Explanation: This implies that the question would hold up even if we could not make a Tzad ha'Shaveh.

Question: If so, when the Gemara said that Chametz on Pesach should be proof, we should ask that Chametz grows from the ground. This would make us unable to prove anything from Kilai ha'Kerem!

Answer #1: It could have already said that Chametz and Kilai ha'Kerem should prove (regarding being forbidden from benefit), as this would be three sources.

Answer #2: Additionally, it could have said that meat sacrificed to idols should be proof.

Implied Question: One might say that sacrifices to idols are different, as they are impure. (How could it learn from sacrifices to idolatry?)

Answer: They are only impure according to Rabbinic law, as I explained earlier (13b, DH "Tikroves").

Explanation: This implies that even the straw and wood are prohibited.

Proof: This is implied in Pesachim (26b), as the Gemara there says that if a new (earthenware) oven was lit with peels of Orlah or straw of Kilai ha'Kerem, it should be broken.

Question: This is difficult. In Kesuvos (80a), the Gemara implies this is permitted. It discusses a person who spent money on the possessions of his wife, who is a minor (and later refuses the marriage through Miun). Rav Yehudah ruled regarding a bundle of branches. (The Halachah is that if he had benefit from her possessions, even a small amount, there is no reckoning of how much he receives back from her. Rav Yehudah ruled this is even true if he took a bundle of branches and gave them to his animal.)

Question (cont.): This is based on Rav Yehudah's understanding that if someone used branches in a field while the trees were Orlah, or it was Shemitah, or what grew was Kilayim, he is considered to have a Chazakah (i.e. add that time to his three years of establishing a Chazakah on this property). This means that it was at a time when he could use the branches (as he was allowed to benefit for them, unlike what we stated above)!

Answer: Straw and wood that were extant before the Kilayim were planted are still permitted for benefit until they grow one two hundredth more due to the Kilayim. Many times when the fruit adds one two hundredth of growth and therefore becomes forbidden, the straw and wood that were there before the growth of the Kilayim do not add one two hundredth.

Answer (cont.): However, certainly whatever grew one two hundredth after the Kilayim was planted is forbidden from benefit, even if it is straw and wood.

Question: Rebbi Moshe Kohen asked that in Menachos (6a) the Gemara says that if the source was "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael," I would say that it is only regarding things that were never permitted such as Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem. However, our Gemara implies that they are considered to have been permitted at one time!

Answer: The Gemara there is referring to wine that becomes libations for the altar, and which must confine to the parameters of "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael." The wine did not have a time when it was permitted, as what grew after the Kilayim was planted is forbidden, and what grew beforehand is permitted.

Answer (cont.): The permitted part is only forbidden because it is mixed together with what grew after the Kilayim was planted. However, the seeds that were originally planted were at one time permitted.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that one can derive the fact that it is prohibited from benefit from a Kal v'Chomer, as stated earlier. (Why does Rebbi Shimon hold otherwise?)

Answer #1: Rebbi Shimon holds that one cannot make a Gezeirah Shaveh halfway, and we should therefore derive that it is even permitted for benefit. The Gemara earlier held that one can derive this Gezeirah Shaveh, and yet use the Kal v'Chomer to show that it is prohibited from benefit.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Pasuk regarding Treifah is also referring to Kodshim that went out of their boundary as the Gemara states earlier (68b), and they are even forbidden from benefit. The Kal v'Chomer teaches that we derive from them. Rebbi Shimon here argues that the simple understanding of the Pasuk is only regarding Treifah (and therefore Basar b'Chalav is not forbidden from benefit).

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara explains that the reason that they forbade cheese of a Nochri is because it sits in the skin of the stomach of a Neveilah. According to our Gemara, why should it make a difference if it is a Neveilah? Even if it would be from a kosher animal it should be forbidden!

Answer: We would not have forbidden cheeses due to a possibility of Basar b'Chalav because there is only a possible Rabbinic prohibition, as the Torah only forbade Basar b'Chalav when meat and milk are cooked together.

Opinion: We do not rule this way, as we rule like Shmuel who explains the Mishnah differently.

Opinion (cont.): We do let cheese stand in the skin of the stomach of calves that we purchase from Nochrim, and we do not worry that they nursed from a non kosher (or Treifah) animal.

Question: This is difficult. What is the novelty of teaching that the stomach of a Nochri's dead animal is considered Neveilah? We already know this from the first chapter of Chulin (13a)! The Mishnah should have only said that the stomach of a Nochri owned animal is forbidden!

Implied Question: Without another statement of Shmuel, the Gemara could have asked a question on him from the Mishnah. (Why didn't it do so?)

Answer: Rather, it would rather ask a contradiction in Shmuel himself. Since Shmuel is coming to explain the Mishnah, it is clear that he agrees with it.

Explanation: According to this answer, the milk in the stomach of a Neveilah is permitted.

Opinion: However, the custom currently is to prohibit it, and one should not be lenient to buy stomachs from animals of Nochrim.

Opinion (cont.): B'Dieved it is permitted. Even Lechatchilah it would be permitted if we knew that it was not salted with its skin, if it would not be for the fact that it is an "ugly" leniency since people now treat it as forbidden. However, if the stomach was salted together with its skin it is indeed forbidden due to Basar b'Chalav.

Implied Question: It would seem that according to this text the Mishnah is difficult. The Mishnah states that the stomach of a kosher animal that nurses from a Treifah is forbidden. This is also stated by the Beraisa earlier (109b), where it says that a stomach cooked in its own milk is forbidden.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that this is only regarding clear milk in the stomach which is not considered waste. However, what is congealed in the stomach is considered waste. This congealed milk, according to Rabeinu Tam, would even be permitted if it was salted in the stomach.