Explanation: Only regarding something wet that mixes, R. Yehudah holds that it is not Batel, like the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat, from which R. Yehudah learns (Menachos 22a. Even after they are mixed, the Torah calls them Dam ha'Par and Dam ha'Sa'ir. Dam ha'Sa'ir is not Batel in the majority of Dam ha'Par.)

Distinction: This is not true about something dry. R. Yehudah himself holds (Shabbos 141b) that [if Terumah was mixed with 100 times as much Chulin, it is Batel, and even on Shabbos] one may remove the amount [of Terumah] to permit the mixture;

This is even regarding Min b'Mino, like it connotes regarding a Litra of dried figs and a Neveilah (Menachos 23a).

There is an opinion that it is not Batel. This is when it dissolved.

Source: This is logical. Something that mixes, its taste spreads among all the Heter, and it is not Batel;

However, something dry, the Isur is in its place, just it is not recognized where it is.

Implied question: In Beitzah (38b), we say that wheat and barley are Batel according to R. Yehudah, but wheat is not Batel in wheat (even though it is dry)!

Answer: It discusses flour.

Proof: If not, why are wheat and barley Batel? They are recognized!

Opinion #2: It seems that even flour, since it is cold, and the taste does not spread, it is Batel.

Proof: If not, even wheat flour and barley flour, it is Min b'Mino according to Rava, who says in Avodah Zarah (66a) that it depends on the name, e.g. Se'or (sourdough) made from wheat and Se'or of barely (even though they have different tastes, since both are called Se'or).

Disclaimer: However, there we discuss when they are hot.

Implied question: In Menachos (23a), it says that Menachos that became mixed are not Batel according to R. Yehudah.

Answer #1: Also there, they become soft due to their oil, and give taste to each other.

Answer #2: When they will be baked, they give taste to each other.

Explanation #1: (He prefers to teach this because it is a bigger Chidush.) Even though they are forbidden only to Zarim, even so they are stringent, and they are not Batel. All the more so Tamei, which is forbidden even to Kohanim, is not Batel!

Explanation #2: Rashi explained a different reason. (Even though all agree that Taharah is Batel in Taharah, it is not Batel; Beis Shamai hold that Tum'ah is not Batel in Taharah. Also, even though it dissolved, it is not Batel.)

Explanation: Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi holds that Rabanan argue with R. Yehudah, who says that Min b'Mino is not Batel, only regarding [a Tum'ah or Isur] mid'Rabanan. They agree that [a Tum'ah or Isur] mid'Oraisa is not Batel.

Distinction: However, if it did not dissolve, since [Rabanan hold that] Kol she'Darko Limnos is Mekadesh even regarding Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, it is not Batel, just like Terumah nowadays;

If it (Terumah) were mid'Oraisa, a ring among rings would not be Batel, even though Terumah of Peros is mid'Rabanan.

Explanation #1: This refers to the answer that we discuss when it dissolved.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): We come to explain when it did not dissolve;

The reason why Reish Lakish holds that a ring would not be Batel if Terumah were mid'Oraisa, is because a Zar who eats Terumah is Chayav Misah [b'Yedei Shamayim], which is like Kares.

Implied question: Why are bundles of clover of Kil'ai ha'Kerem Mekadesh? This is only an Isur Lav!

Answer: It is because it is Es she'Darko. Rabah distinguishes between an Isur Lav and an Isur Kares only regarding Kol she'Darko.

Implied question: Regarding this, [the Mishnah] taught that R. Meir says that Kol she'Darko Limnos is Mekadesh!

Answer: We can explain like I explained above, that R. Meir says Kol she'Darko Limnos is Mekadesh regarding an Isur Kares or Misah;

Therefore, it is proper that Es she'Darko is Mekadesh even regarding an Isur Lav.

Rejection: We cannot say so, for a Tahor piece of Chatas in Chulin is better (more important) than even Es she'Darko, like I explained above, for it is Re'uyah Lehiskaved;

It seems that only because it is an Isur Kares it is not Batel, but an Isur Lav would be Batel.

Question: According to Rav Ashi's mistake, why is a ring among rings Batel even [if Terumah is] mid'Rabanan?

We know that Rav Ashi holds (Beitzah 4a) that Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin is not Batel!

Answer: He can establish the case of a ring among rings to discuss Tamei Terumah, which has no Matirin.

Question: However, according to the current Hava Amina, why is Tahor Terumah Batel in 101 [parts of mixture with Chulin]?

Question (R. Shmuel of Achzav): Rather than ask from a Beraisa, we should ask from a Mishnah in Terumos!

Citation (Mishnah 7:5): If there were two baskets, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, and a Se'ah of Terumah fell into one, and we do not know which, we say that it fell into the Terumah.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish should have argued about this Mishnah!

Answer (Ri): We bring the Beraisa for a bigger Chidush in R. Yochanan;

Even when there are two baskets, and two Sa'im, and it is harder to leave the Chulin on its Chazakah, for what fell in was a Safek without Chezkas Heter...

Note: It seems that because we know that a Se'ah fell into the Chulin, this weakens its Chazakah. This is like I cited from Maharit 1:41, at the very end of 68a.

[Even so,] R. Yochanan permits without more [Chulin than Terumah].

Answer #2: Perhaps when [only] one Se'ah [of Terumah fell in], even Reish Lakish would permit without more [Chulin], for we rely on the Chezkas Chulin of the basket. We leave it in its Chazakah;

Therefore, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish do not argue about the Mishnah, rather, about the Beraisa.

Explanation: Since Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa, how do we rely on "I say" to permit without more [Chulin than Terumah]?

Question: According to the Hava Amina that Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa, even if R. Yochanan would establish it to be when there is more [Chulin], we could challenge him why we rely on "I say"!

R. Yochanan holds (Pesachim 44a) that k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras (if one consumes a k'Zayis of Isur within the time to eat a half loaf, i.e. the volume of three or four eggs) is forbidden mid'Oraisa!

The Gemara asks this there, and due to this question, answers "here we discuss Terumah nowadays, which is mid'Rabanan"!

Answer: The Gemara could have said "also according to you" (if Terumah is mid'Oraisa, even if there is more Chulin, it should be forbidden due to k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras! Aruch l'Ner asks that perhaps the Makshan held that the Terumah is less than k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras.)

Observation: Also there, the Gemara could have said "also according to you, even if k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is [forbidden only] mid'Rabanan, why do we say [that the Terumah fell into the Terumah], since R. Yochanan establishes it even when there is not more Chulin!

The Gemara does so [does not ask "also according to you"] in several places [where it could].

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): The first [inheritance, or Kedushah] is of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov. The second is of Yehoshua. After that, it is always Kodesh.

Rejection: This cannot be! In Nidah (47a), R. Yosi distinguishes between Terumah and Chalah!

Inference: The second Kedushah is of Ezra. Regarding Ezra's Kedushah, we can distinguish between Terumah and Chalah;

This is because regarding Chalah it says "b'Vo'achem" (when you come to Eretz Yisrael), and when Ezra came [back from Galus Bavel], not all [or even the majority of Yisre'elim] came.

Question #1 (R. Shmuel of Anyov): Here, R. Yochanan holds like R. Yosi, that there is a first and second inheritance, for the first inheritance was not permanent;

In Zevachim (107b), the Gemara says that according to R. Yochanan, it (the first inheritance) was permanent!

Answer (Ri): Regarding Ma'aser, surely Kedushas ha'Aretz was not permanent;

However, Kedushas Yerushalayim, and the Beis [ha'Mikdash was permanent], for Kedushah of the walls is forever;

Source #1: We learn from "Asher Lo Chomah" (Megilah 10b) - even if now it has no wall, but before it had one.

Source #2: Alternatively, Kedushas Yerushalayim is permanent because it is called "Nachalah" (inheritance), or because it says "Zos Menuchasi Adei Ad."

Support #1: In Megilah (10a), the Gemara wanted to say that R. Eliezer holds that the first Kedushah was permanent, and R. Yehoshua explicitly says so there;

In Beitzah (4a), they hold that a Litra of dried figs is Batel.

Inference: They hold that Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan, and Kedushas ha'Aretz is Batel.

Support #2 - Question: Also according to Reish Lakish, R. Yosi holds that Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan, and in Zevachim (60b) the text in all Seforim says "R. Yosi says in the name of R. Yishmael... really, he holds that the Kedushah was permanent."

Answer: Rather, we distinguish between Kedushas ha'Aretz and [Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Mikdash, which depend on] walls.

Question #2 (R. Shmuel of Anyov): Here it connotes that R. Yochanan holds that Kedushas ha'Aretz is mid'Oraisa, and in Midrash Rus he connotes that it is mid'Rabanan!

R. Yochanan said [there] that once they were exiled, they were exempt from Ma'aseros, and they obligated themselves.

Answer #1 (Ri): We can say that this that he says here "I said according to R. Yosi" does not mean that R. Yochanan holds like R. Yosi;

Rather, [he said so] because we are discussing R. Yosi's opinion about Androginus in our Mishnah.

Answer #2 (Ri): It seems that no Chacham would say that Kedushas ha'Aretz in Bayis Sheni for Ma'aser and all Mitzvos that depend on the land was only mid'Rabanan;

We can explain the Midrash to discuss Ma'aser of Peros. It means that once they were exiled, they were exempt from Ma'aser mid'Oraisa;

When they returned, they obligated themselves more than what they were initially obligated. They added Ma'aser of Peros.

Answer #3 (Ri, based on the Yerushalmi in Shevi'is (Perek 10): Once they were exiled, they were exempt, for the first Kedushah was not permanent;

There was no obligation for them to be Mekadesh all of Eretz Yisrael, like it says (Chulin 7a) many cities [that were conquered by Olei Mitzrayim, Olei Bavel refrained from being Mekadesh them, to help support the poor in Shemitah].

Just like they left some without Kedushah, they could have left much more, or perhaps even all if they wanted;

Even so, they obligated themselves and were Mekadesh them. Since they were Mekadesh them, mid'Oraisa they received Kedushah.

Question: Granted, [the Pesul of] She'ivah (water that was in a Kli) is mid'Rabanan, like it says in Bava Basra (66b). However, mid'Oraisa fruit juice is Pasul for Tevilah!

Source #1: This is clear from Pesachim (17b). It says that liquids of Beis Mitbechai (where they rinse Korbanos) in the ground are Tahor.

Citation (17b - Rav Papa): This applies only to water, but not to blood. Even water [we say that in the ground it is Tahor] is only if it is [at least] a Revi'is, which is proper for Tevilah of needles and [small] forks...

Inference: Blood is not proper for Tevilah.

Source #2: In Chulin (84a), it says that "Mayim" is written three times [regarding a Mikveh. One of them] excludes fruit juice.

Summation of question: How can we ask from here that [R. Yochanan] requires a majority for mid'Rabanan laws? He taught [that we are Machshir only up to half] explicitly regarding fruit juice, like Rashi explained!

Answer #1: We ask because he taught without distinction "up to half", even for needles and forks. Mid'Oraisa, we do not need 40 Sa'im for them. (This is only mid'Rabanan.)

Implied question: If the majority is fruit juice, the water is Batel in the fruit juice. Mid'Oraisa, it is Pasul even for needles and forks!

Answer: In any case, when it is half [fruit juice, and] half [water], mid'Oraisa it is Kosher for needles and forks. Mid'Rabanan, we require more [water].

Answer #2: Mid'Oraisa, every amount is Batel when it is added (so there is no limit to how long one may do so). Even so, [mid'Rabanan] we require a majority. Therefore, it is a proper question.

Answer #3: The Mishnah in Mikva'os (7:2) discusses also Temed, which contains water [that absorbed taste from grape pits or peels]. For everything listed there, R. Yochanan permits only until half. (Since he allows only half Temed, the majority is water.)

Inference: When there is a majority, we do not say Rishon Rishon Batel (every amount is Batel when it is added).

Support #1: Similarly [we do not say so] in Shabbos (65b), regarding Shmuel's father who made Mikva'os for his daughter in Nisan, lest Notfim [rainwater and melting snow that drip into a river] become the majority over Zochalim (what enters the river from the ground).

Support #2: In Nedarim (57b), if an onion was uprooted in Shemitah and planted in the eighth year, and the growth [in Sheminis] exceeds the bulb [that grew in Shevi'is], it is permitted.

Question: In Avodah Zarah (73a), R. Yochanan said that one who pours Yayin Nesech from a barrel into a pit, even the entire day, Rishon Rishon Batel!

Answer (Ri): In Avodah Zarah, we say Rishon Rishon Batel only until [one part in] 60;

However, if there are not 60 parts of Heter, it cannot be Batel, since at the end it gives taste;

Ta'am k'Ikar (if an Isur can be tasted in a mixture, the mixture is forbidden) mid'Oraisa, like it says in Pesachim (44b) and Nazir (37b).

Distinction: In any case, even if there are 60 parts of Heter, if it did not fall in bit by bit, it would be forbidden, e.g. if it fell at once, or if he poured a matter that had a greater flow than the mouth of a barrel;

Its (a barrel's) flow is no greater than that of a small flask. Chachamim were more stringent about Yayin Nesech than other Isurim, like the Mishnah says there that any amount [of Yayin Nesech] forbids.

Explanation: R. Yochanan holds that we say Rishon Rishon Batel when Isur falls into Heter, and the flow is small;

It is Batel until [one part in] 60. We do not say that any amount forbids, for he discusses the Mishnah there.

We ask from the Mishnah, which says that any amount of Yayin Nesech forbids. We assert that this is even if Isur fell into Heter.

Implied question: Why didn't we answer that the Mishnah discusses when the flow is greater than the opening of a barrel?

Answer: The Mishnah says "any amount". It is not a big flow.

Implied question: We ask there [from the Mishnah, which says that] if wine mixes with water, it forbids b'Nosen Ta'am. We assert that Asur wine fell into permitted water.

Also R. Yochanan said that it is Batel only until [one part in] 60! (He agrees that Nosen Ta'am forbids.)

Answer: We ask based on the Reisha. Since the Seifa discusses Isur into Heter, also the Reisha discusses Isur into Heter, and it says that any amount forbids.

We conclude that the entire Mishnah discusses Heter into Isur. In any case, it is true that Nosen Ta'am forbids in every case, whether Isur into Heter or vice-versa.

Question: How can we say so? A Mishnah (Mikva'os 4:4) says that if Mayim She'uvim and rainwater mix in the Chatzer and cavity until the steps of the cave (and then flow into the cave):

Citation (cont.): If most is Kosher (rainwater), it is Kosher. If most is Pasul, it is Pasul. If it is half-half, it is Pasul. When is this? It is when the waters mix before they reach the Mikveh...

Inference: This connotes explicitly that She'uvim, [which are Pasul] mid'Rabanan, require a majority [of Kosher water]!

Note: R. Simchah of De'esvi answers that we are more stringent there, before the Mikveh was ever Kosher. Here, the Mikveh was already Kosher.

Explanation #1: This connotes full marriage. He is like a male, and he feeds Terumah mid'Oraisa;

If it were not a Vadai marriage, it should have said that if an Androginus was Mekadesh, it is Kidushin.

We answer that [the Mishnah teaches] if he married, b'Di'eved. In our Sugya, "l'Chatchilah" means Vadai Nisu'in.

Suggestion: We infer from the fact that we permit him to marry, and we do not forbid him l'Chatchilah due to women who are Mesolelos with each other (rub their genitals together).

Rejection: Since according to Reish Lakish he feeds Terumah nowadays mid'Rabanan, it is unreasonable to forbid him for this reason. (Safek Mesolelos is no worse than a Safek Zarah eating Terumah mid'Rabanan.)

Explanation #2: "An Androginus marries" connotes that he must do so, for he is commanded about Pru u'Rvu.

Question: [If this is the proof that he is a Vadai male,] how do we ask from "an Androginus marries" against R. Yosi's words [in the Beraisa below? R. Yosi did not teach "an Androginus marries"!]

Forced answer: We must say that ["an Androginus marries"] is the conclusion of R. Yosi's words, even though R. Yehudah interrupts in between.