.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the benefit refers to value of the forbidden wood. This is why the bread ends up being permitted.

Question: This is difficult. If so, even if it was not mixed up with others it should be permitted if the value of the wood is thrown away!

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that the value being thrown away is that of the benefit of the bread. (All of the breads are permitted as the value of the forbidden bread is thrown away.)

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is now understandable why Rebbi Eliezer does not argue in the first case of the Mishnah which states that a new oven should be broken that one can cause it to be permitted by throwing away the benefit of the wood into the Dead Sea.

Text #1: Rabeinu Tam does not have the text "others with others." Similarly, with the Mishnah regarding bundles of a certain legume of Kilay ha'Kerem that is brought in Beitzah (3b), he does not have this text.

Proof: He brings a proof from the fact that Shmuel said in Zevachim (74a) that a Sfeik Sfeika is forbidden. The Gemara there has difficulty bringing a Tanna to support Shmuel's position. (This indicates that the Mishnah probably does not hold that a Sfeik Sfeika is forbidden, or else it would have been brought as proof to Shmuel.)

Proof (cont.): The Gemara tries to bring a proof from Rebbi Yehudah regarding the Beraisa of special pomegranates from Badan that are forbidden due to a Sfeik Sfeika. The Gemara there has to say that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yehudah in one aspect and argues on him in another aspect. This is because Shmuel only holds this way regarding idolatry, as he says there that idolatry is different, as a doubt regarding idolatry is forbidden forever.

Proof (cont): If our text is "others with others," why doesn't the Gemara in Zevachim (ibid.) quote this as proof, as it is discussing idolatry? Similarly, if the text of the Mishnah regarding bundles of a certain legume is "other with others," the Gemara in Zevachim (ibid.) should have quoted this Mishnah and the opinion of Rebbi Meir there. It could have said that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Meir in one aspect.

Text #2: The Ri bar Baruch says that the text here and in the Mishnah regarding the legumes should read "others with others." This could still possibly be interpreted as only one Safek (and not a Sfeik Sfeika, which is why it is not quoted as proof by the Gemara in Zevachim).

Text #2 (cont.): This is what the Mishnah means. "And others with others" means that all of those forbidden others were mixed up with others, and it could even be that it was in most of the mixture (which makes a difference, as indicated by the following case). The Gemara indeed says regarding a ring of idolatry that if it fell into one hundred regular rings, they are all forbidden. If sixty went to one side and forty went to the other, the forty are permitted, as we say that the forbidden ring is in the majority.

Observation: The Yerushalmi in our chapter asks, how is this different from a mixture of wine including Yayin Nesech regarding which we say (in Avodah Zarah 5:10) that it should be sold, besides for the value of Yayin Nesech in it? Why don't we say here that he should sell it besides the value of whatever is prohibited?

Observation (cont.): The Yerushalmi there states that Rebbi Chagai says that when I went away from the boat, I found Rebbi Yakov bar Acha sitting and asking (the following question). If he took from it (an Asheirah tree) a Karkur (wood item with a sharp end used to loosen the tension of a thread on the loom), it is forbidden from benefit. If he wove clothing with it, it is forbidden from benefit. Yet, the Mishnah states, he should sell all of it to a Nochri besides the value of the Yayin Nesech in it.

Observation (cont.): Rebbi Yakov bar Acha said, Chagai was the one who asked the question and gave the answer. What is this like? This is like an area where people do not usually buy from idolaters. However, here we are talking about a case where people buy clothes from idolaters. This means that it is therefore forbidden to sell the clothes to idolaters, as we suspect he might sell it to a Jew. There (in the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah ibid.), people do not generally buy wine from Nochrim. Similarly, one can say regarding bread that it is normal to but bread from Nochrim (and therefore one cannot merely sell the mixture to Nochrim aside from the value of the forbidden bread).

Explanation: The leniency was that he could sell each barrel separately, as explained by Rashi.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that when Shmuel said earlier (41a) that one can even benefit from broken pieces of idols, the case is where we did not see that it broke by itself. We assume that a Nochri broke it. Our case is where we say that it was broken by itself, and that it was not broken by a Nochri.

Question: This is difficult. If so, what is the question earlier (41b) on Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish (who holds that if an idol broke by itself it is permitted) from the head of (the idol) Dagan? Why don't we say that the case there was different, as we know it was not broken by a Nochri (and therefore even Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish will say it was still forbidden)? Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish and Shmuel agree regarding broken pieces of idols!

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that here the case is that it is normal for twigs and branches to fall all the time, and Nochrim still worship these fallen twigs and branches. We therefore should still forbid the twigs that fall off it.

Opinion #3: It is also possible to explain that the case earlier (41b) was where a person found broken pieces without finding the main body of the idol. However, our case is when all of the broken pieces are together. In such a case we say that one still would serve the broken pieces.

Question: However, this opinion is difficult. What is the question earlier (41b) from the head of Dagan? In that case, all of the pieces were together. However, (according to the previous explanation that it depends on whether it is normal or abnormal for pieces to fall off, this is understandable as) there it was not normal for Dagan to break. Accordingly, even if the entire idol is still there it is permitted, as people say that if it could not have saved itself, it cannot save me.

Implied Question: The Gemara could also have said that Rebbi Yishmael should hold that even one is forbidden. (Why did it say two?)

Answer: Being that the Mishnah said two are permitted, our Gemara's questions is that two should be forbidden.