Explanation #1 (Rashi): This was taught due to Ma'aser, to teach that there is not even an Isur.

Question: We cannot explain so in Maseches Clalah (1:9). The Mishnah says that Clalah and Bikurim, one is liable for them Misah (bi'Ydei Shamayim, if a Tamei or Zar eats them b'Mezid) and Chomesh (if a Zar eats them b'Shogeg, he pays what he ate and adds a quarter of the principal), and they are forbidden to Zarim;

There, it does not teach "these do not apply to Ma'aser"!

Explanation #2: We can explain like the Yerushalmi. They are forbidden to Zarim, even Chetzi Shi'ur (less than a k'Zayis);

[The Isur of Chetzi Shi'ur] is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan. R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this in Yoma (74a).

Suggestion: "They are forbidden to Zarim" teaches that [a Zar may not eat them] even through redemption!

Rejection: In Yevamos (74a) it says that the Tana omitted "they cannot be redeemed."

Reference: The Sifri expounds from "Mikdesho Mimenu" that [one measure of] Terumah is Batel in 101 [measures of mixture];

Orlah and Kil'ayim are Batel in 201. Because their Isur is double (one may not eat or benefit from them), their Shi'ur for Bitul is double.

Explanation: This is a mere Asmachta. Mid'Oraisa, Terumah, Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem are Batel in a majority regarding a dry mixture, and for a wet mixture, in 60 [measures of Heter], like other Isurim.

Note: Mid'Oraisa, Min b'Mino (Isur mixed with the same species of Heter) is Batel in a majority, and a wet mixture Min b'Eino Mino (with a different species) is permitted if one cannot taste the Isur. Chachamim estimated that normal Isurim do not give taste to more than 60 times their volume. Tosfos connotes that the Shi'ur of 60 for other Isurim corresponds to 101 and 201. This is difficult, for Min b'Eino Mino, also Terumah, Orlah and Kil'ayim are Batel in 60 even mid'Rabanan! Perhaps Tosfos discusses b'Eino Mino regarding taste, and Mino regarding the name (R. Akiva Eiger).

Source #1: In Gitin (54b), regarding a mixture of esteemed nuts [that are never Batel when they are whole], some of which were forbidden, and they fell and broke, it says "here, mid'Oraisa, it is Batel in the majority."

Source #2: In Chulin (115b) and Pesachim (24b) it learns the Isur Hana'ah of meat and milk from a Kal v'Chomer from Orlah, and we do not ask "you cannot learn from Orlah, for it needs 201 [parts] for Bitul!

Source #3: In Yevamos (74b) it lists stringencies that apply to Terumah, but not to Ma'aser - Machpaz (an acronym for Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim], Chomesh (for a Zar who ate it b'Shogeg) Pidyon (it cannot be redeemed) and [it is forbidden to] Zarim). It does not list 101 [parts for Bitul].

Source #4 (Yevamos 82a): [If Chulin and Terumah fell into baskets of Chulin and Terumah, and we are unsure whether the Terumah fell into the Terumah and the Chulin into the Chulin, or vice-versa, the basket of Chulin is permitted.] Reish Lakish said that this is only if there was more Chulin (in the basket) than the amount of Terumah that fell. (Even if the Terumah fell into it, mid'Oraisa it is permitted.)

Explanation: [They are Batel, and go] from Isur to Heter. We take one measure [like the amount of Isur mixed in] and give it to a Kohen.

Source (Orlah 2:1 - Mishnah): Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser are Batel in 101, and one must take off. Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem [are Batel] in 201, and one need not take off.

Explanation: The reason one must take off for Terumah more than for other Isurim, the Yerushalmi says that it is due to theft from the Shevet, i.e. Kohen.

Citation (Bikurim 3:12 - Mishnah): Why did they say that [Terumah and Bikurim] are property of the Kohen? He may buy with them slaves, land and Tamei animals, unlike Ma'aser;

(Ma'aser Sheni 1:7 - Mishnah): One may not buy slaves, land or and Tamei animals with money of (i.e. used to redeem) Ma'aser Sheni.

Question - Citation (Ma'aser Sheni 2:12 - Mishnah): [In Viduy Ma'aser, one says] "v'Lo Nasati Mimenu l'Mes." This means that I did not buy a coffin or shrouds for a Mes with Kesef Ma'aser.

Inference: For a Chai (live person), what corresponds to these needs of a Mes are permitted. This shows that one may buy garments!

Answer #1: The latter Mishnah is like R. Yehudah, who says that Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Hedyot (a person's property, it is not considered Hash-m's).

Answer #2: Both of them are like R. Yehudah. Only garments, which the body benefits from, are permitted, but slaves are forbidden due to something extra in the verse.

Answer #3: Both are like R. Meir. Mid'Oraisa, one may buy anything. Mid'Rabanan [other matters] are forbidden.

Implied question - Citation (Yerushalmi): "V'Lo Nasati Mimenu l'Mes" - for what? If it refers to buying a coffin or shrouds, may one do so for a Chai?! Rather, it is for anointing. (It is forbidden for a Mes, and permitted for a Chai.)

Answer: That is a mere Asmachta for what is forbidden mid'Rabanan. We establish it for anointing, but really, it comes to exclude a coffin or shrouds, like the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:12).

Implied question - Citation (Yevamos 74a): What is the source that if Ma'aser Sheni became Tamei, one may anoint with it? "I did not give from it for a Mes" [but the corresponding matter is permitted for a Chai]. What is the same for the living [and the dead? It is anointing.]

Citation (cont.) Question: Perhaps it is it a coffin or shrouds!

Answer: The Gemara means that perhaps [the verse distinguishes between Chai and Mes] only for this, but anointing is forbidden [even for a Chai], for he expends it b'Tum'ah, and this is like eating (b'Tum'ah, which is forbidden)!

It answers that "Mimenu (from it)" connotes from the Ma'aser Sheni itself. (A coffin or shrouds do not apply to Ma'aser itself, only to what is bought with its money.)

Explanation: [One must wash his hands] even to touch [Terumah and Bikurim]. For eating, one must wash even for Ma'aser, like it says in Chulin (33b), that anyone who must immerse mid'Rabanan is forbidden to Terumah and permitted to Ma'aser. This is R. Meir's opinion. Chachamim forbid.

Question: Also Terumah has Matirin (can be permitted) through She'elah (one can annul his designation of Terumah, like a Neder), like it says in Nedarim (59a)!

Answer #1: We cannot answer like it says there, that it is not a Mitzvah to annul [his designation. Since he is not destined to do so, it is not considered Davar Yesh Lo Matirin.]

Answer #2: He already gave it to a Kohen. He cannot annul [his designation] any longer, for it is not in his Reshus.

Question: In Menachos (31a), R. Shimon Shezuri said "once, I mixed Tevel with Chulin, and R. Tarfon told me to take [Demai] from the market and tithe [from it] on [the mixture]";

We do not decree lest he bring Vadai [Tevel, which is mid'Oraisa]!

Answer: There, there is no need to decree lest he bring Vadai, for he knows that we do not tithe from what is liable [mid'Oraisa] on what is exempt [mid'Oraisa, and liable only mid'Rabanan];

However, here it does not cross his mind that mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan do not join.

Question: A Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:8) says that one who exchanges the value of a Sela of [smaller coins] of Ma'aser Sheni... this shows that we redeem Ma'aser on Perutos;

It is impossible to be exact that the Ma'aser is worth a whole number of Perutos. If so, that less than a Shaveh Perutah (remaining above the number of whole Perutos) he eats without redemption!

Answer: He brings an Isar with them.

Question: Perhaps he brings only Perutos, like was decreed here!

Answer: There, he would not err, for he knows that half a Perutah does not put Kedushah [on a coin], but here he errs, for it does not cross his mind that mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan do not join.

Implied question: Above, regarding "it is not Shaveh Perutah" we did not ask this!

Answer: There, we discuss one who is very far from Yerushalayim. This is called Ein Lo Matirin;

However, here it teaches "from when he entered Yerushalayim and left." This connotes that even if he took only one step outside. Why [is this Ein Lo Matirin]? He should enter [again]!

Reference: In the Sifri, [R. Yehudah] learns the reason from "ha'Kesef" - [redemption must be on] the first money, and not second money.

Question: Above (45a) we say "first money, and even second money"!

Answer: This refers only to money on money, but not to redeem twice Peros on money (i.e. one may not redeem Peros with Kesef Ma'aser).

Question - Citation (Ma'aser Sheni 3:10 - Mishnah - Chachamim (to R. Yehudah)) Question: If Ma'aser that because Tamei can be redeemed, all the more so what is bought [with Ma'aser can be redeemed]!

Citation (cont. - R. Yehudah) Answer: You cannot learn from Ma'aser, which can be redeemed when it is Tahor when it is far [from Yerushalayim], to what is bought, which cannot be redeemed!

Inference: R. Yehudah has a different reason. Why must the Sifri learn from a verse? (Note - a Stam Sifri is R. Shimon, but R. Yehudah taught the Sifri cited above.)

Answer #1: [The Sifri] is a mere Asmachta.

Answer #2: The Torah wrote a verse [even though we would have known the law even without the verse].

Implied question: Initially, when we answered that it became Tamei, we could have asked this!

Answer: We asked a better question (if so, he can redeem it).

Question: In Sanhedrin (113a), we answer that Rabanan decreed [only] for when there are walls [around Yerushalayim]. It does not say that they did not distinguish, like it says here!

Answer: There, it refers to what it says "rather, it is of an Ir ha'Nidachas (a city in which most of the residents were convicted for serving idolatry. All property of the city is burned), and he took it to Yerushalayim, and it was there at the time of the final verdict [when they ruled that it is an Ir ha'Nidachas];

Citation (113a) Question: It should be eaten, for the walls were Kolet it (forbid taking it outside), and it is property of Yerushalayim at the time of the final verdict...!

We conclude [there] that really, it is Tahor, and he brought it to Yerushalayim, and they gave a final verdict of Ir ha'Nidachas (for the city from which it came).

Citation (cont.): You asked that it should be eaten. The case is, the walls fell, i.e. after the final verdict;

This is like Rava taught, that the law of the walls for Kelitah is mid'Rabanan, not to redeem it [afterwards], even if the wall fell, for Rabanan did not distinguish.

Source: This is like it says in our Sugya. Since Kelitah is only mid'Rabanan, mid'Oraisa the final verdict takes effect on it, even if the wall did not fall at all, since he can eat it if he wants (so it is not called property of Shamayim);

Also, it is not called property of Yerushalayim, since he can take it out and redeem it.

However, mid'Rabanan they said that the wall is Kolet, even to [cause to] call it property of Yerushalayim and to [permit] eating it, for they established their words against Torah law.

Explanation #1: Regarding this we conclude that Chachamim decreed only when the walls are intact. I.e. they established their words against Torah law, to call it property of Yerushalayim and to [permit] eating it, only when there are walls, and they did not fall at all;

However, if the walls fell after the final verdict, Chachamim did not decree to establish their words against Torah law, to call it property of Yerushalayim and to [permit] eating it...

Even though at the time of the final verdict, the walls were Kolet it, [now it is forbidden,] since the walls fell after the final verdict.

Distinction: However, if the walls fell before the final verdict, even though it is not property of Yerushalayim, in any case the final verdict does not take effect on it;

This is because it is like outside Yerushalayim, and it is Shamayim's property, so he cannot eat it or redeem it, like it says in our Sugya that Rabanan did not decree. He will take it to Yerushalayim when there will be walls.

Explanation #2: We discuss only when the walls fell before the final verdict. It is not like outside (Yerushalayim), since it was once permitted to eat, it is the person's property;

It is not property of Yerushalayim, since the walls had fallen at the time of the final verdict;

However, if the walls fell after the final verdict, since it was property of Yerushalayim at the time of the final verdict, this is not uprooted.

Support: Now it is understood more simply. When there are [walls] at the time of the final verdict, they decreed that it be property of Yerushalayim. When there are no [walls] at the time of the final verdict, they did not decree.

Question: It connotes that they are buried, because the final verdict took effect on them, but when the final verdict did not take effect on them, they may be eaten if the wall will be built;

Answer: This refers to only to Korbanos, with which Avodah is done. Ma'aser [Sheni], or meat of a Korban after the Avodah, or the remainder of a Minchah (after Kemitzah was removed and offered), they become acceptable again.

Explanation: This refers to most of the walls. If the minority fell, even though one may not carry inside on Shabbos (it is not Reshus ha'Yachid), in any case it is called a Mechitzah for eating Ma'aser [Sheni] and Kodshim Kalim, like it says in Pesachim (66a);

We must establish the Sugya of Hillel (Erev Pesach fell on Shabbos, and those who had forgotten to bring their knives to the Azarah before Shabbos, inserted the knife in the wool of a lamb, or in the horns of a goat) to be after the walls were breached, therefore they could not carry them to the Azarah to slaughter the Pesach;

Before the walls were breached, they were permitted to carry, like R. Yochanan said (Eruvin 6b), that had the doors of Yerushalayim not been locked at night, one would have been liable for [carrying four Amos in] Reshus ha'Rabim;

Even though (in the episode with Hillel, they could not carry on Shabbos because the walls were breached), at night they ate their Pesachim (which must be eaten within the walls).

Explanation: [Ma'aser worth less than a Perutah] is not Tofes Pidyon (does not put Kedushah onto money used to redeem it).

Implied question: Why didn't he expound that if it is not worth a Perutah, one does not add a Chomesh, but it is Tofes Pidyon?

Answer: It is reasonable to establish the exclusion for the matter itself (it is not Tofes Pidyon), and not regarding the Chomesh, for less than a Perutah is not considered money to be Tofes Pidyon.

Question: However, according to the opinion that there is not [a Perutah] in its Chomesh this is difficult. He should rather have expounded that one does not add a Chomesh!