R. Ba bar Mamal and R. Heila brought a case in front of R. Yosa. They wanted to say that two (Chizkiyah and R. Yosi bei R. Nehurai, who say that it is Batel) are the majority over one (R. Yochanan);

They had not heard that R. Simon said in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi that Tevel is not Batel in a majority. (There are two opinions on each side.)

Question (against Reish Lakish - Mishnah): [If one puts Se'or Tevel in a dough that its Chalah was taken -] if not (he has no Parnasah elsewhere), he takes one [Chalah] for everything.

Answer (R. Yosi): All agree that he separates. What do they argue about? A second separation (like we will explain);

The one who says that Tevel is Batel in a majority, if he separated [Chalah] and it fell to another place (Chulin), he is not concerned [to do] another separation (for what he separated was a mere stringency mid'Rabanan). The one who says that Tevel is not Batel in a majority, if he separated [Chalah] and it fell to another place, he is concerned [to do] another separation.

Note: They argue about whether or not the new mixture is Meduma. Why does it say that they argue about a second separation? This teaches that the one who says that Tevel is Batel, the Chalah is Batel in the new dough and he need not separate anything; this is not Gezel ha'Shevet. The one who says that Tevel is not Batel, if the Chalah fell into less than 100 times its volume, it forbids the mixture. If there are 100 parts for Bitul, he must take another Chalah, due to Gezel ha'Shevet. (PF)

(R. Ba): In what case do R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue [about whether or not Tevel is Batel in a majority]? It is about Tevel that is Tevel mid'Oraisa, but Tevel that is Tevel mid'Rabanan, all agree that it is Batel in a majority.

Question (R. Ba bar Kahana, to R. Yosi - Mishnah): Similarly, if harvested olives [which must be tithed] became mixed with Nikuf olives (of Pe'ah, which are exempt), or harvested grapes became mixed with Olelos grapes... - are these not Tevel that is Tevel mid'Rabanan (for there was not final processing, to make oil and wine from them, and we say that they are not Batel in a majority)?

Answer (R. Mana): I established it to discuss oil of harvested olives that became mixed with oil of Nikuf olives.

Question (R. Yochanan, to Reish Lakish - Mishnah): One may take Chalah from a dough from which Chalah was not taken, to do it in Taharah, to continually separate [on doughs of Demai, which do not require Hafrashah Min ha'Mukaf. He calculates how much he separates each time, until the entire dough is Chalah.]

Once he was Mekadesh the majority [to be Chalah, the rest] should be Batel in the majority! (Why can he separate after this?)

Answer (Reish Lakish): The case is, he marks [where the Chalah is. Since the Chalah and Tevel are clearly divided, Bitul does not apply.]

Support: You should know that it is so, for a Mishnah teaches 'one who wants to separate Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser [he takes three percent, and declares two percent on this side to be Terumah Gedolah...]

Why does he specify [a side]? Is it not so that it will not be Batel in a majority?!

Rebuttal (Rav Yitzchak bar Lazar): [No,] it is lest he be like one who says 'Terumah of this [stack is in its north], and of this [second stack] is in it' (the first, by the other Terumah. Since he did not specify the place, the latter declaration is invalid.)

Retraction (Rav Yitzchak bar Lazar): I did not say anything (this does not rebut Reish Lakish's support). Is it not R. Yochanan [who argues with him]?! If one said 'Terumah of this stack, and of this, is in it', R. Yochanan said, the place where the Terumah of the first [stack] took effect, there is specified the Terumah of the second (it is a validate separation)!

If one took a pumpkin to continually separate [Terumah from it] he comes and marks [on the first pumpkin] 'until here is Terumah. Until here is Terumah.' Rebbi says so;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he is Torem and calculates how much he usually [gives for Terumah, and calculates how much Terumah is in the first. We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.]

Assumption: The one who says 'until here is Terumah. Until here is Terumah', he holds that Tevel is Batel in a majority (therefore he needs to specify a place, lest it be Batel). The one who says that he gathers and calculates how much he usually gives, he holds that Tevel is not Batel in a majority (so he need not specify a place).

Rejection (R. Ba): (No.) They argue about whether or not whether he needs to give it to [someone of the] Shevet (if a Kohen will come now, the owner will know which part is Terumah and can give it to him. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that it suffices to give the entire pumpkin to a Kohen after all of it became Terumah.)

If one needed to be Torem four or five barrels from the pit, he lifts the first to the mouth of the pit and says 'this is Terumah', and similarly for the second and third. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says so;

Rebbi says, he lifts all of them to the mouth of the pit and says 'these are Terumah.'

Assumption: The one who says 'he lifts all of them to the mouth of the pit' [holds that] Tevel is Batel in a majority (each barrel of Terumah exempts a fifth of the pit. If he would declare one at a time, after declaring three, the majority of the pit is Chulin, and the Tevel would be Batel in it, and he could not declare the rest of the Terumah from it);

And the one who says 'he lifts one at a time to the mouth of the pit' [holds that] Tevel is not Batel in a majority (so we do not have the above concern. We explained this like HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)

Rebuttal (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): They argue about Min ha'Mukaf. The one who says 'he lifts all of them to the mouth of the pit' [holds that] he must be Torem Min ha'Mukaf (at once, he exempts all the wine). The one who says 'he lifts the first to the mouth of the pit' [holds that] he need not be Torem Min ha'Mukaf. (Perhaps this exempts only the wine at the bottom, far from the Terumah.)

R. Shmuel citing R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan switches the opinions. The one who says 'he lifts the first to the mouth of the pit' [holds that also this is considered] Torem Min ha'Mukaf. The one who says 'he lifts all of them to the mouth of the pit' [holds that the first Tana's method, of one at a time, is] not Torem Min ha'Mukaf. (It seems that R. SHLOMO SIRILIYO explains like this.)

Objection (R. Ze'ira): Is it not mixed through strands?! (R. Ze'ira said so above (17b) about a dough in which a Yisrael and Nochri were partners. Also here, all the wine is connected, so even if he is Torem one at a time, this is Min ha'Mukaf - TOLDOS YITZCHAK.)