Remark: It should have said "since they season" [for we discuss when they fell into a pot], like I explained above (76a Sof DH Ho'il).

Question: What is the case? If they give taste, even other species also [join]. If they do not give taste, even things that do not improve do not [join]!

Answer (Ri): Even if they give taste, it is permitted regarding other species, since they give detrimental taste.

Rejection: This text is wrong. It connotes [urine] of a 40-day old baby;

In Nidah (62a), regarding seven ingredients [that we pass over a stain to test whether or not it is blood], it teaches all these listed here, and urine, and the Gemara asks whether it is of a child or of an old man!

Alternative text: Some texts say "of 40 days."

Rebuttal: Also there, a Beraisa (63a) teaches "and urine that soured." When it souring? It is after three days."

Conclusion: It seems that the correct text is like Seforim that say "until 40 days." From three days until 40 days one passes [the urine] over a stain. Within three days or after 40 days, one does not pass it.

Implied question: Above (80b), it gives a different Shi'ur for sand, i.e. in order to put on a spoon of plaster!

Answer #1 (Rabbeinu Meir): There we discuss sand that is put in plaster. Here we discuss sand that is used to whiten garments.

Answer #2: According to texts that say here "Boris is aloe", this is fine.

Implied question: Above, why didn't we answer that there are two kinds of sand?

Answer #1: [The Tartzan] knew that there are not two kinds.

Answer #2: Some texts say above "Boris is aloe." According to this, it is fine. The Gemara means that really, it is like we said initially, that Boris is aloe, and there are two kinds of aloe.

Question (Ri): It should have said that one may not give less than a Perutah, like a Beraisa teaches (Menachos 106b), that if one said "it is Alai to give gold [to Hekdesh]", he may not give less than a gold Dinar. If he said "it is Alai to give silver", he may not give less than a silver Dinar! (Sefas Emes - the Gemara there teaches this Shi'ur of copper! Perhaps Tosfos asks why the Beraisa did not teach about one who obligates himself to give coinage of copper, like it taught about gold and silver.)

Explanation (Aruch, Erech Kol): In the first Mikdash, due to its great Kedushah, there was no need for Kalya Orev (even without it, ravens would not perch on it).

Rejection: In Mo'ed Katan (9a) it is explicitly proven that in the first Mikdash, there was Kalya Orev! (Shabbos Shel Mi - the Aruch can agree to this. He teaches that in Bayis Rishon, ravens did not come even near the roof of the Heichal. This was not due to Kalya Orev, rather, due to its great Kedushah. Even so, in Bayis Sheni they built Kalya Orev, lest ravens come, for they knew that its Kedushah would not be as great.)

Question: What is the Chidush? Even if he was Motzi, and returned and was Motzi [in the same Helam], he is liable only once, just like one who reaped, and returned and reaped, and all the more so [if he did both] at once!

Even Rabah, who obligates [for each Melachah] according to R. Eliezer one who reaped, and returned and reaped (Kerisus 15a), in one Hotza'ah, obviously he is exempt (i.e. he is liable only once)!

Answer (R. Tam): We discuss when he found out about this species, atoned for it (brought a Chatas), and later found out about another species. Even so, he is exempt, for it is all like one matter.

Implied question: Below (93b), a Beraisa teaches that if [one was Motzi a Shi'ur of food in a Kli, and] he needed the Kli (for something else), he is liable even for the Kli, and Rav Ashi establishes it that he was Shogeg about both of them, and he found out [about one of them], and later found out [about the other], and it depends on the argument of R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish [whether he is liable twice only if he found out about the latter only after offering a Korban for the first, or even before offering it. Both are unlike R. Tam!]

Answer: Only regarding a Kli and food inside, Yedi'os (finding out at different times) separates (obligates another Korban), but for food inside the Kli, even Kaparah does not separate.

Citation: The Ri found in the Yerushalmi "if he was Motzi and Motzi again, surely he is liable only once!" Rather, it is needed according to R. Eliezer, lest you say that many species are like many Helamos, and he is liable for each. [Our Mishnah] teaches that this is not so."

Explanation: One might have thought that species separate, like R. Yehoshua said (above, 71a) that plates separate. However, it should have mentioned R. Yehoshua!

Explanation #1: Those [seeds] that are proper to sow (the Shi'ur is two).

Explanation #2: If in a place where it is normally to sow them, Stam they are for sowing.

Remark: If he explicitly was Motzi them for sowing, it says below (91a) that R. Meir obligates even for one wheat [kernel] for sowing!

Explanation: It is proper to give them to a Nochri, or to sell them, but [not for his own pig, for] a Yisrael is forbidden to raise a pig.

Inference (Rashba): A Tahor Chagav (locust or grasshopper) need not be slaughtered, since it did not say "lest they say that he ate it without Shechitah."

Support #1: The first Tana says below that [one who does not give to his child] a live Tamei Chagav, lest it die and he will eat it. This is because it is permitted without Shechitah.

Support #2 (Tosefta - Terumos 9:6): One may eat Chagavim alive or dead.

Implied question: One may not eat them alive, due to Bal Teshaktzu!

Answer: In any case it is permitted to cut off a limb and eat it through washing it, and Ever Min ha'Chai (the Isur to eat from a live animal) does not apply to it.

Source: Rashi in Chulin (66a) cited Bahag, who derives that Chagavim do not require Shechitah, since it is written "v'Es Kol Nefesh ha'Chayah ha'Romeses ba'Mayim" - this refers to fish. "V'Es Kol Nefesh ha'Shoretzes" - these are Chagavim;

Since Chagavim are written after fish, this implies that that they do not require Shechitah, just like fish;

Even fowl, we would have totally exempted it [from the need to slaughter it] if not that it is equated to Behemah, like it says in Chulin (27b).

Inference: Shoshiva (a species of Chagav) is permitted.

Correction (R. Tam): In Avodah Zarah (37a) regarding "Eil Kamtza", Rav Papa explains that it is Shoshiva, and Rav Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Ula that it is Susbal;

It says there that if its head is long, i.e. Shoshiva, all agree that it is forbidden.

The text should not say "forbidden". Rather, it says that all agree that it is permitted, for here it connotes that Shoshiva is permitted, and the only concern is for Bal Teshaktzu.

Support: The Stam Mishnah in Chulin (65b) permits if its head is long. Therefore, it seems to R. Tam that the text [in Avodah Zarah] says "all agree that it is permitted."

Question (Ri): Why did [the Tana] need to teach this? It was already taught above (75b) "what is not proper to store away, only one who stores it away is liable"! (Sefas Emes - above, he stored less than a Shi'ur for eating. Here, it is primarily for eating, and he stored for Refu'ah or sowing, a Shi'ur proper for this, but less than the Shi'ur for eating. One might have thought that the owner's designation obligates others. Alternatively, the Rambam explains that above we discuss something that is not stored at all in the locale. Here we discuss when some people in the locale store it.)