Question: How would this help? One may not be Mevatel an Isur l'Chatchilah. And even b'Shogeg it is not Batel according to the opinion that in Gitin (54b) that [a mixture including esteemed nuts of Isur that are never Batel when they are whole,] if they fell and broke, whether Shogeg or Mezid, they are not Batel!

Answer: There is an opinion there that b'Shogeg they are Batel. Perhaps here he is considered Shogeg when he thinks that it is permitted to be Mevatel. (Eizehu Mekoman - above (22b, Sof DH Yasiv) Tosfos distinguished when he mixed intentionally or not.)

Explanation #1: Rashi connotes that he comes to infer that Tum'ah does not arouse Tum'ah, since we consider the Tum'ah as if it is not.

Objection #1: This is not the style of the Gemara, that Abaye would challenge himself, that he explained that Tum'ah arouses Tum'ah!

Objection #2: He should challenge him from the Mishnah (that when Tamei Terumah became mixed, one may not be Machshir it. If Tum'ah is not aroused, there is no reason for this. Even a decree does not apply!)

Explanation #2: Rather, even if we do not consider the Tum'ah as if it is, in any case it is proper that Tum'ah arouses Tum'ah. He challenges Rav Dimi, who says that Taharah arouses Tum'ah. If so, Tum'ah is as if it is!

Explanation #1: [The Gemara] concludes that [it is Batel] for [Tum'as] Maga, but it is Metamei b'Masa.

Assertion: You are forced to say that this is when there is a k'Zayis of Neveilah in one place, but if not, it is not Metamei b'Masa, like is proven in Chulin (124b);

If there are two half-k'Zeisim of Neveilah and he stuck them on a chip, even if he moved it the entire day, he is Tahor! Rather, it is Merudad (a very thin strip of meat connects the two halves) and they stick to each other.

Question: If he touched all the k'Zeisim [of the mixture], why is he Tahor? And even if he touched all of it, it connotes that he is Tahor, similar to the case of Masa!

Remark: However, when he did not touch all at once, rather, he touched one after the other, in this case it is possible that he is Tahor, since each time he touches he does not know whether he touches Tum'ah.

Also, this is not Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid (which is Tamei), since it is Batel in a majority.

Explanation #2: The case is, everything melted together. It is like Merudad.

Observation: It is fine even according to R. Akiva in Chulin (124b). Even though he argues there about Merudad, that it is not Metamei b'Masa, that is [when it is on] the skin, but when it is Merudad on a chip, even R. Akiva agrees;

This is like it says there "R. Akiva agrees about two half-k'Zeisim stuck on a chip, and he moved them. He is Tamei", and we establish this when it is Merudad.

And even if "he moved them" there is not precise, rather, it is Metamei even through touching, for if it were not Metamei b'Maga, it would not be Metamei b'Masa, in any case here it is not Metamei b'Maga, for it is Batel in a majority.

Question: Since here it is considered connected, when it is Merudad on a chip, for the same reason that it is Metamei b'Masa, because it is as if the Tum'ah exists, for that same reason it should be Metamei b'Maga!

Answer: One can distinguish. (Tzon Kodoshim - Tosfos in Chulin says that touching Merudad is like touching the minority, and the majority does not come with it. It is not like touching the entire matter. However, for Masa, any connection suffices.)

Question: Since it does not come to Maga, how is it Metamei b'Masa, according to R. Akiva?

Answer: That in a case like a Kulis (a bone) that is sealed, that he cannot touch [the marrow inside], or two half-k'Zeisim on a hide, that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue about it;

However, here there is a Shi'ur of Tum'ah in one place, and one can touch it, just he does not which, it is considered something that can come to Maga.

Question #1: Why is Tum'as Masa different, that Batel in a majority does not help for it, since in the end, he carries a k'Zayis of Neveilah, and regarding Isurim [Batel in a majority] helps, that even Isurim are Mevatel each other?!

Reish Lakish said in Zevachim (78a) that Pigul, Nosar and Tamei that were mixed together, and he ate [the mixture], he is exempt. It is impossible that one species will not be the majority over the other, and it is Mevatel it!

[The Gemara] infers that Isurim are Mevatel each other. This implies that it was obvious to everyone that Heter is Mevatel Isur!

Question #2: And likewise, if the Neveilah and Shechutah were melted, even though it is Tamei b'Masa, one who eats it is exempt, even if he eats all within Kedei Achilas Pras, even though no matter what you will say, he ate a k'Zayis of Neveilah within Kedei Achilas Pras!

Question #3: And regarding Gid ha'Nasheh, it asks (Chulin 99b) that it should be Batel in a majority, and answers that a Beriyah (intact creation) is different. This connotes that an Isur is Batel in a majority everywhere, if it is not a Beriyah, or Es she'Darko [Limnos, i.e. matters that are always counted] or Kol she'Darko (matters that are sometimes counted)!

Question #4: And in Beitzah (38a) regarding water and salt should be Batel to a dough, it brings about this "if a Kav of Reuven's wheat was mixed with two Kavim of Shimon's, according to R. Yehudah it is not Batel. According to Rabanan, it is Batel!"

Answer: Regarding eating, every Mashehu, when it enters Beis ha'Beli'ah (where one swallows), Rishon Rishon Batel in a majority of Heter. This is like Maga, when he touches [half a Shi'ur] and returns to touch. He is Tahor;

And even though presumably, Tum'as Masa itself is only mid'Rabanan, for it was Batel in a majority, in any case, granted, Rabanan decreed about Masa. They did not decree about Isur, for it is different, for the reason I explained (Rishon Rishon Batel when it enters Beis ha'Beli'ah).

Question: Why don't we ask from the case of R. Shimon above (22a, perhaps) the fetus was dissolved before the Shilya left the mother, and [he is Metaher] due to Bitul in a majority, like R. Yochanan explicitly explains in Nidah (27a)?

Also above it says that they said one matter. This implies that R. Shimon's reason is like R. Eliezer ben Yakov's reason!

Strengthening of question: And from [R. Shimon] we could challenge even Bar Pada, for regarding Tum'as Mes, the reason "it is proper for a Ger [Toshav]" does not apply. Since it is not Metamei b'Ohel, this shows that it is as if the Tum'ah does not exist!

Answer #1: We could have rejected like Reish Lakish, who argues with R. Yochanan in Nidah (27b), who explains that the reason is because the form of this Nefel was disturbed, for in a Shilya, it does not have the status of meat, bones or a Nefel, like I explained in Nidah;

And due to the reason "there is a full Mes here", we are Metamei a Shefir (the outer skin of a fetus). Therefore, according to R. Yochanan, when any amount of it is Batel in Dam Leidah, it is Tahor, for there is no longer a full Mes, and Reish Lakish is Metaher because the form was disturbed.

Answer #2: We could have answered that the case in Nidah is like the opinion (Chulin 124b) that there is no [Tum'as Ohel for] towering above [half a k'Zayis of a Mes] and towering above [another half k'Zayis. A whole k'Zayis must be in one place].

Observation: Above, R. Yochanan needed the reason that it is Batel in a majority, according to his reasoning here that both of them are Ad l'Kelev (as long as a dog would eat it). However, according to Bar Pada it is fine without the reason of Batel in a majority.

Observation: It is obvious that all hold that light Tum'ah is Ad l'Kelev, like a Mishnah in Taharos (8:6) says, anything special for man to eat is [able to receive Tum'ah or remain] Tamei, until it is so spoiled that a dog would not eat it.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Severe Tum'ah is Masa. Light Tum'ah is Maga.

Implied question: Why doesn't a cake of blood have Tum'as Maga?

Answer: We say that he touched blood of birth, which is the majority.

Consequence: According to his Perush, also Bar Pada holds like R. Yochanan said above "it is due to Bitul in a majority."

Rebuttal: All Tum'as Neveilah, both Maga and Maga, is called severe Tum'ah, and it is Ad l'Ger (as long as a Ger Toshav would eat it), for we expound the reason below "when it is not proper for a Ger, it is not called Neveilah." This reason applies both to Maga and Masa!

Explanation #2: Light Tum'ah is Tum'as Ochlim, to count Rishon (if it touched an Av ha'Tum'ah) and Sheni (if it touched only a Rishon).

Support: We find the expression of light and severe Tum'ah mentioned about this in Kerisus (21a) and in Nidah (50b) regarding a bird that fell into the winepress.

Implied suggestion: R. Yochanan learns from "u'Vasar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso."

Rejection: That Achilah does not refer to a dog (rather, it forbids people to eat it)!

Explanation: Rather, we can explain that it is from "v'Es Izevel Yochlu ha'Kelavim b'Chelek Yizra'el." This shows that consumption of dogs is called Achilah.

Support: It is proven from this verse in Zevachim (31a) that one who has intent for dogs to eat Kodshim Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul.

Explanation: [The other opinion] is R. Yochanan. (He uses it to exclude a Nevelah that was spoiled before the animal died.)

Question: The Sugya in Avodah Zarah (67b) connotes that R. Yochanan does not need a verse to exclude when it was spoiled from the beginning!

Regarding what R. Yochanan said, that taste and substance [of Isur... if there is no substance, e.g. it was dissolved in Heter, and it harms the taste, it is permitted], and Rav Kahana said that we learn from all [these Amora'im] that Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam is permitted;

We establish it like R. Shimon, and it explains that R. Shimon's reason is from this verse "what is proper for a Ger..."

And it says "and the other opinion", i.e. the one who forbids Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam, he uses this to exclude [a Nevelah that was] spoiled from the beginning. "And the other opinion", i.e. R. Shimon, he does not need a verse for [a Nevelah] spoiled from the beginning!

Answer: Regarding the Isur to eat it, surely he does not need a verse for what was spoiled from the beginning. It is like mere earth! However, regarding Tum'ah one might have thought that it is Metamei, even though it is not proper for Achilah, like we find regarding a Sheretz, semen and Zivah.

Citation (Machshirin 6:3 - Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Tahor brine [that fell...]

Explanation (Rashi): The case is, he did Hashakah [of the brine] to water.

Affirmation: He is correct. It discusses brine of an Am ha'Aretz, like is proven in our Sugya and the Reisha of the Mishnah.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps it is Tahor without Hashakah, for Stam the majority is brine, and it is not Mekabel Tum'ah!

Rejection #1: We said above (22a) that it needs Hashakah to water.

Rejection #2: Since it taught Tahor brine, and did not teach Stam [brine], this implies that it became Tahor through Hashakah.

Explanation: This is like it explains, that Amei ha'Aretz are suspected to mix half water with their brine. When any amount of water fell in, it joins with its species and water is the majority over the brine, and it is Tamei.

And the one who holds that Tum'ah that was Batel is not Chozer v'Niur, he establishes it when after Hashakah, any amount of water of an Am ha'Aretz fell in. So Rashi explained.

Implied question: Why did he explain water of an Am ha'Aretz, and not Tamei water?

Answer: It is because the Mishnah taught Stam water.

Question: The one who establishes it when water of an Am ha'Aretz fell in, obviously it is Tamei, just like initially, that it needed Hashakah!

Rhetorical question: Initially, why did it need Hashakah? If the majority is brine, we said above (22a) that the minority of water is Batel in a majority. Also without Hashakah it is Tahor!

Answer: Rather, we are concerned lest the majority is water.

Summation of question (d): For this reason itself, if any amount of Tamei water fell in it after Hashakah, the Tamei water returns to be Metamei the Tahor water!

Suggestion: It teaches this itself, that brine of an Am ha'Aretz needs Hashakah.

Rejection: [If so,] it should have explicitly taught "one who buys brine from an Am ha'Aretz does Hashakah to water and it is Tahor!"

Answer: The end is unlike the beginning. One might have thought that initially, the brine becomes like Tamei water. It does not leave its Tum'ah through assuming that the water is the minority;

However, after Hashakah, no matter what you will say, it is Tahor. One might have thought that when Kol she'Hu of Tamei water falls in, due to concern lest water is the majority, we will not remove it from its Chazakah.

Consequence: Now, the one who establishes "any amount of water" to be Tamei, and Rav Nachman infers "this teaches that Amei ha'Aretz are suspected to mix half water with their brine", i.e. sometimes they mix in it half water...

This does not mean that if [water] were the majority, it would not be Tamei when any amount of water fell in, for similarly it would be Tamei, like I explained!

Rather, it teaches that if initially they normally mixed in only a little, also now he would not be Metamei due to any amount of water, for still, the majority is brine.

Question: The Rabanan of (who argue with) R. Shimon's teaching about a Shilya above (22a), they argue [with R. Eliezer (ben Yakov), who is Metaher a cake of blood (21b). If so, Rav's teaching does not apply to R. Eliezer. Why did Rav Sheshes need to say that surely Rav did not come to teach that the Halachah follows R. Eliezer ben Yakov, for the Halachah always follows him?]

Implied suggestion: [Rav Sheshes need to say so] because Rav holds like Reish Lakish, who explains [R. Shimon's] reason is because the [fetus'] form was disturbed.

Rejection: All the more so, it is more difficult! Since [Rav] needs the reason that the form was disturbed, this shows that [he holds that] even R. Shimon holds that it is not Batel in a majority. (Both R. Shimon and Rabanan argue with R. Eliezer!)

Answer #1: Perhaps Rav Sheshes (some change the text to "Rav") holds like the opinion than severe Tum'ah is Ad l'Ger. According to him, we do not need the reason of Bitul in a majority [to be Metaher the cake], like I explained above (23a DH Tum'ah Kalah), that all Tum'as Neveilah is called severe Tum'ah, even Tum'as Maga.

Answer #2: It is not considered an argument, since they did not argue explicitly about that matter itself. (R. Eliezer ben Yakov taught about a cake of blood. R. Shimon and Rabanan discussed a Shilya.)

Implied question: There are places where we rule like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, like we find in Eruvin (62b), and Rav himself [rules like him] in Yevamos (60a)!

Answer: There are places where it is not reasonable [to rule] like him. Therefore, it was needed to rule [like him explicitly].