1) TOSFOS DH v'Etzim d'Peshita Lei l'Tana mi'Shel Tzibur Minayin
úåñôåú ã"ä åòöéí ãôùéèà ìéä ìúðà îùì öáåø îðìï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we cannot learn from salt.)
åà''ú åìéìó îîìç ëãìòéì ãàéï ìäùéá îìáåðä
(a) Question: We should learn from salt, like above, that we cannot refute this from Levonah!
åùîà éù öã àçã
(b) Answer: Perhaps there is one way [in which wood resembles Levonah and is unlike salt].
2) TOSFOS DH she'Zo Belilasah Avah
úåñôåú ã"ä ùæå áìéìúä òáä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the ratios of oil to flour.)
îðçú ðãáä åìåâ ìòùøåï ëããøùé' áô' ùúé îãåú (ì÷îï ôè.) )ëãëúéá) [ö"ì îãëúéá - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áîöåøò òðé åòùøåï ñìú [ðøàä ùö"ì àçã] áìåì áùîï ìîðçä åìåâ ùîï
(a) Explanation: Minchas Nedavah has a Log of oil for an Isaron [of flour], like we expound below (89a), from what is written about a poor Metzora "v'Isaron Soles Echad Balul ba'Shemen l'Minchah v'Log Shamen";
)ãîééúà) [ö"ì ãîééúø - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ìéä ìîðçä åìåâ ùîï ìîúðãá îðçä ìà éôçåú îãáø äèòåï ìåâ åîàé ðéäå òùøåï
1. "L'Minchah v'Log Shamen" is extra to teach that one who volunteers a Minchah may not bring less [flour] than requires a Log. How much is this? It is an Isaron;
åîðçú äðñëéí åëäï îùéç ùìùä ìåâéï ìòùøåï ëãîôøù á÷åðè'
2. Minchas ha'Nesachim and [Minchas] Kohen Mashi'ach (Chavitim) are three Lugim for an Isaron, like Rashi explained.
3) TOSFOS DH she'Zo Belilasah Avah v'Zo Belilasah Rachah v'Hen Bol'os Zo mi'Zo
úåñôåú ã"ä ùæå áìéìúä òáä åæå áìéìúä øëä åäï áåìòåú æå îæå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that both are Pasul.)
àò''â ã÷úðé ôñåìä ãîùîò äàçú ðøàä ãùúéäï ôñåìåú äòáä åäøëä îã÷úðé åäï áåìòåú æå îæå
(a) Observation: Even though it taught Pesulah, which connotes one, it seems that both of them are Pasul - the thick and the soft, since it taught "they absorb from each other."
åîéäå ááìéòä çãà îéôñìé úøååééäå ãëé áìò ÷åîõ îîðçú ðñëéí îéôñéì ÷åîõ ãäåä ìéä øéáä ùîðä åîéôñìà îðçú ðñëéí ãäåä ìéä çéñø ùîðä
(b) Remark: Both become Pasul through one absorption. When the Kometz absorbs from Minchas Nesachim, the Kometz becomes Pasul, for it has too much oil, and Minchas Nesachim becomes Pasul, for it is lacking oil.
åäà ã÷úðé ôñåìä åìà ÷úðé ôñåìåú
(c) Implied question: Why did it teach Pesulah, and not Pesulos?
îùåí ãëåìä îúðéúéï áìéùðà ãçãà îðçä àééøé åøéùà ðîé äëé úðï ðúòøá ÷åîöä á÷åîõ ùì çáéøúä ëùøä åäåä ìéä ìîéúðé ëùøåú
(d) Answer: It is because our entire Mishnah uses expressions of one Minchah. Also the Reisha teaches like this. "If its Kometz became mixed with the Kometz of another [Minchah], it is Kosher." It should have taught Kesheros!
åëùùúéäï áìéìúï òáä àå øëä àó òì ôé ùáåìòåú æå îæå ìà çùéá ìà øéáä ùîðä åìà çéñø ùîðä åìà îôñìà
(e) Distinction: And when both of them are a thick or soft kneading, even though they absorb from each other, it is not considered to have too much oil or too little oil, and it is not Pasul.
4) TOSFOS DH v'Hen Bol'os Zo mi'Zo - this is all one Dibur according to Tzon Kodoshim
úåñôåú ã"ä ]åäï áåìòåú æå îæå - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å, åäëì ãéáåø àçã[
[ö"ì åéîä ãäëà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ôé' á÷åðèøñ ä÷åîõ áåìò îï îðçú ðñëéí åäåä ìéä øéáä ùîðä
(a) Question: Here Rashi explained that the Kometz absorbs from Minchas Nesachim, and it has too much oil;
åáâî' âáé äà ãôøéê ìøá çñãà ãàîø áúø îáèì àæìéðï îîúðéúéï ãùúé îðçåú ùìà ð÷îöå ãàí éëåì ì÷îåõ îæå áôðé òöîä åîæå áôðé òöîä ëùøä
1. And in the Gemara (23b), regarding the challenge to Rav Chisda, who says that it depends on the Mevatel, from the Mishnah of two Menachos that became mixed together before Kemitzah, if one can take a Kometz from this one by itself and from this one by itself, it is Kosher...
åäà ëéåï ã÷îéõ ìéä îçãà àéãê äåä ìéä ùéøééí åìà îáèì ìéä ùéøééí ìèéáìà
2. [The Gemara] asks that after taking Kometz from one, the rest of [that Minchah] is Shirayim, and it is not Mevatel the Tevel (the Minchah from which Kometz was not taken).
åôé' á÷åðèøñ [ö"ì îäà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùèéáìà ãìà îáèì ìäå ìùéøééí ãðéäåå ëøéáä ñåìúä ìà îöé ìîéôøê ìøáé çðéðà ãðéîà îäëà ãáúø îáèì àæìéðï
3. And Rashi explained that from the fact that the Tevel is not Mevatel the Shirayim, that it should be as if there is too much flour, we could not challenge R. Chanina [who says that it depends on what becomes Batel], and derive from here that it depends on the Mevatel...
ãàé áúø áèì àæìéðï ùéøééí îé äåé èéáìà ãàé ðîé áúø áèì àæìéðï åèéáìà îáèì ìùéøééí ìà äåé øéáä ñåìúä ãáèéìé åëîàï ãìéúéä ãîé åìà îééúø ìéä
i. [We could not derive this,] for if it depends on the Batel, are the Shirayim Tevel?! Even if it depends on the Batel, and the Tevel is Mevatel the Shirayim, this is not too much flour, for it is as if [the Shirayim] do not exist. It is not an excess [in the Tevel Minchah].
åôéøåù æä ñåúø îä ùôéøù áîùðä ãîäàé èòîà ìà éçùåá (ëîå) [ö"ì ðîé - öàï ÷ãùéí] øéáä ùîðä
4. Summation of question: This Perush contradicts what he explained in our Mishnah! For this reason, also it should not be considered too much oil!
åàéï ìôøù ãîä ãîéôñìï äëà ìàå îùåí øéáä ùîðä àìà îùåí çéñø ùîðä
5. Implied suggestion: Perhaps they are disqualified here not due to too much oil, rather, due to too little oil!
ãàãøáä ìôé îä (ùîôøù) [ö"ì ùàôøù - éùø åèåá] áâî' âáé çøá ùðúòøá ááìåì ìà îéôñìï àìà îùåí øéáä ùîðä
6. Rejection: Just the contrary, according to what I will explain in the Gemara about a Charev (a dry Minchah without oil) that became mixed with a Balul (a Minchah mixed with oil), it is disqualified only due to too much oil. (Taharas ha'Kodesh - below (23a DH Charev), Tosfos was unsure whether or not we may offer a Kosher Minchah and a Pasul mixed with each other. Here he holds that one may not. R. Yehudah's words connote that the Kometz is Pasul; because the other Minchah is mixed with a Pasul, also it may not be offered. Above (DH she'Zu), Tosfos held that we may offer a Kosher and a Pasul mixed together; we view the Pasul as if it were wood. Therefore, he said that both are intrinsically Pasul, i.e. also Chaser Shemen disqualifies.)
5) TOSFOS DH v'Hen Bol'os Zo mi'Zo - this is all one Dibur according to Tzon Kodoshim
úåñôåú ã"ä ]åäï áåìòåú æå îæå - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å, åäëì ãéáåø àçã[
(îéï áùàéðå îéðå çùéá ìéä áâîøà îùåí) [ö"ì åáâîøà çùéá ìéä îéï áùàéðå îéðå åîùåí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãàîøé' ñì÷ àú îéðå ëîé ùàéðå åùàéðå îéðå øáä òìéå åîáèìå ùäñåìú ùì ÷åîõ øáä òì äùîï ùì îðçú ðñëéí åîáèìå
(a) And in the Gemara (23a) it is considered Min b'Eino Mino, for we say "remove Mino as if it is not, and she'Eino Mino is the majority over it, and is Mevatel it!" The flour of the Kometz is the majority over the oil of Minchas Nesachim, and it is Mevatel it.
åúéîä ãîäàé èòîà ðîé ìéôñåì ìøáé éäåãä ðúòøá ÷åîöä á÷åîõ çáéøúä
(b) Question #1: According to this reason, it should be Pasul also according to R. Yehudah when the Kometz became mixed with the Kometz of another [Minchah]!
åæä äåà úéîä ìåîø îùåí ãáìéìúï ùååú àéï æå áåìòú îæå
1. It would be astounding to say that because they are equal mixings (ratios of flour to oil), one does not absorb from the other.
åòåã ðúòøá ÷åîöä áùéøéä ã÷úðé ñéôà ãàí ä÷èéø òìúä ìáòìéí åôøéê îéðä áâîøà ãìéáèìå ùéøééí ì÷åîõ åîùðé ø' æéøà ðàîøä ä÷èøä á÷åîõ ëå'
2. Also, when the Kometz became mixed with its Shirayim, the Seifa taught that if he was Maktir it, the owner was Yotzei, and the Gemara (23b) asks from this "the Shirayim should be Mevatel the Kometz!", and R. Zeira answered that it says "Haktarah" regarding the Kometz [and the Shirayim. Just like Kamatzim are not Mevatel Kamatzim, also Shirayim are not Mevatel Kamatzim];
ìîä ìï äàé ùéðåéà äà àîøéðï ãáìéìúï ùååú åàéï áåìòåú æå îæå åîàé àéï ÷åîõ îáèì ÷åîõ ùééê ëàï
i. Why do we need this answer? We say that when the mixings are equal, they do not absorb from each other!
åòåã úéîä )ãáâæéøä) [ö"ì ãâæéøä - áøëú äæáç, öàï ÷ãùéí] ùåä ãø' æéøà àìéáà ãøáé éäåãä ðîé îñ÷é ìä åîùîò ãàéï ä÷åîõ îáèì çáéøå àôé' ÷åîõ ãîðçú çåèà å÷åîõ ãîðçú ðãáä àó òì ôé ùæä çøá åæä áìåì
(c) Question #2: R. Zeira's Gezeirah Shavah is also according to R. Yehudah, and it connotes that one Kometz is not Mevatel another, even a Kometz of Minchas Chotei and a Kometz of Minchas Nedavah, even though [the former] is dry and [the latter] is mixed [with oil]!
åîä ùëúåá áñôøéí áâî' âáé çøá ùðúòøá òí áìåì îàé ìàå ÷åîõ ãîðçú çåèà ãàéòøá á÷åîõ ãîðçú ðãáä ìà âøñéðï äëé àìà ëñôøéí ãâøñé ãàéòøá áîðçú ðñëéí
(d) Correction: It is written in Seforim in the Gemara regarding a Charev that became mixed with a Balul, "is it not that a Kometz of Minchas Chotei became mixed with a Kometz of Minchas Nedavah?!" The text does not say so, rather, like Seforim that say "it became mixed with Minchas Nesachim";
àáì ùåí ÷åîõ àéï îáèì çáéøå àôé' ìøáé éäåãä ãàé îùëçú çã ÷åîõ ãîáèì ìà úú÷ééí âæéøä ùåä
1. However, no Kometz is Mevatel another [Kometz], even according to R. Yehudah, for if it is found one Kometz that is Mevatel, the Gezeirah Shavah is not established;
åäùúà îðìï ìøáé éäåãä ãìà éáèìå æä àú æä ÷åîõ ãîðçú çåèà å÷åîõ ãîðçú ðãáä äà áìòé îäããé
(e) Question #3: Now, what is R. Yehudah's source that they are not Mevatel each other, i.e. a Kometz of Minchas Chotei and a Kometz of Minchas Nedavah? They absorb from each other!
åòåã úéîä ìîàé ãîñ÷éðï (îâæéøä) [ö"ì âæéøä - áàøåú äîéí] ùåä ãø' æéøà àìéáà ãø' éäåãä à''ë îðçú ðñëéí å÷åîõ ðîé ìà ìéáèìå æä àú æä
(f) Question #4: Based on what we establish R. Zeira's Gezeirah Shavah according to R. Yehudah, if so, also Minchas Nesachim and Kometz should not be Mevatel each other (for Shirayim are not Mevatel a Kometz)!
åîéäå äà ìàå ôéøëà äéà ããå÷à á÷åîõ åùéøééí àéëà âæéøä ùåä ãä÷èøä ä÷èøä àáì îðçú ðñëéí ëåìä ëìéì åàéï ëàï ÷åîõ åùéøééí
(g) Answer (to Question #4): This is not difficult. The Gezeirah Shavah is only for a Kometz and Shirayim. Minchas Nesachim is totally Kalil. It has no Kometz and Shirayim.
6) TOSFOS DH Im Yesh Bo Mar'is Dam Kosher
úåñôåú ã"ä àí éù áå îøàéú ãí ëùø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a faint appearance is not Kosher.)
ìà áàãîåîéú îòè îúëùø àìà îøàéú ãí âîåø ÷àîø ìîòåèé äéëà ããéää îøàéúå
(a) Explanation: It is not Kosher through a little redness. Rather, this refers to an absolute appearance of blood, to exclude when its appearance is faint.
ãäà ããí äôø îøåáä òì ãîå ùì ùòéø îùîò ãàé ìàå îèòí òåìéï àå îùåí îéï áîéðå äéä áèì àò''ô ùàí äéä ãîå ùì ôø îéí äéä áå îøàéú ãí ùòéø ÷öú
(b) Source: "The blood of the bull exceeds blood of the goat" connotes that if not because [they are] Olim or Min b'Mino (to which Bitul does not apply, blood of the goat) would be Batel, even though if the blood of the bull were water, [the mixture] would have somewhat of an appearance of blood of the goat.
7) TOSFOS DH ha'Davar Yadu'a she'Damo Shel Par Merubah Al Damo Shel Sa'ir
úåñôåú ã"ä äãáø éãåò ùãîå ùì ôø îøåáä òì ãîå ùì ùòéø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses which would be Batel if Bitul applied.)
ôé' åäéä ìå ìãîå ùì ùòéø ìäéåú áèì
(a) Explanation: The blood of the goat should have been Batel [if not that Bitul does not apply to Olim or Min b'Mino].
úéîä ãàéôëà äåä ìéä ìîéã÷ ãàîøéðï áéåîà (ãó ðâ:) )ùòéøá ãí äôø áãí) [ö"ì ùòéøä ãí äôø ìúåê ãí - öàï ÷ãùéí] äùòéø
(b) Question: He should have inferred oppositely (the blood of the bull should have been Batel)! We say in Yoma (53b) that he poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat;
åääéà ããí ùðúòøá áîéí àîøé' áô' äúòøåáåú (æáçéí òç:) åáôø÷ ëéñåé äãí (çåìéï ôæ:) ìà ùðå àìà ùðôìå îéí ìúåê ãí àáì ãí ìúåê îéí øàùåï øàùåï áèì åäéìëê äàé ãí äôø äéä ìå ìäáèì øàùåï øàùåï áãí äùòéø
1. And the case of blood that became mixed with water, we say in Zevachim (78b) and in Chulin (87b) that [it is considered blood] only when water fell into blood, but if blood fell into water, every first amount is Batel. Therefore, the blood of the bull should have been Batel in the blood of the goat, every amount when it falls in!
åàôé' îàï ãìéú ìéä øàùåï øàùåï áèì áô' áúøà ãîñëú ò''æ (ãó òâ.) äëà îåãä îùåí ãäåä ìéä ðøàä åðãçä
(c) Summation of question: Even the one who disagrees with "every first amount is Batel", in Avodah Zarah (73a), here he admits, because it was Nir'eh v'Nidcheh (initially the blood of the bull was Kosher, and when it became mixed with the blood of the goat, it was unable to be offered as blood of the bull)!
åé''ì ãìà àîøéðï øàùåï øàùåï áèì ëùîòøä áùôò äøáä áéçã ëîå ùîçì÷ áôø÷ áúøà ãîñëú ò''æ (ùí) áéï çáéú ãðôéù òîåãéä ìöøöåø ÷èï ãìà ðôéù òîåãéä
(d) Answer: We do not say that every first amount is Batel when one pours much at once, just like it distinguishes in Avodah Zarah (73a) between a barrel which has a large \ and a small flask that has a small \.
åàôéìå îàï ãàéú ìéä øàùåï øàùåï áèì áçáéú áéåúø îôé çáéú äéä îåãä ãìà áèì:
1. And even the one who holds that every first amount is Batel regarding a barrel, when the flow\ is greater than the opening of a barrel, he agrees that it is not Batel.
22b----------------------------------------22b
8) TOSFOS DH mi'Kan l'Olin she'Ein Mevatlin Zeh Es Zeh
úåñôåú ã"ä îëàï ìòåìéï ùàéï îáèìéï æä àú æä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a verse is needed.)
åà''ú úéôå÷ ìéä îùåí ãàéï îöåú îáèìåú æå àú æå ëãàîøéðï áòøáé ôñçéí (ãó ÷èå.) âáé äìì ùäéä ëåøê ôñç åîöä åîøåø
(a) Question: We should know this because Mitzvos are not Mevatel one another, like we say in Pesachim (115a) regarding Hillel, who used to wrap Pesach, Matzah and Maror!
åëï áô' äúòøåáåú (æáçéí òè.) ôìéâ ø' àìòæø àø' ùîòåï áï ì÷éù áääéà ãôéâåì åðåúø åèîà ùáììï å÷àîø ùàéï îáèìéï æä àú æä åîééúé øàééä îãäìì
1. And similarly in Zevachim (79a), R. Elazar argues with Reish Lakish and Pigul, Nosar and Tamei that were mixed, and he says that they are not Mevatel each other, and he brings a proof from Hillel!
åùîà ìâáé àëéìä ùàðé
(b) Answer: Perhaps regarding eating is different. (We would not learn from there to mixing blood, if not for the verse.)
9) TOSFOS DH v'R. Yehudah Savar mi'Kan l'Min b'Mino she'Eino Batel
úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éäåãä ñáø îëàï ìîéï áîéðå ùàéðå áèì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when R. Yehudah says that Min b'Mino is not Batel.)
åà''ú äéëé îñé÷ øáé éåçðï ãèòîà ãøáé éäåãä îäà ÷øà äà îñ÷éðï áôø÷ àåúå åàú áðå (çåìéï òè.) ãøáé éäåãä ñôå÷é îñô÷à ìéä àé çåùùéï ìæøò äàá àå ìà åîàï ãàîø çåùùéï ìæøò äàá (ìà áòé àåúå) [ö"ì äééðå çððéà åìçððéà ìà áòé àå - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìçì÷
(a) Question: How does R. Yochanan conclude that R. Yehudah's reason is from this verse? We conclude in Chulin (79a) that [regarding crossbreeds] R. Yehudah is unsure whether or not we are concerned for the father's seed, and the one who is concerned for the father's seed is Chananyah, and Chananyah does not require "Oh" to divide!
ãîñ÷éðï äúí ìçððéà ãìà îééúø ìéä àåúå ÷ñáø ãìçì÷ ìà öøéê ÷øà ãñáø ìä ëøáé éåðúï
1. We conclude there that Chananyah, for whom "Oso" is not extra, holds that no verse is needed to distinguish, for he holds like R. Yonason (who says that when the Torah writes A and B, either by itself suffices, unless it is written "together");
åáéåîà ôø÷ äåöéàå ìå (ãó ðæ:) àîøéðï øáé éàùéä åøáé éåðúï çã àîø îòøáéï åçã àîø àéï îòøáéï
2. And in Yoma (57b) we say that of R. Yoshiyah and R. Yonason, one said that we mix [the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat and put from the mixture on the Keranos], and one said that we do not mix [for the Keranos]...
åàîøéðï úñúééí ãø' éàùéä ãàîø îòøáéï ãàò''â ãìà ëúéá éçãå ëîàï ãëúéá ãîé
3. And we say that you can conclude that R. Yoshiyah said that we mix, for [he holds that] even though it is not written "together", it is as if it is written.
åàò''â ããçéðï àôé' úéîà øáé éåðúï ãàîø îòøáéï ùàðé äëà ãëúéá àçú
4. Implied question: We reject this. You can even say that R. Yonason said that we mix. Here is different, for it is written "Achas"!
äà îñ÷éðï äúí úðéà ãìà ëùéðåééï
5. Answer: We conclude there that a Beraisa is unlike this answer (that here is different).
åé''ì ãðäé ãøáé éåðúï ñáø åì÷ç îãí äôø åîãí äùòéø æä áôðé òöîå åæä áôðé òöîå åìà ãøéù àçú ø' éäåãä àçú áùðä ãøéù å÷ñáø ãîòøáéï
(b) Answer: Granted, R. Yonason holds that "v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir" refers to each by itself, and he does not expound "Achas." R. Yehudah expounds "Achas b'Shanah", and he holds that we mix.
åà''ú åø' éåðúï ðäé ãìà ãøéù àçú äåä ìï ìîéîø ëéåï ãëúéá åîãí ëîàï ãëúéá éçãå ãîé
1. Question: Granted, R. Yonason does not expound "Achas." He should say that since it is written umi'Dam, it is as if it is written "together"!
ëãàùëçï áô' ùúé îãåú (ì÷îï ö:) ããøéù ø' éåðúï àå îï äöàï ìåîø øöä àçã îáéà øöä ùðéí îáéà îùåí ãëúéá áàéãê ÷øà åîï äöàï ëîàï ãëúéá éçãå ãîé
i. We find like this below (90b). R. Yonason expounds "Oh Min ha'Tzon" to teach that [if one who vowed to bring an Olah,] if he wants, he brings one (a bull or Seh), and if he wants, he brings two (both). Since it says in another verse "u'Min ha'Tzon", it is as if it wrote "together"...
(åéù ìåîø ãäúí) [ö"ì åäúí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ôéøù á÷åðè' ããøéù îãùðé ÷øà áãéáåøéä ãëúéá îï äá÷ø åîï äöàï
ii. And there Rashi explained that he expounds since the verse changed its expression, for it is written "Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon"!
åîéäå àéï æä ëì ëê ùéðåé ãìà äåä îöé ìîëúá åîï äá÷ø ãúøåééäå ìôøåùé îï äáäîä ÷àúé åãîéà îï äá÷ø åîï äöàï )ìãí äôø åìãí äùòéø äàé ãëúéá( [ö"ì ìîãí äôø åîãí äùòéø ãäàé îãëúéá - öàï ÷ãùéí] åé''å ìàåñåôé äëà ðîé åé''å ìàåñåôé
2. Answer: This is not such a change, for it could not have written 'u'Min ha'Bakar', for both of them (Bakar and Tzon) come to explain "Min ha'Behemah." "Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon" is like "mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir", for since it is written [the prefix] Vov, it is to add. Also here the Vov is to add!
åà''ú åîàï ãàîø àéï îòøáéï îðà ìéä òåìéï åîéï áîéðå
(c) Question: The one who says that we do not mix [for the corners], what is his source [that Bitul does not apply to] Olin or Min b'Mino?
åé''ì ãðô÷à ìäå îãëúéá ãí ãí ëãàéúà áæáçéí áô' äúòøåáåú (ãó ôà. åò''ù úå' ã''ä úðàé)
(d) Answer: He learns from the two times that "Dam" is written, like it says in Zevachim (81a).
åà''ú áôø÷ äðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ðã:) âáé òøìä åëìàé äëøí ÷àîø øáé éäåãä ðôìå àâåæé ôøê åðúôöòå (áùåââ éòìå áîæéã) [ö"ì àçã ùåââ åàçã îæéã - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìà éòìå
(e) Question #1: In Gitin (54b) regarding Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem [that became mixed with Heter], R. Yehudah said that if nuts of Parech (they are important, and they are never Batel when they are whole) fell and broke, whether [they fell] b'Shogeg or b'Mezid, they are not Batel;
åäúí îéï áîéðå äåà åîùîò äúí îãàåøééúà áøåáà áèéì àìà îùåí ã÷ðéñ ëãàîøéðï äúí
1. There it is Min b'Mino, and it connotes there that mid'Oraisa, it is Batel in a majority, but [it is not Batel] due to a fine, like we say there!
åëì úøåîä ðîé îåãä ø' éäåãä ãòåìä áàçã åîàä ëãîåëç áôø÷ ðåèì (ùáú ÷îá.) ã÷àîø ø' éäåãä îòìéï àú äîãåîò áàçã åîàä
(f) Question #2: Also all Terumah, R. Yehudah agrees that it is Batel in 101, like is proven in Shabbos (142a), for R. Yehudah said that we are Maileh Meduma (remove from a mixture of Terumah and Chulin an amount equal to the Terumah, to permit the rest) when there are 101 [measures of mixture for each measure of Terumah].
åé''ì ããáø ìç äîúòøá éôä áëì ùäåà àáì ãáø éáù áèéì ùôéø åìà âøñéðï áâéèéï (ãó ðã:) ðôìå ìâú åðúôöòå ãìà îééøé áìç àìà áéáù
(g) Answer #1: Something wet mixes well. [Min b'Mino, it forbids] any amount. However, something dry is properly Batel. The text does not say in Gitin (54b) "they fell into the winepress and broke", for it does not discuss wet, rather, dry.
åäà ã÷àîø áçåìéï (ãó ÷.) ãçúéëä àçú àåñøú ëì äçúéëåú ùäï îéðä
1. Implied question: It says in Chulin (100a) that one piece forbids all the pieces that are the same Min!
èòí äîúòøá ëìç ãîé
2. Answer: Taste that mixes is like wet.
åáñåó îñëú áéöä (ãó ìç:) ãàîøé' çéèéï áçéèéï ðîé ðäé ãìøáé éäåãä ìà áèéì ìøáðï îáèéì áèéì
3. Implied question: In Beitzah (38b), we say that also wheat mixed with wheat, granted, according to R. Yehudah it is not Batel, but according to Rabanan it should be Batel!
á÷îç îééøé ùîúòøá éôä åëìç ãîé àáì çéèéï áçéèéï òöîï áèìé
4. Answer: It discusses flour, which mixes well. It is like wet. However, wheat in wheat itself is Batel [even according to R. Yehudah].
úãò ãäà ãàîø (çéèéï åùòåøéï á÷îç îééøé ùîúòøá) [ö"ì äúí ãçéèéï åùòåøéï áèìé ãåå÷à á÷îç îééøé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãàé ëáøééúí ëéåï ãîéðëøé ìà áèìé
5. Proof: What it says there that wheat and barley are Batel refers only to flour. If they are intact, since they are recognizable, they are not Batel.
åëòðéï æä îôøù ø''ú ãäà ãàîø ø' éåçðï áñåó îñëú ò''æ (ãó òâ:) ùúé ëåñåú àçã ùì çåìéï åàçã ùì úøåîä ùîæâï åðúòøáå æä áæä ñì÷ àú îéðå ëîé ùàéðå åùàéðå îéðå øáä òìéå åîáèìå
(h) Support: R. Tam explained that R. Yochanan's teaching in Avodah Zarah (73b), that two cups, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, that they were diluted [with water] and mixed with each other, we remove Mino (the Chulin wine) as if it is not, and Eino Mino (the water) is the majority over it (the Terumah) and is Mevatel it.
ã÷ùéà ìéä ëéåï ãúøåîä òåìä á÷''à àí ëï (îéï áîéðå) [ö"ì îéðå - öàï ÷ãùéí] ðîé éñééò ìùàéðå îéðå ìáèì äúøåîä
1. Question (R. Tam): Since Terumah is Batel in 101, also Mino should help Eino Mino to be Mevatel the Terumah!
àìà ùîò îéðä ãáîéðå áîùäå
2. Answer: Rather, this shows that b'Mino [forbids] any amount.
åäà ãàîø øáé éåçðï äúí ãëì àéñåøéí ùáúåøä áîéðï áðåúï èòí çåõ îèáì åééï ðñê åìà çùéá úøåîä
3. Implied question: R. Yochanan taught there (73b) that all Isurim in the Torah, b'Minan forbid if they give taste, except for Tevel and Yayin Nesech. He did not list Terumah!
îùåí ãáëìì èáì äåà åçã èòîà ìúøååééäå ãîôøù äúí èòîà ãèáì ãëäéúéøå ëê àéñåøå ãçéèä àçú ôåèøú àú äëøé
4. Answer: It is because [Terumah] is included in Tevel. There is one reason for both of them. He explains there the reason for Tevel - its Isur is like its Heter. One wheat [kernel, if it is made Terumah] exempts the entire stack (so it forbids any amount);
åäåà äãéï úøåîä ëòìééúä ëê àéñåøä
i. The same applies to Terumah. Like it is separated (any amount exempts the entire stack), so is its Isur;
åáëì ãåëúé ãúøåîä òåìä áàçã åîàä áãáø éáù
5. Everywhere we say that Terumah is Batel in 101. This is in a dry matter.
åîúðéúéï ãùúé îðçåú ùìà ð÷îöå ãìà îáèìé ìéä ùéøééí ìèéáìà ãîå÷îé ì÷îï ëø' éäåãä
(i) Implied question: Our Mishnah of two Menachos from which Kemitzah was not taken, that the Shirayim are not Mevatel the Tevel, below (23b) we establish it like R. Yehudah!
áîðçú ñåìú àééøé ùîúòøá ìâîøé (áãáø) [ö"ì åäåé ëãáø - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìç åìà áîàôä úðåø åîçáú åîøçùú
(j) Answer: It discusses Minchas Soles, which totally mixes, and it is like a wet matter. It does not discuss Ma'afe Tanur, Machavas or Marcheshes;
åääéà ãì÷îï ãðáéìä áùçåèä áùðéîåçä
1. And the case below (23b) of Neveilah and Shechutah [mixed together] is when they dissolved.
åäøá øáéðå éåí èåá îôìð''å ä÷ùä ìøáéðå úí îääéà ãôñçéí (ãó ë:) ãçáéú ùì úøåîä ùðùáøä áâú äòìéåðä åúçúéä çåìéï èîàéï ãàîøéðï äúí (ãó ëà.) ãàí ðôìä ìîàä çåìéï ãáøé äëì úøã åúèîà
(k) Question (R. Yom Tov of Plano, to R. Tam): In Pesachim (20b), it says that if a barrel of Terumah broke in the upper winepress and below is Tamei Chulin (and the only way to stop it from falling and mixing is to catch it with a Tamei Kli, which is overtly Metamei it), we say there that if it fell (i.e. will fall) into 100 [parts] of Chulin, all agree that [he lets] it fall and become Tamei (for the mixture will be permitted);
àìîà àôé' ãáø ìç òåìä áàçã åîàä
1. Inference: Even a wet matter is Batel in 101!
åðøàä ùëîå ëï äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú îääéà (ùì ùàåø) [ö"ì ãùàåø - öàï ÷ãùéí] åùì çåìéï åùì úøåîä ùðôìå áòéñä ãàéï ìç (åîúòøá) [ö"ì îúòøá - öàï ÷ãùéí] éúø îîðå
2. Observation: It seems that similarly he could have asked from the case of Se'or (sourdough) of Chulin and of Terumah that fell into a dough (Pesachim 26b). Something wet does not mix more than this!
åòåã áîñ' úøåîåú ôø÷ ñàä úøåîä áúåñôúà ìåâ ééï öìåì ùðôì ìúåê îàä ìåâéï òëåøéï éòìä
3. Also, a Tosefta in Terumos (6:9) teaches that if a Log of clear [Terumah] wine fell into 100 Lugim of cloudy wine, it is Batel!
åçæø áå ø''ú ãåãàé àéï çéìå÷ áéï ìç ìéáù
(l) Retraction: R. Tam retracted. Surely there is no difference between wet and dry.
åúéøõ ãäà ãúøåîä òåìä áàçã åîàä áðôìä ìúåê çåìéï îúå÷ðéï ãàé àôùø ìîáèì ãäééðå äçåìéï ìéòùåú ëáèì ãäééðå äúøåîä
(m) Answer #2 (R. Tam): Terumah is Batel in 101 when it fell into fixed Chulin (from which Terumah was taken). It is impossible for the Mevatel, i.e. the Chulin, to be like the Batel, i.e. Terumah;
1. Note: This is clearly an answer to Question #2. It also answers Question #1. Since the Peros were detached, Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem cannot become Heter, or vice-versa.
åääéà ãùðé ëåñåú àçã ùì úøåîä åàçã ùì çåìéï áçåìéï ùàéðí îúå÷ðéï ãàôùø ìäå ìéòùåú úøåîä
2. The case of two cups, one of Terumah and one of Chulin [discusses Chulin] that was not fixed. It is possible for the Chulin to become Terumah;
åñáø ìä ø' éåçðï ëî''ã ì÷îï áúø îáèì (àæìé øáðï) [ö"ì àæìéðï - öàï ÷ãùéí] åäåä ìéä îéï áîéðå
3. R. Yochanan holds like the opinion below (23b) that we follow the Mevatel (if it can become like the Batel, it is Mevatel), so it is [considered] Min b'Mino.
åääéà ãôñçéí (âí æä ùí) ìà ÷ùéà àó ìî''ã áúø áèì àæìéðï ãîù÷éí ìëé îñøçé àéï ùí îù÷ä òìéäï åìà àôùø ìä ìúøåîä ùúéòùä çåìéï
4. The case in Pesachim (21a) is not difficult even for the opinion that it depends on the Batel, for when liquids spoil, they are not considered liquids, so Terumah cannot become like Chulin. (Even though the Isur vanishes when it spoils, then it is not like Chulin wine.)
åà''ú åèáì áîéðå áîùäå äéëé îùëçú ìä äà àé àôùø ìîáèì ãäééðå äçåìéï ùéòùå èáì
(n) Question: How do we find that Tevel forbids b'Mashehu? The Mevatel, i.e. the Chulin, cannot become Tevel!
åé''ì ùðôì èáì èáåì ìúøåîä áèáì ùàéðå èáåì ìúøåîä ãäåé îéï áîéðå ëéåï ãùí èáì òì ùðéäí
(o) Answer #1: Tevel from which Terumah was not taken fell into Tevel from which Terumah was taken (but Ma'aser was not taken, so it is considered Tevel). This is Min b'Mino, since both are called Tevel.
àé ðîé èáì ùøàä ôðé äáéú áèáì ùìà øàä ôðé äáéú
(p) Answer #2: Tevel that was brought into the house [became mixed with] Tevel that was not brought into the house.
àé ðîé àôéìå ðôì ìçåìéï îúå÷ðéï åáòåãä ìúøåîä áéã áòìéí ãàôùø ìàéúùåìé òìä
(q) Answer #3: Even if Tevel fell into fixed Chulin, and while the owner still has the Terumah, it is possible to ask (retract his declaration of Terumah, like Hataras Nedarim, and the Terumah reverts to be Tevel).
åäùúà ãàúéðï ìäëé àéëà ìàå÷åîé àåúä ãùðé ëåñåú áçåìéï îúå÷ðéï ëâåï ãúøåîä áéã áòìéí åääéà ãôñçéí áúøåîä áéã ëäï
1. According to this, we can establish the case of two cups to discuss fixed Chulin, e.g. the owner still has the Terumah. The case in Pesachim is when the Kohen has the Terumah (one cannot ask then).
åòåã éù ìééùá úé' øàùåï ãø''ú åääéà ãôñçéí ëø' çééà ãì÷îï ãàéú ìéä ìø' éäåãä ðáéìä åùçåèä áèéìåú æå (àú æå) [ö"ì áæå - éùø åèåá]
(r) Defense #1 (of Answer #1, of R. Tam): The case in Pesachim (21a) is like R. Chiya below (23b), who holds that according to R. Yehudah, Neveilos and Shechutos are Batel in each other. (It suffices that the Mevatel can become like the Batel, or vice-versa);
åìäëé çùéá äúí îéï áùàéðå îéðå (áîùäå) [ö"ì ìòðéï îùäå - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] åàò''ô ùçùåáéï îéï åîéðå ìòðéï àçã åîàä ãìà ñâé ìäå áùùéí
1. Therefore, it is considered Min b'Eino Mino regarding Mashehu, even though they are considered Min b'Mino regarding 101, and 60 does not suffice (like it does for Min b'Eino Mino. Ayeles ha'Shachar did not understand the distinction. Yad Binyamin explains that this is because they have the same taste.)
àáì øáé éåçðï ãìà ëøáé çééà ãäëé ðîé îåëç ì÷îï ãìàå ëåìé òìîà àéú ìäå ãø' çééà
2. However, R. Yochanan does not hold like R. Chiya. It is proven below (23b) that not all hold like R. Chiya.
åäê îùðä ãàéï ãí îáèì ãí ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ì÷îï ãìøá çñãà ãàæéì áúø îáèì äåéà ãìà ëøáé çééà
3. This Mishnah (Zevachim 78a) that blood is not Mevatel blood, Rashi explained below (23b DH l'Olam) that according to Rav Chisda, who says that [Bitul] depends on the Mevatel (that it cannot become like the Batel, the Mishnah) is unlike R. Chiya;
åàôé' ìø' çðéðà ãàæéì áúø áèì ðøàä ãàéëà èåáà ãääéà ãàéï øå÷ îáèì øå÷ åàéï îé øâìéí îáèì îé øâìéí åâáé ãí ëéñåé (çåìéï ãó ôæ:) ùðúòøá áãí áäîä ãà''ø éäåãä àéï ãí îáèì ãí
4. And even according to R. Chanina, who says that it depends on the Batel, it seems that there are many [Tana'ic teachings unlike R. Chiya, e.g.] saliva is not Mevatel saliva, and urine is not Mevatel urine (Zevachim 79a), and regarding blood of (a bird or Chayah, which requires) Kisuy ha'Dam that became mixed with Dam Behemah (Chulin 87b), R. Yehudah said that blood is not Mevatel blood...
ëåìäå àé àôùø ìæä ìäéåú ëæä àôé' ìø' çðéðà
5. In all of these, one cannot become like the other, even according to R. Chanina;
ãìà ãîé ìãí ÷ãùéí ãàéôùø ìäéåú ëçåìéï ëîå ùôé' ä÷åðèøñ ì÷îï (ãó ëâ:) ãëùéìéï ìéìä àçã éöàå î÷ãåùúï ëçåìéï
i. It is unlike Dam Kodshim which can become Chulin, like Rashi explained below (23b) that after Linah of one night it loses its Kedushah, and it is like Chulin.
åëì ñúîà ãäù''ñ ìøá çñãà ãìà ëø' çééà ãàîø áôø÷ âéã äðùä (ùí ÷.) çúéëä òöîä ðòùéú ðáéìä åàåñøú ëì äçúéëåú ìø' éäåãä
6. According to Rav Chisda, the entire Stam Gemara is unlike R. Chiya, e.g. what [Rav] says in Chulin (100a) that a piece itself [that absorbed the taste of Isur] becomes Neveilah (i.e. like pure Isur) and forbids all the pieces according to R. Yehudah...
åâáé æøåò áùéìä ã÷àîø ìà ðöøëä [ö"ì àìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìøáé éäåãä ã÷àîø îéï áîéðå ìà áèéì
7. And regarding the cooked foreleg (of Eil Nazir - Chulin 98b, Abaye) said that it is a Chidush only according to R. Yehudah, who says that Min b'Mino is not Batel.
åâáé öéø ã÷à''ø éäåãä ùéòåøä (áîàúéí) [ö"ì áñàúéí - éùø åèåá] åôøéê ãäà àîø ø' éäåãä îéï áîéðå ìà áèéì åîùðé ëå'
8. And regarding [fish] brine, R. Yehudah says that its Shi'ur for Bitul is [one Revi'is in] two Sa'im (192 Reviyos), and it asks that R. Yehudah said that Min b'Mino is not Batel, and answers [that brine is different...]
åääéà ãáéöä ãîéï áîéðå [ö"ì ìà áèéì - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìøáé éäåãä åãí úáåñä ãàîø áðãä (ãó òà.) (ãàîø àéï) [ö"ì ãàéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãí îáèì ãí ìøáé éäåãä åàôé' ìø' çðéðà ö''ò ãðøàä ùéù îäðê ùäáàúé ãìà ëøáé çééà
(s) Question: The case in Beitzah (38b, wheat mixed with wheat) of Min b'Mino is not Batel according to R. Yehudah, and Dam Tevusah, which it says in Nidah (71b) that blood is not Mevatel blood according to R. Yehudah, and even according to R. Chanina - this requires investigation, for it seems that there are [Tana'ic teachings] from those that I brought unlike R. Chiya.
1. Note: Even Rav, the Talmid of R. Chiya, was a Tana, and he can argue with Tana'im. All the more so R. Chiya can! However, it is difficult to say that he argues with all the sources Tosfos brought, and says that they all erred about R. Yehudah's opinion.
åòåã éù ìééùá úéøåõ ø''ú ùîçì÷ áéï ìç ìéáù åìà ÷ùä ääéà ãôñçéí (ãó ëà.) ìøáé éåçðï ãìàå àìéáà ãë''ò ÷àîø èáì åééï ðñê áîùäå ãîåãä øáé éåçðï ãìøáðï (ãøáé éäåãä) áðåúï èòí
(t) Defense #2 (of Answer #1): R. Tam distinguished between wet and dry. The case in Pesachim (21a) is not difficult for R. Yochanan, for he did not say according to everyone that Tevel and Yayin Nesech forbid any amount. R. Yochanan admits that according to Rabanan of R. Yehudah, b'Nosen Ta'am [forbids];
àìà øáé éåçðï ñáø ëøáðï áùàø àéñåøé åëøáé éäåãä áèáì åééï ðñê åëï áøééúà ãúðéà ëååúéä
1. Rather, R. Yochanan holds like Rabanan regarding other Isurim, and like R. Yehudah regarding Tevel and Yayin Nesech, and so [holds] the Beraisa like [R. Yochanan].
åäùúà ääéà ãôñçéí (â''æ ùí) ëøáðï ãîéï áîéðå áèéì áëì î÷åí åäùúà àéëà ùìùä îçìå÷ú ùì úðàéí áãáø
(u) Consequence: Now, the Gemara in Pesachim (about Terumah wine falling into Chulin) is like Rabanan, that Min b'Mino is Batel everywhere. There is a three-way argument among Tana'im about this:
ãäà úðéà ëååúéä ãøáé éåçðï
1. There is a Beraisa like R. Yochanan (only Tevel and Yayin Nesech forbid any amount);
åäãúðéà áô' äðåãø îï äéø÷ (ðãøéí ðç. ò''ù) ëìì àîø ø''ù ëì ãáø ùéù ìå îúéøéï ëå'
2. And the Beraisa in Nedarim (58a) "R. Shimon said a general rule. Anything that has Matirin [is not Batel. Anything without Matirin has a Shi'ur for Bitul]"...
àîøå ìå äøé ùáéòéú ùàéï ìä îúéøéï åúðï äùáéòéú àåñøú ëì ùäåà áîéðä àîø ìäí ìà àîøå ùáéòéú áîéðä àìà ìáéòåø àáì ìàëéìä ìà
3. [Rabanan] said to him, "Shevi'is has no Matirin, and a Mishnah teaches that Shevi'is forbids any amount b'Mino!" He said to them, "it was taught that Shevi'is [forbids any amount] b'Mino only for Bi'ur, but not for eating."
ìà îöé ìîéôøê (îèáì åééï) [ö"ì îééï - éùø åèåá] ðñê ãäúí ñáéøà ëøáðï ãëì àéñåøéï áèìéï àôé' îéï áîéðå
4. [Rabanan] could not ask from Yayin Nesech, for there they hold like Rabanan [of R. Yehudah], that all Isurim are Batel even Min b'Mino.
åäùúà ðéçà äà ãúðéà áúåñôúà ééï ðñê ùðôì òì âáé òðáéí éãéçí òì âáé ééï é÷ìó àú äééï åäùàø îåúø àò''ô ùàé àôùø ùìà éùàø ùí îùäå ééï
(v) Support: Now it is fine that a Tosefta teaches that if Yayin Nesech fell on grapes, he rinses them. [If it fell] on [congealed] wine, he peels off a layer from the wine, and the rest is permitted, even though it is impossible that Mashehu does not remain from the Yayin [Nesech].
àáì ÷ùéà îääéà ãúðéà áúåñ' ãèáåì éåí âáé çáéú ùðé÷áä áéï îôéä áéï îöéãéä áéï îùåìéä èîàä øáé éäåãä àåîø îôéä åîùåìéä èîàä
(w) Question: A Tosefta in Tevul Yom (2:4) is difficult, regarding a barrel punctured, whether from its mouth, sides or bottom (and a Tevul Yom touched the liquid through the hole), it is Tamei. R. Yehudah says, from its mouth or bottom it is Tamei;
îôéä îôðé ùîù÷ä (îúîéê) [ö"ì îùåê - áúåñôúà ùí] ìúåê éãå îùåìéä îôðé ùäîù÷ä âøåã òì âáé éãå îï äöããéï éòìä áàçã åîàä
1. From its mouth [it is Tamei] because the liquid is a Bosis and is drawn under his hand (Chasdei David). From its bottom [it is Tamei] because the liquid follows his hand (if he removes it, all will leave). From the side (the place he touched is Tamei, and) it is Batel in 101 (the other liquid in the barrel)!
åäøá øáéðå éöç÷ úéøõ äà ãéãéä äà ãøáéä (áôø÷) [ö"ì ãáôø÷ - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] äúòøåáåú (æáçéí òè.) àîø øáé éäåãä îùåí øáï âîìéàì àéï ãí îáèì ãí åääéà ãäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ðã:) (øàéä) [ö"ì ãéãéä - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(x) Answer (R. Yitzchak): [R. Yehudah] taught one according to his own opinion, and one according to his Rebbi, for in Zevachim (79a) R. Yehudah taught in the name of R. Gamliel that blood is not Mevatel blood, and in Gitin (54b) he taught his own opinion.
åäëé îùðé àáéé áô' äúòøåáåú (ùí ãó òç:)
1. Support: Abaye answers like this in Zevachim (78b).
àáì ÷ùéà ãøáà ôìéâ äúí òìéä
(y) Question: Rava argues with [Abaye] there!
åéù òåã ìôøù ãääéà ãùðé ëåñåú (ùì äééï ùì çåìéï) [ö"ì äééï ùì úøåîä - éùø åèåá] öøéê îàä ùì çåìéï åëàï àéï (öøéê) îàä ëðâã úøåîä áéï ééï ùì çåìéï åîéí
(z) Answer #3 (regarding cups of Terumah wine): The case of two cups, the Terumah wine needs 100 [times as much as] Chulin wine, and here there is not 100 corresponding to the Terumah, including the Chulin wine and water;
[ö"ì ùàí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùáëåñ ùì úøåîä ùìùä çì÷éí îéí åáëåñ ùì çåìéï çîùéí åùáòä çì÷éí îéí ëðâã äúøåîä åùìéù îäééï ùáëåñ ùì çåìéï é''è îàåúï çì÷éí äøé áéï ëì äîéí åäééï ùì çåìéï àéï òåìéï àìà ìùáòéí åúùòä çì÷éí ëðâã äúøåîä
1. If the Terumah cup has three parts of water, and the Chulin cup has 57 parts of water, and a third of the [water in the diluted] wine in the Chulin cup is 19 [parts of wine] corresponding to the amount of Terumah, between all the water and Chulin wine there are only 79 parts corresponding to the Terumah;
åâí àí éäéä îæåâ ùðé çì÷éí îéí åàçã ééï àéï áéï ééï ùì çåìéï åäîéí îàä çì÷éí ëðâã äúøåîä ìëï àéï éëåì äééï ùì çåìéï ìäöèøó òí äîéí ëé áéèåì àéðå àìà áîàä åäøé àéï îàä áéï äëì
2. Also if it is diluted two parts of water and one of wine, [when there are 60 times as much water as Terumah], there are not between the Chulin wine and water 100 times as much as the Terumah (like Tosfos will explain). Therefore, the Chulin wine cannot join with the water, for Bitul is only in 100, and there is not 100 in all;
ëé îæâ ëåñ äúøåîä ùðé çì÷éí åîé äëåñ ùì çåìéï çîùéí åùîðä çì÷éí åàí ëï äééï ùì çåìéï òùøéí åúùòä çì÷éí äøé ëàï ùîåðéí åúùòä çì÷éí åìà éåúø
i. The dilution of the Terumah cup is two parts of water, and the water in the Chulin cup is 58 parts, and if so the Chulin wine is 29 parts, there are 89 [in all] and not more. Therefore, the Chulin wine cannot join with the water, for Bitul is only in 100, and there is not 100 in all;
åàôéìå éù îàä áéï äëì éù ìåîø ãùîà ìà éöèøôå äîéí ìîàä åäééï ìùùéí:
ii. And even if there are 100 in all, we can say that perhaps they do not join - the water does not join [to wine to be Mevatel in] 100, and the wine does not join [to water to be Mevatel in] 60. (Birkas ha'Zevach - i.e. if we would not say "remove Mino as if it were not", the Chulin wine would be forbidden, for there is not 100 times as much as the Terumah wine, and all would be forbidden, for the water is not 60 times as much as the Chulin and Terumah wine together.)