(Mishnah): These are prohibited and any amount of them prohibit a mixture - Yayin Nesech, idols, Oros Levuvin (animal skins that are pierced at the heart), an ox that must be stoned (as it killed a person), a heifer whose neck will be broken, the bird offerings of a Metzorah, the hair of a Nazir, the firstborn donkey, meat cooked in milk, Chulin animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.

(Gemara): Yayin Nesech, idols and Oros Levuvin are learned from the pasuk (Devarim 13:18), "And nothing that is doomed to destruction shall cling to your hand".

An ox that must be stoned - from the pasuk stating (Shemos 21:28), "the bull shall (surely) be stoned", do I not know that it may not be eaten (as it isn't slaughtered). Why must the pasuk then say "it shall not be eaten"? To teach that one may not gain benefit from it at all.

A heifer whose neck will be broken - it is learned through a Gezeirah Shavah using the word "there", which appears here (Devarim 21:4) and in the pasuk about the death of Miriam (Bamidbar 20:11). Just as it is prohibited to gain benefit from a dead body, so too from the heifer.

The bird offerings of a Metzorah - from the pasuk that states (Devarim 14:11), "You may eat any Tahor bird" - this refers to a live bird that is sent away by a Metzorah (that it is permitted); "and this that you may not eat of them" - the word "ASHER - that" comes to also include a slaughtered Metzorah bird, to teach that it may not be eaten.

Question: Or perhaps, the opposite inclusion and exclusion should be made?

Answer (R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael): The Torah only applied a prohibition to gain benefit when the item is alive.

The hair of a Nazir - the pasuk states (Bamidbar 6:18), "and place it upon the fire which is under the peace offering". From the fact that the Torah required the burning of the hair, gaining benefit from it must be prohibited.

The firstborn donkey - it is learned through a Gezeirah Shavah using the word "breaking the neck" from the case the heifer whose neck will be broken. Just as there, it must be buried and gaining benefit is prohibited; so too the firstborn donkey must be buried and gaining benefit is prohibited.

Meat cooked in milk - as the Baraisa teaches - in three places the Torah writes "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk" (Shemos 23:19, Shemos 34:26, Devarim 14:21) - to teach that it is prohibited to eat, to gain benefit from and to cook meat and milk.

Chulin (non-consecrated) animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard - R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael said - the Torah said, "Slaughter what is mine (sacrifices) in what is mine (the Beis HaMikdash) and what is yours (Chulin animals) in what is yours (in Eretz Yisrael, outside the Beis HaMikdash)". Just as what is mine (sacrifices) in what is yours (outside the Beis HaMikdash), gaining benefit is prohibited, so too, what is yours (Chulin) in what is mine (the Beis HaMikdash), gaining benefit is prohibited.

Question: If Chulin animals being slaughtered in the Courtyard are learned from sacrifices being slaughtered outside, then there should also be a negative Mitzvah and Kares for slaughtering Chulin animals in the Courtyard. But isn't it R. Yishmael who learned the prohibition to derive benefit from Chulin slaughtered in the Courtyard from here?

Question: Why wasn't Neveilah (eating from an animal that was not ritually slaughtered correctly) listed in the Mishnah (that if a piece became mixed even with 1000 kasher pieces, it is prohibited)?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): The Mishnah only lists items from which one may not gain benefit, but one may gain benefit from Neveilah.

Question: So why didn't the Mishnah teach about Chametz on Pesach?

Answer: Eating Chametz incurs Kares; eating the items in the Mishnah does not incur Kares.

Question (R. Yosi citing Chaninah): Can items for which it is prohibited to gain benefit be annulled by grinding them up and mixing them together (since it is no longer significant)?

Suggestion: The Mishnah taught the case of the ox that must be stoned, that any amount is prohibited (which is assumed to mean even if it is insignificant, it is not annulled).

Rejection: It is referring to when a piece of the flesh (which is significant) became mixed into other pieces.

Suggestion: The Mishnah taught the case of the bird offerings of the Metzorah (which is assumed to mean even if it is insignificant, it is not annulled).

Rejection: It is referring to when the bird became mixed with other birds.

Question: The Mishnah taught the case of the hair of a Nazir, and can you answer there that it refers to whole creatures like a bird becoming mixed with other birds? (This seems to prove that even if it is insignificant, it is not annulled.)

Answer: When they came to learn Maseches Orlah, Rav Yaakov cited the Mishnah before R. Yosi that taught - if one wove a full 'sit'-length (the distance between a person's 2nd and 3rd fingers) of the wool of a (blemished) firstborn sheep into a garment, the garment must be burned; if from the hair of a Nazir, (or) from the firstborn of a donkey (which was not redeemed and had its neck broken (Shemos 13:13)) into sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned. (This shows that even a Nazir's hair must be of a certain size to be significant, so you cannot say that his hair is never annulled even if very small.)

(R. Yosi to R. Yaakov): If you would have raised the question against me from that Mishnah when we were learning Maseches Avodah Zarah, I would have praised you; but now that we are learning Maseches Orlah, why did you wait until now?!

(Mishnah): If Yayin Nesech fell into a vat, one may not derive benefit from any of it.

(Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel): It can all be sold to an idolater, except for the value of the Yayin Nesech that is in it.

(R. Yosi/ R. Yochanan citing Ben Beseirah): If Yayin Nesech fell into a vat, it can all be sold to an idolater, except for the value of the Yayin Nesech.

(R. Shmuel bar Nasan citing R. Chama): The Halachah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

(R. Yasa): One of the Rabbis came out of the Study Hall and said that he heard that R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagreed - one said that the Halachah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and one said that it does not.

However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that if wine fell into a pot of food, the entire mixture is prohibited.

(R. Bun citing Rav): The Chachamim agree to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that if a barrel of Yayin Nesech became mixed up with barrels of permitted wine, that it can all be sold to an idolater, except for the value of the Yayin Nesech.

(R. Zeira to R. Ami): If R. Bun would not have said this, I would not have known this teaching, as I would have been in doubt that perhaps the Chachamim agree with Rabban Shimon in this case, or perhaps Rabban Shimon agrees with the Chachamim.

(R. Yudan): R. Zeira knew that Rav said that the Chachamim agree to Rabban Shimon but he was merely speaking like a person who heard a new teaching and who is questioning it (as if he was in doubt).

(Mishnah): If a stone winepress was tarred by an idolater, he may merely (rinse it and) dry it and it is tehorah.

If the winepress is made from wood -

(Rebbi): He may (rinse it with water and ashes and) dry it.

(Chachamim): He must peel off the tar (as they would usually add wine to the tar in order to disguise its bad smell).

If the winepress is made from earthenware - even if he peeled off the tar, it remains prohibited.

(Gemara): The first clause of the Mishnah was (also) said by Rebbi. The middle case of the Mishnah is - if the winepress is made of wood, Rebbi said that he may rinse and dry it and Chachamim said that he must peel off the tar. The latter case (earthenware) was not said by Rebbi, as he would permit even an earthenware winepress if it is clean with water and ashes and dried.

Proof (Tosefta): A winepress, a container (for transferring wine from the vat into the barrels) and a funnel of a gentile - Rebbi permits their use (by cleaning and drying them) and the Chachamim prohibit it. (This proves that Rebbi even permits earthenware in this way.) But Rebbi agrees that earthenware jugs are prohibited. (Since they are saturated with Yayin Nesech, they are prohibited unless they are filled with water for three days, changing the water daily).

Why are the winepress, the container and the funnel permitted (with cleaning and drying) and the jugs are prohibited? Wine is put in the jugs for a long period of time, but it is put in the others only temporarily.

(R. Yosi citing R. Yochanan): The Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi. R. Yosi bei R. Bun also said in the name of Shmuel that the Halachah follows Rebbi.