(R. Pedas citing R. Yosi citing R. Yochanan): R. Shimon and R. Yehoshua said the same matter. (In our Mishnah, R. Yehoshua permits curdling with sap of leaves and sap of roots, but not with sap of Pagim, for it is Pri.)

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): Shemitah does not apply to Ketaf (sap of balsam, a barren tree), for it is not a Pri.

R. Ze'ira (to R. Pedas): Just like you say here that the Halachah follows R. Yehoshua (for he argues with R. Eliezer, and the Halachah does not follow him, for he is from Beis Shamai), the Halachah should follow R. Shimon!

Rebuttal #1 (R. Yonah): Are these similar?! Just the contrary! Ketaf, [the entire tree] is Batel to its sap (it is primarily planted for its sap. A regular) tree is not Batel to its sap.

Rebuttal #2: (Shemitah is unlike Orlah!) Animal food - Kedushas Shemitah takes effect on it, but Kedushas Orlah does not take effect on it.

(R. Bun): There is another [reason why perhaps the Halachah does not follow R. Shimon]. R. Yehoshua taught in the name of others (perhaps he himself holds like R. Eliezer, and not like he said)! R. Shimon said in his own name (presumably, the Halachah follows the Stam Tana who argues with him in that Mishnah - TOLDOS YITZCHAK)!

Question: Why [does R. Shimon forbid curdling with sap of Pagim] - because sap is Pri, or Pagim are Pri (and one may not benefit from Peros Orlah)?

If you will say that sap is Pri, if he did so with [sap of Peros] Terumah, it is forbidden [to Zarim, like Terumah]. If you will say that Pagim are Pri, if he did so with [sap of Peros] Terumah, it is permitted.

What is the reason [for the latter law]? One may benefit from Terumah, but one may not benefit from Orlah. (We explained this like GRA.))

(Mishnah): Ankoklos and grape skins.

(R. Ze'ira and one of the Rabanan citing Rav): [Ankoklos are] grapes that were stricken before they grew a third.

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): It is even if they were stricken after they grew a third.

(R. Chiya bar Ada): [Ankoklos] is an acronym - Anavim d'Laki Tilseihon (grapes that were [already] stricken when they grew a third. (GRA)

R. Yosi says, we plant a branch [of Orlah, but one may not plant a nut of Orlah. We may not graft Kafniyos].

(R. Yochanan): If one transgressed and planted [a nut of Orlah], it is permitted (due to Zeh v'Zeh Gorem; it grows also due to the land. Also, the nut decays before a tree sprouts from it. - R. SHLOMO SIRILIYO) If one transgressed and grafted, it is permitted.

A nut of Orlah that was planted, and similarly an egg of idolatry that became a chick - R. Chagai citing R. Yoshiyah said that Chizkiyah and Kahana argue about this. Kahana permits, and Chizkiyah forbids.

Question: According to Chizkiyah (this will be explained) how can an egg of idolatry become a [forbidden] chick? (One must do an action to it!)

Question: What is the case?

If he broke [the egg], there is no chick (it will die)!

Suggestion: He brought in to an inner room [of idolatry].

Rejection: Come see [that this cannot be! According to Chizkiyah, who requires an action to the matter itself,] if he bowed to it, he did not forbid it. If he brought in to an inner room, he forbade it?!

Answer (R. Yudan, the father of R. Masniyah): The case is, he used to [complete a] fence in front of idolatry.

If a Hekdesh egg became a chick - R. Yosah said, Kahana and R. Yochanan argue about this. Kahana forbids, and R. Yochanan permits.

(R. Ze'ira, to R. Yosi): R. Yochanan permits, but even he says that he redeems [Hekdesh, based on its value] at the time he seeded it (and here, for the value of the egg).

(R. Chanina, R. Yonah and R. Lazar, citing Kahana): He redeems [based on its value] at the time he seeded it.

Note: There is an implied question. What do Kahana and R. Yochanan argue about?

Correction: R. Chananyah citing R. Pinchas fixed this (so there is no difficulty). Kahana forbids, and he redeems [based on its value] like it is now. R. Yochanan forbids, and he redeems at the time he seeded it.