Implied question: Rabanan agree to R. Shimon that it is Batel when they take it out in a basket to the outer house, like it says in Nidah (27a)! (Why do we say that only R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds like R. Shimon?)

Answer: Even so, we find that they said the same matter only from R. Eliezer ben Yakov and R. Shimon, for according to both of them it is Batel from the beginning of birth.

Implied question: We cannot infer at all from R. Eliezer ben Yakov's teaching that it is Batel. Rather, R. Chiya said so!

Answer: "R. Chiya Tani (taught)" means that he taught so in the words of R. Eliezer ben Yakov, that it is not Tamei through touching or moving.

Support: It says so explicitly in the Tosefta.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Chulin 70b) says that if a fetus died inside an animal, and a shepherd stuck his hand inside, he is Tahor!

Answer: That is when the head was not as big as a Pikah (the ball at the end of a knitting needle for woolen thread).

Support: Likewise, the other case taught there (the next Mishnah, 71a), of a woman whose fetus died in her womb, and the midwife put her hand inside... the [mother] is Tehorah until the fetus leaves. The Gemara connotes that she is Tehorah because the Tum'ah is enveloped;

And the midwife is Temei'ah, lest the fetus stick its head out of the Prozdor, unknown to her;

Also that is when the head was not as big as a Pikah.

Implied question: Perhaps really, [the head] was as big as a Pikah, and it was before the womb opened!

Rejection: It is Metamei [the midwife] only due to a decree lest it stick its head out of the Prozdor. This connotes that beforehand she is Tehorah, even though the womb already opened, for when the head leaves the Prozdor, it is totally born.

Explanation: That cork has like a handle that they make to hold it, and it is round, like the one they call Fil Mail in old French.

Explanation: This is unlike other Isurim for which the Shi'ur is Nosen Ta'am, for Ta'am k'Ikur (if Isur can be tasted in a mixture, it is not Batel, and the mixture is forbidden like the Isur itself) was not said for Tum'ah;

Similarly, Neveilah is Batel in Shechutah regarding Tum'ah, even if later they were all cooked together.

Remark: Even if it was half-half, because [the water] is not Batel, Hashakah (connecting it to a Mikveh) helps (to be Metaher it).

Implied question: We should say like it says in Chulin (100b) and Menachos (23a) and Avodah Zarah (73a) "remove Mino as if it were not [there], and Eino Mino is the majority [over the Isur], and it is Mevatel it"!

Answer: There is different, for Mino is forbidden only due to the Isur mixed with it, and it is impossible to separate it, and whenever it is, it is Heter. Therefore, it is applicable to say "remove";

However, here Mino itself is Metamei due to touching the Tamei water. It is not applicable to say "remove".

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The water returns to be the majority over the brine, and it is Metamei it.

Rebuttal: He was not precise. Brine does not receive Tum'ah!

Explanation #2: Rather, we say Ni'ur, for before [water became the majority] the brine was Mevatel Tum'as Mashkin from the water, due to the majority of brine, and now that the water increased, it is awakened to how it was before it was mixed with brine (it is Tamei again).

Question (R. Efrayim): Here, Rav Dimi holds that even Taharah arouses Tum'ah;

And in Avodah Zarah (73a), he holds that even Isur does not arouse Isur, for he said that if one pours Yayin Nesech from a barrel into a pit, even the entire day, Rishon Rishon Batel (every drop is Batel when it mixes with the wine in the pit)!

Answer: Here [Rav Dimi] taught in the name of R. Yirmeyah, and there in the name of R. Yochanan.

Question #1: It is difficult for R. Yochanan, for even Tum'ah in Chulin, which is lenient, we infer below from a Mishnah and Beraisa that Tum'ah arouses Tum'ah, for it says "perhaps he will bring a Kav of Tamei Chulin [and it will join with the Tamei Terumah in the mixture, and the majority will be Tamei]";

All the more so, Isur should arouse Isur!

Question #2: It is obvious in the entire Gemara that Isur arouses Isur!

Question #3: Also in Yevamos (82b) we say that if one put a Se'ah [of fruit juice into a Mikveh] and removed a Se'ah, it is Kosher, until the majority [is fruit juice], but not more. We do not say that Rishon Rishon (every first amount is) Batel!

Question #4: And in Shabbos (142a), if a Seifa of Terumah fell into 100 of Chulin, and before he was able to remove it (i.e. a Se'ah from the mixture) until another [Se'ah] fell in, it is forbidden!

Disclaimer: There is not such a proof from there, for there, granted, the first Se'ah did not forbid, but in any case it was not Batel, for one must remove [a Se'ah].

Question #5: We find in Nedarim (57b) that R. Yochanan holds that even growth of Heter helps to be Mevatel Isur [that was planted].

Answer (to Question #5): This is not difficult based on how R. Tam distinguishes between Heter that grew [constantly] without ceasing, and when there is a pause;

He establishes the case in Avodah Zarah to be when he interrupted, like we find in Nidah (71b) regarding Dam Tevusah (it did not leave at the time of death). It distinguishes between whether or not the blood [came out] intermittently, or constantly;

Note: Tum'ah mid'Oraisa of blood requires a Revi'is that exuded after death. If a Revi'is came out, and part was before death, and we are unsure when most came out, this is Dam Tevusah. R. Yehudah is Metamei, and Chachamim are Metaher, for Rishon Rishon Batel.

And in Zevachim (78a) we say that blood [that fell] into water, Rishon Rishon Batel - that is when it interrupted;

And the case in which we are concerned lest rainwater became the majority over flowing water [from the ground - Shabbos 65b] - this means lest it [fall in] and increase without pause.

Consequence: Due to this, R. Tam explained in Bava Kama (100a) and in Bava Basra (2a) that it mentioned [regarding a wall between a vineyard and a field that was] breached, and they told him "fence it", twice, for if [the Peros] grew an additional one part in 200 [of their initial size] between the two times [that it fell], they do not join to forbid, since there is an interruption (while the fence stood, the additional growth was Heter).

Question: It is difficult from our Sugya, and in Yevamos, that even with interruption, we say Chozer v'Niur!

Answer (to all the questions - Tosfos' Rebbi): In every place it should be Ni'ur, even if there was an interruption;

The case of Dam Tevusah in Nidah (71b) is mid'Rabanan, so [Chachamim] were lenient.

The case of blood that fell into water is different, for Dichuy applies to Kodshim;

Since each drop was Nidcheh (Pasul for Zerikah) when it falls in, later it does not become proper [for Zerikah].

R. Yochanan said in Avodah Zarah (73a) that Rishon Rishon Batel, i.e. as long as there is 60 times as much Heter as Isur, that there is not Nesinas Ta'am. He refers to the Isur Mashehu of our Mishnah there (and teaches that it is only when Heter falls into Isur).

Note: Chidushei Basra asks that "he was pouring the entire day" connotes even much Isur! Also, Nesinas Ta'am does not apply there, for it is Min b'Mino! (Perhaps it depends on 60, for Rabanan gave this Shi'ur for Bitul for Min b'Mino, since Stam Isurim do not give taste to more than 60 parts of Heter. However, the words of Tosfos do not connote like this - PF.)

Inference: The expression Rishon Rishon Batel of Yayin Nesech seems that it is until (as long as there is a) majority of Heter, but if the Isur is the majority, it is forbidden, for Isurim that became Batel are Chozer v'Niur.

Possibility #1: The one who holds that for Yayin Nesech, which is severe, that Isur into Heter, Rishon Rishon Batel, all the more so for other Isurim.

Possibility #2: Perhaps in this matter they were more lenient about Yayin Nesech than other Isurim, for other Isurim are Chozer v'Niur when the Isur is so much that there is not 60 times as much Heter.

Possibility #3: Also Yayin Nesech, Rishon Rishon Batel does not apply until the majority, rather, until [one part in] 60, and the same applies to other Isurim;

They differ only when the flow is bigger than [the opening of] a barrel, like I will explain;

Or, [they differ about] Heter into Isur. I.e. at the beginning of the mixture of Isur and Heter, there are not 60 times as much as Heter as Isur;

For Yayin Nesech, if he adds Heter into it without end, it is forbidden, and for other Isurim, it is permitted when so much is added that there are 60 times as much as Heter [as Isur].

Possibility #4: Perhaps even if [the flow] interrupted, we do not say Rishon Rishon Batel, just like a piece of meat that absorbs the taste of Neveilah;

This is even according to the opinion that explains that the piece itself becomes [forbidden like] Neveilah for other Isurim, just like for meat and milk;

This is because we say that the piece becomes Neveilah only to say that what it emits will not help [to permit] it, for [absorbed Isur that] could be emitted is forbidden (perhaps it remained in the piece). However, a majority [of Heter] helps [to permit it].

Question: Since also at the end there are 60 parts of Heter, therefore the Yayin Nesech is Batel. Why must we say Rishon Rishon Batel, since also at the end there is 60?

Answer: It mentioned specifically from a barrel to a pit, that the flow is not so big, and even though it is bigger than a small flask. However, when the flow is bigger, it is not Batel, even if there are 60 of Heter;

Therefore, it says Rishon Rishon Batel, for if [all the Isur] fell at once, it is not Batel, even though there is 60 times as much Heter wine.

Possibility #1: Perhaps this is only for Yayin Nesech, but Tevel is never Batel in any way b'Mino.

Possibility #2: Perhaps Yayin Nesech is Batel, and we learn from it all the more so Tevel, and [R. Yochanan] mentioned [Yayin Nesech] for a bigger Chidush.

Conclusion: It seems to me that this is primary. Rishon Rishon Batel is only until 60, like I explained, when Isur falls into Heter, and Heter into Isur, any amount forbids;

However, for other Isurim even Heter into Isur, the Heter is Chozer v'Niur when it is so much that there is 60 [times the Isur].

Implied question: Fruit juice, in a case that it is Ma'aleh (helps to complete a Mikveh), that they put a Se'ah and remove a Se'ah - why is fruit juice Batel and considered like water?

Answer: There is a tradition, for a Mishnah (Mikva'os 7:2) teaches that sometimes it is Ma'aleh, and sometimes it is not Ma'aleh. In a case that it is Ma'aleh, it is like water to be Ma'aleh, but when there is a majority [of fruit juice], it is Chozer v'Niur.

Consequence: According to what I explained, that even the one who permits through Rishon Rishon Batel, permits only until 60, it makes no difference whether or not this is the Halachah (Rishon Rishon Batel), for those who conduct now to permit Hana'ah from what a Nochri shook and from Stam wine [of Nochrim];

This is because R. Tam ruled that wine that is Mutar b'Hana'ah, we should not say that any amount forbids a mixture (rather, only until 60)! He considered this to be obvious.

Affirmation: I agree, that we should apply to [their Stam wine] the stringency of Yayin Nesech to forbid any amount, since it is Mutar b'Hana'ah, like light Isurim.

Pesak: Rashi ruled like Ravin, who does not hold that Rishon Rishon Batel, and permits only when a flask of water fell there. (Water is Mevatel Yayin Nesech, but wine is not Mevatel it.)

Remark: He is correct that the Halachah follows Ravin if [Ravin] comes to argue with Rav Dimi and Rav Yitzchak. (Rav Dimi permits when he poured wine from a barrel into the pit. Rav Yitzchak permits only if he poured from a small flask);

Source: We say in Yevamos (64b) "one can rely on Avin. One cannot rely on Yitzchak Sumka. Avin is b'Chazarah (reviews his learning, or is always in front of R. Yochanan, and he would know if he retracted). Yitzchak is not b'Chazarah!" (Maharshal Pesachim 70b - Ravin's name was really Avin, just like Ravina's name was Avina);

However, I cannot prove whether or not Ravin comes to argue, for one can say that he does not come to argue! He requires Bitul specifically through water when he poured from a barrel into the pit according to Rav Yitzchak, and when the flow was greater than that of a barrel, according to Rav Dimi. (Then, they agree that wine is not Batel.)

Implied question: According to Rashi, who explains that Rav Dimi does not discuss specifically a barrel (we must say that Ravin argues)!

Answer: We can say that Ravin does not argue with Rav Yitzchak, and Ravin discusses when he pours from a barrel. (Then, water is needed for Bitul. Indeed, Ravin argues with Rav Dimi, but he can agree that Rishon Rishon Batel for a small flow.)

Implied suggestion: One opinion there teaches that Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah taught about the Mishnah that a flask of water fell (but if wine fell in, it is forbidden, unlike Rav Dimi)!

Rejection: He can hold like Rav Dimi, and he establishes the Mishnah like Rav Dimi, that Heter fell into Isur. Therefore, it is not Batel as long as there is not water there.

Suggestion: What I explained, that Ravin can hold like Rav Dimi, this is possible if we explain that Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, according to the opinion that he taught about our Mishnah, does not require first, i.e. one cannot prove from Rav Shmuel's teaching that he requires first...

Note: Another version there said that Rav Shmuel explained Ravin's law, and he requires the water fell in before the Yayin Nesech. The Gemara says that if he explained the Mishnah, he does not require [that the water fell] first.

However, in any case it is true, that also this opinion requires first, in order that we not need say that he argues with R. Yochanan's teaching below (73b) that if he diluted [two cups of wine - one is Terumah and one is Chulin] and mixed them together [we ignore the Chulin wine, and if there is enough water, it is Mevatel the Terumah]. It connotes that first he diluted them, and afterwards mixed them.

Consequence: If we would explain so (that according to the opinion that Rav Shmuel taught about our Mishnah, he requires first), then we cannot say that Rav Shmuel holds that Rishon Rishon Batel, for since he requires water first, he holds that when Isur falls into Heter, any amount forbids (so if Yayin Nesech falls first, it is forbidden). If so, he holds unlike Rav Dimi and Rav Yitzchak.

Remark: However, one need not explain so, rather, like the simple reading of the Sugya that he does not require first, and he argues with R. Yochanan's teaching that he diluted and mixed them;

Alternatively, he does not argue, and he holds that the same applies if he mixed them first. [R. Yochanan] did not mention specifically diluting first, for the text does not say they diluted and afterwards mixed, which would connote specifically [in this order]. Rather, it says diluted and mixed.

Observation: All the Bitulim of that Sugya - he diluted and mixed them, one who pours from a barrel into a pit, and the case of our Sugya, lest he bring a Kav from a different species and slightly more than a Kav of this [mixture], all of them we must establish when he did not intend to be Mevatel the Isur or be Metaher the Tamei. If not, it would not be Batel.

When a flask of water fell first, we do not distinguish between when he intentionally put it and when it fell. However, [when the water fell] at the end, according to the opinion that does not require [that it fall] first, it is only unintentionally.

Implied question: In the case of brine, why don't we say "remove Mino as if it were not, and Eino Mino is the majority, and it is Mevatel it"?

Answer: That Amora (who taught about brine) does not hold [that we ever say "remove Mino..."].

Citation: The Yerushalmi says that it is burned.

Question: Do we discuss fools, that they are permitted to benefit through burning them, and they do not want [to do so], and they leave them to rot? We should not teach what people do not normally do!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): "It rots" and "it is burned" are the same. Our Gemara explains that the Mishnah teaches that it is burned without Hana'ah, like rotting, for if you will permit Hana'ah, he will come to eat it, since it is logical to permit it through Bitul, like Rabanan say, we remove one and it is eaten...

It means as follows. Or it rots, or it is burned without Hana'ah.

Answer #2: The argument of Bnei Bavel and Bnei Eretz Yisrael is the argument of the Bavli and the Yerushalmi.

Remark: Similarly, another clause taught in that Perek (Terumos, 5:4), after [Beis Shamai] agreed (that Tamei Terumah is Batel in Tahor), R. Eliezer says that it is removed and burned. The Tosefta says that it is removed and rots. It is possible that some learn like this (it is burned), and some learn like this (it rots).

And similarly we find in Yevamos (104b) that I explained above (19b DH Ish) regarding a Ketanah who did Chalitzah. In our Seforim the text says "her Chalitzah is Pasul", and in the Yerushalmi the text says "Kosher".

And in Pesachim (51b), regarding "and Sefichim are forbidden, except for Sefichim of cabbage." The text is unlike this in the Yerushalmi and in the Mishnayos.

Question: Since it must rot, and it is Asur b'Hana'ah, why does he remove? The Yerushalmi explains that Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem are Batel in 201, and one need not remove. Terumah is Batel in 101, and one must remove, due to Gezel ha'Shevet (lest Kohanim lose). Here, when he removes, it is forbidden. There is no Gezel ha'Shevet (i.e. it does not help them if we remove)!

Answer: Rabanan did not distinguish (they obligate removing from every mixture of Terumah).

Explanation (Rashi): "Ta'aleh" is an expression of Bitul, and not an expression of removing, since it taught according to R. Eliezer Teirum, and according to Rabanan Ta'aleh. (This is not in our text of Rashi.)

Implied question: A Mishnah in Orlah (2:1) teaches that Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser are Olim in 101, and one must be Merim!

Answer: There it is due to the Kohen's loss. If he gives to him money (the value of the Terumah that became mixed), it is fine (he need not remove).

Proof: The Seifa teaches "Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem, he need not be Merim", even though an expression of Aliyah was taught regarding them;

Citation (Orlah 3:6 - Mishnah): If one had bundles of clover of Kil'ai ha'Kerem... Ya'alu in 201. Until here is from Rashi.

Support: He is correct, that he explained that the reason is due to the Kohen's loss, like it explains the reason in the Yerushalmi, due to Gezel ha'Shevet.

Disclaimer: Even though the primary enactment was due to this, presumably, he cannot exempt himself through money;

Source: R. Eliezer and Rabanan argue in Shabbos (142a) and Temurah (12a) only about Meduma (Terumah mixed with Chulin). R. Eliezer says that (if some of this mixture became mixed with Chulin) it is Medame'a (forbids the latter mixture) like (as if the first mixture were) Vadai Terumah, and Rabanan say that it is Medame'a according to the calculation [of what fraction of it is Terumah. They assume that it mixed uniformly]. However, obviously it has Kedushas Terumah!

Explanation: There may not be a Beitzah of Tamei Terumah [in one dough, for] the Terumah is one part in 101. And [therefore] there may not be 101 Beitzim in the dough, for if so, there is a Beitzah of Tamei Terumah;

[If there were a Beitzah of Tamei Terumah,] the Tum'ah could not be Batel in 100 of Tahor that was Huchshar, for it is Metamei everything, and he is like one who is overtly Metamei Terumah, for the Tamei Terumah became Tahor through Bitul.

Implied suggestion: For this reason alone it should be forbidden! (Why must Ula say that it is a decree?)

Answer: Since the Terumah was already Batel, and it is permitted to Zarim, we do not care if he is Metamei Chulin;

Rather, we require that he not err to be Mevatel a Kav of Tamei Chulin in more than a Kav [of the mixture], like it explains. Ula's words "what is the reason?" refer to both R. Eliezer and Rabanan.

Question: Also Tamei Chulin that was Batel in a majority of Tahor Chulin, we should be concerned for this!

Answer: There, when a minority of Tamei Chulin was Batel in a majority of Tahor, there is no concern lest he bring a Kav of Tamei Chulin and more than a Kav of this [mixture], for there it is known that the name of Tum'ah was not uprooted from the Tamei Chulin mixed with the Tahor;

However, here he thinks that the name of Tum'ah was totally uprooted, since we permit Zarim to eat everything according to Rabanan, or 100 (the remainder after removing the quantity of Terumah) according to R. Eliezer, even though Terumah is mixed with it.