Observation: There was no need to say "if it sees its nest, it walks", since other dovecotes are more than 50 Amos from the vineyards;

Then, there is no concern for the rest of the world, for any chick that walks, does not walk more than 50.

Distinction: However, these two dovecotes that the vineyards are within their 50 Amos, it is fine that if it is closer to this one, it is his, even if it is found outside 50 Amos;

This does not depart from the law of a Medadeh (a chick that walks), for via vineyards, it walks more than 50.

Rather, it discusses even if there are other dovecotes between the vineyards.

Support: Also, since it mentioned a path, this connotes that these two dovecotes are on the path, and also the fallen chick is on the path;

There is no concern that it is from other dovecotes, even if they are not far at all, since it cannot see its nest [from here];

Rather, it is from these dovecotes, for nothing interrupts between it and the dovecote.

Explanation: We discuss blood found on roof of the Prozdor, from the conduit (that goes from the Aliyah to the Prozdor) and further inside, like is proven in Nidah (17b).

The Sugya there is explained in its place.

Explanation: This is closeness that is Muchach, for it is close to the Aliyah, and it can come from the Cheder (Makor) only if she bent over very much, like we explained in Nidah there.

Observation: If the text says "Tani" (he taught), this is fine.

Question: However, if the text says "d'Tani" (for he taught), this is astounding! How does he prove from here that [we are Metamei because] it is the majority and frequent?

Perhaps [the Beraisa of] R. Chiya did not say that we burn Terumah due to [this blood] because it is the majority and frequent, rather, because when there is a majority and closeness, we follow the majority, like R. Chanina!

Answer #1: Rava did not bring R. Chiya's Beraisa. Rather, the Gemara brings it, to show that Abaye properly proved from the Mishnah in Nidah that when there is a majority and closeness, we follow the majority.

Even though it taught "a Safek is Tamei", you are forced to say that it is not a Safek, for R. Chiya taught that one is liable for it for Bi'as Mikdash, and we burn Terumah due to it.

Answer #2 (Maharam): Rava brought [R. Chiya's Beraisa], for it is [a case of] a majority and frequent;

If it were not frequent, what would be R. Chanina's Chidush? We would [already] know from R. Chiya's teaching!

Implied question: We could prove this from the Mishnah in Nidah!

Answer: We could not, for even if it is not the majority and frequent, R. Chanina needed to teach that we should say that "its Safek is Tamei" is a real Safek.

According to Rava's retraction, that it is not the majority and frequent, R. Chanina needed to teach [that we follow the majority against what is closer];

If we had only R. Chiya's Beraisa, one might have thought that it is the majority and frequent. R. Chanina teaches that it is not the majority and frequent.

Implied question (Ritzva): The reason we require two majorities is because we decree [not to rely on] a majority of the traffic [alone, even far from the city, when surely the Bo'el came from the traffic], due to [lest people rely on] a majority of the city alone. (This does not apply to a store. Why did R. Zeira need to teach that one majority suffices?)

Answer (Ritzva): Even so, he needed to say so regarding a store that we do not require two majorities, even though we cannot say so (that there is such a decree);

Even so, we could decree lest he take from what is Kavu'a (a place where it is all Isur or all Heter. If one does not know from which he took, it is considered an even Safek. We do not follow the majority), unless there is also a majority [of Heter] from elsewhere.

Also regarding a woman, if we decree elsewhere, we should have been stringent not to burn due to [blood found] from the conduit and further inside, due to from the conduit and outside.

Pesak (Ritzva): The Halachah follows R. Chanina.

Explanation: We learn that mid'Oraisa, we follow the majority. This is considered Ruba d'Leisa Kaman (a statistical majority);

Regarding Ruba d'Isa Kaman (a majority that is in front of us. We can count the matters involved in the Safek), we would not need to infer [this shows that mid'Oraisa, we follow the majority]. It is written "Acharei Rabim Lehatos"!

We ask in Chulin (11a) regarding the question "what is the source for this that we say, that we follow the majority?", we ask 'what was the question? It is written "Acharei Rabim Lehatos"!'

Explanation: Shmuel forbids not only when it is found next to a city that is mostly Yisrael. Rather, even if the city is totally Yisrael, there is concern for this (lest the barrel is from a city of Nochrim).

Implied question: Perhaps [Ravina] permitted because Safek Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz is permitted!

Answer: If [Ravina] held unlike R. Chanina, rather, when there is Rov v'Karov, we follow the Karov, if so, it is Vadai Orlah.

Question: In any case, it is forbidden because the majority of the world are Nochrim, so it is Yayin Nesech!

Answer: Most thieves are Yisre'elim, like it says in Avodah Zarah (70a).

Explanation (Aruch): This is [the name of] a place, like we say in Sotah (46b) "Rav Mordechai accompanied Rav Simi bar Ashi to Bei Kupai.

In such a case, it is closeness that is Muchach.

Explanation: [This is difficult,] for above Rava holds like R. Chanina!

Explanation: One must distance crops from the city 1000 Amah, for we do not make Migrash (an area that should be left vacant) into a field.

Question (Rashba): If so, also when the tree was first, why does he pay [before cutting? They should cut first,] due to this reason [that partners rely on each other]!

Answer: When the tree was first, since he was Somech b'Heter, we are not concerned if they are lazy, and the tree stands.

Question (Rashba): Why does "the pot of partners" apply here? He cuts before they pay!

Answer (Ri): It means as follows. Because the pot of partners is not hot or cold (they rely on each other, and no one does anything), they did not want to enact that they give money;

Even though he cuts first, sometimes he will not heed them to cut first, if he does not know who will give to him the money;

Everyone will slacken, and not cut, in order to avoid paying, for the owner of the tree will demand from him (the one who cuts).

Implied question: Why don't we ask so regarding a Bor?

Answer: There, we understand that since he was Somech b'Isur, he should cut first.

Question: Why is this difficult for him? The Beraisa discusses a fixed granary, and the Mishnah discusses a granary that is not fixed!

Answer: Abaye himself would have answered that the Seifa gives the reason for the Reisha, if not that it was difficult for him, what is the need to give the reason "so it not damage";

Now that the Beraisa gives the reason "so it not damage", we can explain also our Mishnah like this!