1)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, it is easy to understand why the piece of Chatas which is Tahor does not become Batel - because it is logical to say that the Rabanan would decree when faced with the combination of factors, that it is an Isur d'Oraisa which is Darko Limanos, and when the loss to the owner is only minimal.

(b)The problem according to Resh Lakish is - that since, in his opinion, the reason that it is Batel in the Reisha is because melted Isur is not Chashuv, then why should the fact that the piece is Tahor make any difference?

2)

(a)Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi explains that, according to Resh Lakish, the Reisha speaks by Tum'as Mashkin (that the piece of Chatas became Tamei through liquid that touched a vessel which renders it Tamei mid'Rabanan), which is Batel - because a. that Tum'as Mashkin is mid'Rabanan, and b. it is 'Ein Darko Limanos' ...

(b)... and the reason that the piece is not Batel in the Seifa is - because, since all the pieces are Tahor (giving it a Din of 'Min b'Mino'), and, in addition, it is a question of Kodshim to a Zar (which is an Isur d'Oraisa), this Tana holds 'Min b'Mino, Eino Batel' by a d'Oraisa (like Rebbi Yehudah holds even by d'Rabbanans).

(c)If the Reisha was speaking about Tum'as Sheretz (rather than Tum'as Mashkin) - the piece would not become Batel.

(d)The Tana in the Seifa preferred not to remain with a piece of Tamei Chatas meat that fell into Tahor pieces, but when the piece became Tamei through a Sheretz (to remain with Tum'ah and Taharah, like in the Reisha), but to speak about Chulin and Kodshim, because Tahor pieces that fell into Tahor pieces is a bigger Chidush (as we explained above).

3)

(a)To explain the Reisha and the Seifa of the Beraisa according to Resh Lakish, Rabah establishes the Beraisa by meat of Kodshim that did not melt, and the reason that the former is Batel is because it is only a Lav - "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei" (in Parshas Tzav, which teaches us the prohibition of eating Kodshim meat that became Tamei), whereas the latter is not Batel, because it is a case of Kares - "v'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar ... " (Ibid. which teaches us that someone who eats Kodshim when he is Tamei, is Chayav Kares).

(b)Alternatively, assuming that Kares really means Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, we might explain the Seifa, according to Resh Lakish - by a cake of Terumah figs, for which a Zar who eats it is Chayav Misah.

(c)The problem with this answer is from Rabah's very own words later in ha'Ishah Basra - where he distinctly states that the Torah does not make a distinction between an Isur Lav and an Isur Kares, as long as both cases are Isurim d'Oraisa.

(d)We are unable to solve the problem, but remain with a Kashya.

(e)Rav Ashi ascribes the piece not becoming Batel in the Seifa, to the fact that it is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'. That is ridiculous however - because 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin', by definition, means that the object will become permitted to the same person to whom it was forbidden (not that it is permitted to someone else, as Rav Ashi understands); and, in this case, it remains permitted to the Kohanim and forbidden to Yisraelim.

4)

(a)We now query Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa, which discusses two piles of wheat, one of Chulin and one of Terumah that fell into two boxes, one containing Chulin and the other, Terumah, and we don't know which pile fell into which box. The Tana there rules - that both boxes remain as they were, because we assume that the Terumah fell into the Terumah and the Chulin into the Chulin.

(b)Resh Lakish maintains that the Chulin box remains Chulin and is permitted to Yisraelim - only if there is a majority of Chulin against the pile that fell into it.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan permits it - even if there is not ...

(d)... which seemingly clashes with what he said earlier - that Terumah nowadays is d'Oraisa (since we only assume that the Terumah fell into the Terumah and the Chulin into the Chulin ion the case of an Isur d'Rabanan).

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan answers that the author of the current Beraisa is the Rabanan, whereas his previous statement is according to Rebbi Yosi - who says that the second Yerushah (when Yisrael re-possessed Eretz Yisrael after Galus Bavel) was permanent, and did not fall away when Titus exiled them to Rome.

(b)The Seder Olam Darshens from the Pasuk "Asher Yarshu Avosecha vi'Yerishtah" - 'Yerushah Rishonah u'Sheniyah Yesh Lahen (i.e. that the first Yerushah became Batel and required a second one when they returned from Bavel), Shelishis Ein Lahen'.

(c)According to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi, Rebbi Yochanan made his initial statement (permitting the wife of an Androginus to eat Chazeh v'Shok as well as Terumah) according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi - because Rebbi Yosi is the Tana in our Mishnah who holds that an Androginus is a Vaday Zachar who feeds his wife Terumah.

(d)He knows that the opinion cited in the Seder Olam is that of Rebbi Yosi - because, as he himself testified, the author of Seder Olam is Rebbi Yosi.

6)

(a)We query Rebbi Yochanan again from a Mishnah in Mikva'os, which rules - that a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah to which one added a Sa'ah of fruit juice (or of drawn water), and then took one Sa'ah away - remains Kasher.

(b)If one reversed the process, taking away a Sa'ah first and then adding the Sa'ah - the Mikvah would be Pasul.

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah bar Shilo ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan, one is only permitted to carry on doing this - until one reaches a majority.

(b)Bearing in mind that Rebbi Yochanan just said that, in the case of the boxes, where it is only a Din d'Rabanan, no majority is needed, we think that the two statements clash - because initially, we think that what he means is that the majority of the Mikvah must remain (i.e. at least twenty one Sa'ah of Kasher water).

(c)We conclude however - that what he really meant was that it is only permitted as long as one does not remove a majority of Kasher water (i.e. that twenty Sa'ah remain).

(d)Alternatively, we can answer that Rebbi Yochanan earlier statement differ radically from the case of the Mishnah in Mikva'os - in that it is possible to rely on the fact that the Terumah fell into the Terumah ... .

8)

(a)Resh Lakish, who forbids the wife of an Androginus to eat Chazeh v'Shok, will emend our Mishnah, which states 'Androginus Nosei' - to read ' ... Im Nasa, Nasuy'.

(b)We try to prove from the Lashon 'Aval Lo Nisa' - that, just as there, the Tana means b'Di'eved, so too, does he mean b'Di'eved in the Reisha (as we just explained).

(c)In fact, there is no proof from there - because, despite the fact that the Seifa speaks b'Di'eved, 'Nosei' in the Reisha implies l'Chatchilah (leaving us with a Kashya on Resh Lakish),.

9)

(a)Having just concluded that 'Nosei' means l'Chatchilah, because the Tana Kama considers him a Vaday Zachar - the problem is - in which way will the Tana Kama's ruling differ from that of Rebbi Eliezer, who says 'Androginus Chayavin Alav Sekilah k'Zachar'

(b)We answer - that even though the Tana Kama considers him a Zachar, he nevertheless obligates someone who commits adultery with him even from his Makom Nakvus; whereas Rebbi Eliezer says 'ke'Zachar', implying but not from his Makom Nakvus.