Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Reisha, which does not distinguish, discusses when they overlap, and are close to each other. Therefore, there is a Safek about all of them.

Alternative text: In many Seforim, the text does not say "Reisha".

Explanation #2 (Ri): We can explain that the Seifa discusses Meshulavos. I.e. each is in her place. They are not close and mixed with each other.

Explanation #3: R. Chananel's text says "Meshalchefei Shalchufei". [In the Seifa] they are separated from each other.

Explanation: This refers to the sheets. Because the ground was dry, it did not absorb water in the sheets. The place of Tum'ah was dry.

Alternative text: Some texts say oppositely. The place of Tum'ah was wet, and it refers to the ground. It was wet due to the sheets. It absorbed, because it was soft and loose earth.

Support: R. Yochanan ben Zakai checked like this when he cut lupines (legumes) of Terumah, in the episode of R. Shimon in Shabbos (34a). (Aruch l'Ner points out that there it says that R. Shimon checked with a sheet. It does not say that R. Yochanan ben Zakai checked. Perhaps he knew where the Tum'ah was!)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Perhaps you killed, and it is forbidden to save you.

Explanation #2 (She'altos of Rav Achai): Perhaps you killed, and if I hide you, I am Chayav Misah to the king;

This illustrates "one must be concerned." One must be concerned for Leshon ha'Ra to believe it regarding this, to be careful that no loss come to himself or to others.

Implied question: Also Sichon was a remnant from the generation of the flood, since they were brothers!

Answer #1: Rather, he knows that this "remnant" was Og and not Sichon from this reason itself, that Moshe feared him.

Answer #2: Also, it says that Og found Avraham Avinu standing in the granaries to make Ugos (loaves) for Pesach, and therefore he was called Og;

Note: A marginal comment changes the text to "Pirkei d'R. Eliezer", but says that it is not in our version of it. It is found in Bereishis Rabah Perek 42.

This is brought [here] because it looks like Leshon ha'Ra, for it says in the Midrash that Og thought in his heart "I will tell Avraham, and he will fight and die, and I will marry Sarah his wife";

Even so, Moshe was afraid, lest the merit of Avraham stand for Og.

Question: Why must one pass [the ingredients] over it? Since it was lost, and it is not recognized, he is not adamant about it, and automatically it is Batel!

This is like R. Chiya taught below (62b). Vadai Dam Nidah, one passes the ingredients over it, and is Mevatel it;

Once he passed [the ingredients] over it, the appearance goes away, and he is not adamant about it any more, even though it is recognized! Rather, it depends on adamancy.

Answer: Here, it is properly called that he is not adamant about it, for if he does not find it now, perhaps he will find it another time.

Inference: If it is not found, it is Tahor.

Question: Above (61a), it says that according to R. Meir, anything with Chezkas Tum'ah is always Tamei until you know where the Tum'ah went;

Even Rabanan argue only about blood, like we said above "where did this blood come from?"!

Answer: Also this is like a mound. Perhaps it went away by itself, or it was laundered through something, without his knowledge;

Perhaps even R. Meir agrees here, for this is more common than saying that a raven came and took it.

Question: It should be Batel in the majority, like we ask in Temurah (34a) regarding a Nazir's hair that was woven in a garment; it must be burned. It should be Batel in the majority!

We answer [there] that the form of a bird was woven [with the hair]. It is important, and it is not Batel.

Answer: Bitul in the majority applies only when the Isur is mixed with Heter. However, Kil'ayim, both of them are permitted, and they are forbidden through a mixed together. The majority is forbidden, just like the minority.

Explanation (Rashi): It says that it was lost, for if he recognizes it, he uproots it from the garment, and it is permitted;

Similarly, we should say that if he recognizes it, it would be permitted to sell it to a Nochri even without uprooting it, and he could make a saddle from it, and all the more so shrouds for a Mes;

Since the Kil'ayim is recognized, a Yisrael would not buy it from a Nochri;

And similarly regarding a saddle, we are not concerned lest he reconsider to make it a garment, like the Mishnah in Kil'ayim (9:4) teaches that Kil'ayim does not apply to a saddle and shrouds for a Mes;

Alternatively, we are not concerned lest while it is a saddle, he will put it on his shoulder. (Maharam - this is a second reason why we are lenient only when it is recognized.)

The Seifa teaches that he may not put the saddle on his shoulder, even to take out fertilizer. However, we do not decree against Hatza'ah (spreading it under himself, due to Ha'alah, putting it on himself], since Ha'alah it is not common;

According to Torah law, only Ha'alah is forbidden, but one may spread it under himself;

Rabanan decreed [against Hatza'ah], even [if it is under] 10 mattresses one on top of the other, regarding other Kil'ayim, due to Ha'alah. When Ha'alah is not common, one may spread it under, even mid'Rabanan, as long as his skin does not touch them.

Distinction: However, if Kil'ayim was lost, one may not make a saddle, even though Ha'alah is not common, for the reason taught in Kil'ayim (9:2);

Citation (9:2): Kil'ayim does not apply to pillows and blankets, as long as his skin does not touch them. Because Ha'alah is not common, Chachamim did not decree against Hatza'ah.

Also regarding a saddle, we require that his skin does not touch them. Then, there is no concern lest a thread [of the saddle] wrap [itself on him].

Explanation: All the more so, if [the Kil'ayim] was not lost, one may [make from it] shrouds for a Mes, like it says in Kil'ayim (9:4) that Kil'ayim does not apply to shrouds;

It mentioned that it was lost for a bigger Chidush, like I explained. Even though it is forbidden to sell it to a Nochri or to make it a donkey saddle, [one may make shrouds from it];

Since one may not benefit from [shrouds], people do not use them, and one will not come to sell it to a Nochri [or make it a saddle].

Question: [If one makes shrouds from Kil'ayim,] Lo'eg l'Rash applies. He clothes [the Mes] in something forbidden, and shows that [the Mes] no longer has a share in Mitzvos, like it says in Menachos (41a) regarding Tzitzis;

Citation (41a): At that time (burial), surely we put Tzitzis [on the shrouds] due to Lo'eg l'Rash!

Answer (Rashbam): There is no Isur even for a living person in such a case, for the Mes does not benefit from [the shrouds].

Question: Also Tzitzis, there is no obligation for a living person if he does not benefit from wearing it, and [therefore] clothes vendors who are exempt from Kil'ayim (because they do not intend to benefit from wearing them) are exempt also from Tzitzis [and even so, we must put Tzitzis on the shrouds due to Lo'eg l'Rash]!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Lo'eg l'Rash applies only to Tzitzis, because it is equivalent to all the Mitzvos, like we learn in Menachos (43b) from "u'Zkartem Es Kol Mitzvos Hash-m."

Implied question: It says in Brachos (18a) that R. Chiya told R. Yonason "raise your corners [with Tzitzis], lest [the Mesim] say tomorrow (i.e. later) they will [die and] come to us, and now they mock us! (If also Mesim have Tzitzis on their shrouds, what is the mockery?)

Answer: Even though Mesim have Tzitzis, even so, since we show in front of them that we fulfill Mitzvos, and they are not commanded, this is called Lo'eg l'Rash.

Question #1: Nowadays, we normally remove Tzitzis from the Talis of Mesim. How is this? It says in Menachos (41a) that l'Chatchilah we put Tzitzis on garments of Mesim, due to Lo'eg l'Rash!

Implied question: Regarding those who died in the Midbar, we find (Bava Basra 74a) that they have Tzitzis!

Answer: This is not difficult. Every Tish'ah b'Av, they used to enter their graves alive, and the next day an announcement was made "the living should separate from the dead", like it says in Eichah Rabsi;

However, our custom is astounding, based on from Menachos (41a). (Question #1 remains.)

Answer (Ri): In the days of Chachamim, everyone wore Tzitzis. If they would not have also in death, it would be a great mockery, as if [the ones who put the shrouds on] said "since he is dead, he no longer needs Tzitzis";

However, nowadays not everyone wears Tzitzis while alive. If they would put Tzitzis for all [in death], it would be more Lo'eg l'Rash, for in his lifetime he did not fulfill, and in his death he fulfills?!

Suggestion: We should put for one who had [Tzitzis] while alive, and not for one who did not!

Rejection: If so, the living would be ashamed, like it says below (71a) "initially, they used to immerse for dead Nidos [Kelim that they used shortly before death]. Living [Nidos] were embarrassed [that they will be different even after death], so they enacted to immerse for all women."

Support (for our custom is to remove Tzitzis) - Citation (Semachos 12:11): Aba Sha'ul commanded his sons to bury him at the foot of his father, and to remove Tzitzis from his garment.

Disclaimer: However, Aba Sha'ul's reason is not clear.

Question: Why didn't Rav Yosef say so about the Mishnah in Kil'ayim? It explicitly teaches that Kil'ayim does not apply to shrouds!

Answer: That Mishnah connotes only that as long as he is dead, he has no Isur of Kil'ayim;

However, here it teaches that l'Chatchilah one may make shrouds from Kil'ayim, even though when the Mes will be revived in the future, he will be revived in the clothes in which he was buried. This teaches that Mitzvos will be Batel in the future.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Targum of "Chalak" is She'i'a. They smooth it together with a comb, and spin [the fibers] together, and Nuz is woven;

Rabanan decreed about woven without Shu'a and spun.

Objection #1: If so, how does one find Kil'ayim in Tzitzis [mid'Oraisa], that we need a verse to permit [in order to fulfill the Mitzvos of Techeles]? The threads of Techeles are smoothed with a comb and spun by themselves!

Objection #2: If Nuz is woven, what was the question "I can say that it is Shu'a or Tavuy or Nuz"? How can Shu'a or Tavuy be Kil'ayim without Nuz? The weaving connects it!

Objection #3: Why do we need a verse (i.e. part of the word Sha'atnez) "Nuz" to teach about woven? We know this from "Yachdav". We expound from this (Yevamos 5b) that two stitches [are a connection], and all the more so woven!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Mid'Oraisa, it says Sha'atnez - it must be Shu'a Tavuy v'Nuz, each [thread] Shu'a by itself, and also spun by itself, and also Nuz by itself, and afterwards "Yachdav" to connect them;

The explanation of Nuz is Shazur (twined), like it says in Mishnayos (Kil'ayim 9:8) Nuz - Naluz u'Maliz to his Father in Heaven, Itzavash in old French, an expression of "Ikesh u'Pesaltol" (crooked and twisted);

Therefore, we need a verse to permit Kil'ayim in Tzitzis, for threads of Mitzvos are twined, like it says in Sifri "Pesil Techeles" - it must be spun and twined. This teaches about Techeles. What is the source for white (the other threads)? The Torah says to put Techeles threads, and white. Just like Techeles are twined, also white are twined.

Explanation #2 (cont.): We learn woven from Yachdav, like I explained. Threads of linen [mentioned here] were not twined.

The Gemara asks "I can say or it is Shu'a, each by itself, and afterwards he connected them, or Tavuy each by itself, and afterwards he connected them, or Nuz each by itself, and afterwards he connected them!"

It answers that the Halachah follows Mar Zutra, since the Torah taught [Shu'a Tavuy and Nuz] in one word. (See also Tosfos Yevamos 5b DH Ad. He asks from the Mishnah, which says "one is liable only for what is spun and woven, for it says Sha'atnez - Shu'a Tavuy v'Nuz.")