1)

(a)Our Mishnah states that if a Saris performed Bi'ah with his Yevamah, he invalidates her - from which we can infer that if someone else did so, he does not.

(b)This might pose a Kashya on Rav Hamnuna, who says - that a Shomeres Yavam who committed adultery with another man, becomes a Zonah and is Pasul to marry a Kohen.

(c)We refute the Kashya however - by pointing out that our Tana does not really differentiate between the Bi'ah of the Yavam and that of another man; and the reason he confines his statement to the Yavam, is because of the Seifa, which speaks specifically about the Chalitzah of the Yavam.

(d)The author of our Mishnah, which declares an Aylonis Pasul to marry a Kohen only if one of the brothers performs Bi'ah with her, cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - who considers an Aylonis to be a Zonah anyway.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah states that a Seris Chamah Kohen who marries a bas Yisrael may feed her Terumah. A Seris Adam (i.e. a Petzu'a Daka) - will invalidate even a bas Kohen from eating Terumah.

(b)Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon rule - that an Androginus Kohen who marries a bas Yisrael may feed her Terumah (because they consider him to be a Vaday Zachar).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah says - that a Tumtum who tears open and discovers that he is a male is not permitted to perform Chalitzah (if there are other brothers), because he is a Seris Chamah.

(d)The Tana Kama permits an Androginus to marry (a woman) but not to be married (to a man). Rebbi Eliezer - rules that a man who has relations with him is Chayav Sekilah as if he was a male.

3)

(a)When the Tana permits the wife of a Kohen who is a Seris Chamah to eat Terumah - he is teaching us that even a Kohen who is unable to have children may also feed his wife Terumah.

(b)The statement of Resh Lakish, that Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon permit the wife of an Androginus to eat Terumah but not Chazeh v'Shok makes no sense - because Terumah is as much an Isur d'Oraisa as Chazeh v'Shok.

(c)Resh Lakish is in fact, referring to Terumah nowadays, as we suggest. However, when he refers in the Seifa to Chazeh v'Shok - he means 'bi'Zman Chazeh v'Shok', forbidding even Terumah d'Rabanan then (in case she goes on to eat Terumah d'Oraisa).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan - permits the wife of an Androginus to eat even Chazeh v'Shok.

4)

(a)The text of the Beraisa referred to by Resh Lakish is 'Igul b'Igulim, Oleh' - meaning either that a ring of figs of Terumah becomes Batel in a hundred rings of Chulin; or that a ring of Tamei figs of Terumah becomes Tahor in a hundred rings of Tahor figs of Chulin.

(b)From the fact that Resh Lakish learns 'Igul b'Igulim, Oleh' we see that Terumah nowadays must be d'Rabanan (in spite of the fact that the Terumah of figs is only mid'Rabanan anyway) - because if it was d'Oraisa, we would decree Terumah d'Rabanan on account of Terumah d'Oraisa.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. He cites a Beraisa that reads 'Chatichah ba'Chatichos, Olah' - meaning that even a piece of Tamei Chatas that falls into pieces of Tahor Chatas (an Isur d'Oraisa), becomes Batel.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish are arguing over whether, according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, something that is sometimes counted independently, but not always ('Kol she'Darko Limanos') is Batel even by an Isur d'Oraisa (Rebbi Yochanan) or only if it is an Isur d'Rabanan (Resh Lakish), as we will now explain.

5)

(a)All of this is based on a Mishnah ion Orlah, which discusses bundles of Tilsan (fenugreek - a kind of legume) of Kil'ei ha'Kerem. Orlah and Kil'ei ha'Kerem normally become Batel in two hundred.

(b)Nevertheless, Rebbi Meir, in the Mishnah there, rules that bundles of Tilsan do not become Batel in two hundred - because anything that is counted does not become Batel.

6)

(a)According to the Chachamim, the only six 'fruits' that do not become Batel are nuts from Perech (possibly coconuts), pomegranates from Baden, sealed barrels of wine, young mangold (a type of beet) -shoots, the cabbage of Eretz Yisrael (which used to be as large as a tree) and a Greek gourd. Rebbi Akiva adds to the list - privately-baked loaves.

(b)The Isur of ...

1. ... Orlah but not Kil'ei ha'Kerem - will apply to the nuts, the pomegranates and the barrels of wine.

2. ... Kil'ei ha'Kerem but not Orlah - applies to the mangold, the cabbage and the gourd.

(c)Rebbi Meir learns 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' - which Rebbi Yochanan interprets to mean 'es she'Darko Limanos (something that is always counted); but what is only 'Kol she'Darko Limanos (that sometimes counted), does become Batel.

(d)Resh Lakish leaves Rebbi Meir's words as they are: 'Kol she'Darko Limanos'.

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana of the Beraisa holds that even Chatichah (Temei'ah) ba'Chatichos is Batel too - and the same applies to a piece of Tamei Lechem ha'Panim that fell into pieces of Tahor bread.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because, in his opinion, 'Min b'Mino Eino Batel' (something only becomes Batel in another species, not in the same species as itself. According to Tosfos [DH 'Rebbi Yehudah'], he holds 'Kol she'Darko Limanos', and this seems to go better with the flow of the Sugya).

(c)If the piece of Chatas, or of Lechem ha'Panim that fell into the hundred pieces of Chulin is also Tahor, then even the Tana Kama will agree that it does not become Batel - because, seeing as the pieces can all be sold to a Kohen, the owner incurs little loss, and wherever there is little loss to the owner, an Isur d'Oraisa does not become Batel.

(d)Nevertheless, the ...

1. ... cake of figs of Terumah becomes Batel in the cakes of Chulin figs (even though they can all be sold to a Kohen - with little loss to the owner) - because there, the Isur is only mid'Rabanan.

2. ... piece of Chatas Teme'ah becomes Batel in one hundred pieces of Chatas Tehorah, even though it is an Isur d'Oraisa - because there it entails a big loss.

8)

(a)Resh Lakish, who learned above that 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' does not become Batel, will explain the Reisha of the Beraisa (which holds that it does) - by a piece of melted bread that fell into melted bread (which becomes Batel because it is no longer something that is counted).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because, in his opinion, 'Min b'Mino Eino Batel' (as we explained earlier [and even according to Tosfos there, since the bread has melted]).

(c)Nevertheless, in the Seifa, the Tana preferred to move on to where the piece of Chatas is Tahor (rather than to teach us that if it did not melt, then it does not become Batel intrinsically, even when it is Tamei, and not because of the fact that the loss is only a small one) - because he prefers to teach us that despite the fact that the piece that fell in was Tahor, and Bitul should be more easily applicable (as we find in the Mishnah in Terumos), it is still not Batel.