Implied question: We should say that it is not Batel because it is a Beriyah (intact creation)!

Answer: Even though Ever Min ha'Chai is considered a Beriyah (Chulin 102b), the Isur of a mixture here is not due to Ever Min ha'Chai, rather, lest one slaughter and eat, due to Chatas ha'Mesah and Shor ha'Niskal;

When he slaughters, the Isur of Ever Min ha'Chai departs, and the Isur of Chatas ha'Mesah and Shor ha'Niskal, even if it is whole, is not considered a Beriyah, just like Neveilah, Chelev and blood, which is not a Beriyah;

A whole Tahor bird, if it does not have a k'Zayis of meat, one is not liable for Neveilah, since it is not considered a Beriyah;

A Tamei bird is surely considered a Beriyah. When the Torah forbade it, it forbade whether it is big or small, even if it does not have a k'Zayis [of meat], rather, any amount.

Similarly Gid ha'Nasheh is considered a Beriyah in Chulin (100a). When the Torah said "do not eat the Gid", any size [is forbidden]. Similarly Ever Min ha'Chai is considered a Beriyah.

Explanation: The reason [to be liable for any amount] for a Beriyah is because it is as if [the Torah] specified whether it is big or small, like is proven in Shevuos (21b);

It says "where do we find that one who eats any amount is liable?!", and challenges "we find this regarding one who explicitly forbids [any amount]!", and answers "also one who explicitly forbids, [this case] is like a Beriyah."

Implied question: It says in Makos (17a) that R. Shimon said that even a wheat [kernel] is like a Beriyah, and Rabanan say that a Beriyah with a Neshamah is important. A wheat [kernel] is not important. This implies that it depends on a Neshamah;

There is Gid ha'Nasheh! (It is a Beriyah, even though it has no Neshamah.)

Answer: Rabanan answered R. Shimon according to his opinion. We hold that Tevel is not a Beriyah, for it is unlike one who specifies. According to you, who compare wheat to an ant, these are different. An ant is a Beriyah with a Neshamah, and it is important;

Even though Rabanan themselves are not concerned for this reason, they say it to him.

Support: We find like this below (77a) that if [Kosher] limbs became mixed with limbs of Ba'alei Mumim, R. Eliezer says that we bring them up (burn them on the Mizbe'ach), and Chachamim say that we do not bring them up;

[The Gemara] explains that R. Eliezer learns from "Mum Bam" is when they are not accepted, but [Ba'alei Mumim] are accepted in a mixture.

This that [a Beraisa says that R. Eliezer said] "I consider the limbs of the Ba'al Mum to be like wood", he said according to Chachamim's reason (who do not expound that Ba'alei Mumim are accepted in a mixture), but he is not concerned for the reason of [I view them like] wood.

Question #1: Is a big ox worse than Es she'Darko Limnos (what is normally counted)?! Even a piece is considered Es she'Darko Limnos, because it is a Chatichah ha'Reuyah Lehiskaved (a piece proper to be served) in front of guests, like we say in Chulin (100a)!

All 10 matters that are considered to be Es she'Darko Limnos, none are as important as a big ox!

Question #2: In Avodah Zarah (74a), it lists Shor ha'Niskal (among matters that are never Batel), and we say there that the Tana requires two criteria - something that is counted, and Isur Hana'ah;

It does not ask "this is fine according to the opinion that Kol (everything) she'Darko Limnos", like it asks here, and in Beitzah (3b) and in Chulin (100a). This shows that at least, [an ox] is considered Es she'Darko!

Question #3: Since it asks there (Avodah Zarah 74a) "it should teach Parech nuts and pomegranates of Badan!", and does not ask from bundles of clover, this connotes that [Shor ha'Niskal] is considered like the six matters! (Parech nuts and pomegranates of Badan are among the six. Bundles of clover are among the 10, but not among the six.)

Answer: Here it asks due to Chata'os ha'Mesos, according to the opinion that teaches Es she'Darko Limnos, for it connotes even Chatas ha'Of, like is taught in Maseches Kinim (2:3) "or it flew among Chata'os ha'Mesos, all of them must die."

Implied question: The Mishnah taught Zevachim, and a bird is not included in Zevach!

Answer: Even so, since it taught all Zevachim, this implies that a bird is included.

Question: Since those [listed in] Avodah Zarah are considered like the six matters, if so, Yayin Nesech, which was taught there, is sealed barrels. This was taught regarding six matters. It should not have been taught [again]!

This is like loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis, which were not taught [there], because they were taught among the six matters, like it says there!

Answer #1: Perhaps [Chachamim] were stringent about Yayin Nesech to forbid even open barrels due to the severity of idolatry more than other Isurim, that it is Metamei and forbids money paid for it.

Answer #2: It needed to teach closed barrels because we learn Yayin Nesech from Divrei Kabalah, and the Isur is not written in the Chumash, and it connotes that it is like Stam wine of Nochrim, and one might have thought that it is Batel.

Answer #3: Also, [it needed to teach it] because we find that the Isur of idolatry is lenient according to R. Eliezer, who says that idolatry can be redeemed, unlike other Isurim.

Explanation: I will now explain how all of those [taught in] Avodah Zarah are considered like the six matters:

We find Yayin Nesech in closed barrels;

[We find] idolatry of rings and cups, which are important, and Oros Levuvin (hides with a hole from which the heart was removed) when he made a nice Kli from it;

Alternatively, idolatry [is like the six matters] because it is important to those who serve it, and similarly regarding Oros Levuvin.

Alternatively, it is like the Yerushalmi explains. Yayin Nesech, idolatry and Oros Levuvin [are important] because it says "Lo Yidbak b'Yadcha Me'umah Min ha'Cherem", and it discusses even open barrels.

Disclaimer: Perhaps the Yerushalmi brought this verse only to teach that these three are Asur b'Hana'ah (but it does not make them important).

Birds used for Taharos Metzora discusses large wild birds, and they are important;

A Nazir's hair discusses a design of a bird, like it says in Temurah (34a) that he made design of a bird like an embroidered garment, from a Nazir's hair, and there are other [garments] from permitted hair (and they became mixed).

A firstborn donkey, meat [cooked] with milk, Eglah Arufah, and Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah discuss Chatichos ha'Reuyos Lehiskaved. These are more important than Es she'Darko Limnos, and they are important like Parech nuts;

Even though they are Asur b'Hana'ah (and one may not give them to a guest), they are considered Reuyah Lehiskaved, since if it were Batel, it would be Reuyah Lehiskaved. Therefore, it is not Batel.

Implied question: It says in Yevamos (81b) that a piece of Tamei Chatas that became mixed with 100 pieces of Tahor Chatas is Batel!

Answer: There, even if it is Batel, it is not considered ha'Reuyah Lehiskaved in front of Kohanim guests, for they do not show gratitude to each other [for this], since all of them have equal rights [to the meat], like it says "l'Chol Bnei Aharon Tihyeh Ish k'Achiv";

However, if Chatas became mixed with Chulin, it says there that it is not Batel.

Opinion #1: This is not only if Tahor [Chatas] became mixed with Chulin. The same applies to Tamei [Chatas] that became mixed with Chulin.

Opinion #2: Rashi in Yevamos explained that Tamei in Tehoros is Batel because Chachamim were concerned for a big loss, but Tahor in Chulin is a small loss, for it is proper for Kohanim.

Rebuttal: This is astounding! Several Isurei Hana'ah are not Batel, and we are not concerned [for a big loss].

Question: In Avodah Zarah, why doesn't it list a slice of Lechem ha'Panim, a piece of a Tamei Chatas, or a piece of Kodshim that died?

Answer: It does not discuss Kodshim.

Observation: However, it could have taught limbs of Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach according to the opinion that that forbids in Yoma (67a), and a piece from an Ir ha'Nidachas, and hair of a Mes, which we forbid in Erchin (7b).

Question: The Yerushalmi is difficult for what I explained that those [listed in] Avodah Zarah are more important than Es she'Darko Limnos, for it connotes there that only 10 matters are Es she'Darko;

So it says there in Perek 2 of Orlah. R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued. One said that R. Meir says that 10 matters are Mekadesh. I.e. the 10 matters taught in the Mishnah, all of them are Es she'Darko;

Others say that R. Meir says that all matters are Mekadesh, i.e. Kol she'Darko Limnos was taught;

Presumably, the 10 matters that R. Yochanan said are the six matters that Rabanan say and bundles of clover - these are seven (Tosfos proceeds to discuss the other three);

A garment dyed with peels of Orlah and became mixed with others, one who dyed [thread] the length of a Sit (the distance one can separate his thumb from his index finger) with peels of Orlah and sewed it into a garment, and does not know which;

About both of them, the Mishnah teaches there that R. Meir says that all of them must be burned. A garment and a Sit are counted as two. This makes nine. A Sit is considered Es she'Darko, like it says there in the Yerushalmi.

[The 10th is] one who weaves the length of a Sit of wool of a Bechor in a garment. It teaches there that the garment must be burned.

It says about this in the Yerushalmi that some teach in the Mishnah "these are R. Meir's words", and some do not teach in the Mishnah "these are R. Meir's words",

The one who teaches "these are R. Meir's words", he holds that 10 matters are Mekadesh, i.e. this is the 10th;

[The Yerushalmi asks] the one who does not teach "these are R. Meir's words", what is his source that 10 matters are Mekadesh? I.e. the 10 matters that R. Yochanan says are Mekadesh according to R. Meir, which are Es she'Darko, where are they?

It answers that R. Meir holds like R. Akiva, who adds loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis.

Summation of question: What was difficult? All these taught in Avodah Zarah are Mekadesh even according to Rabanan, and all the more so according to R. Meir!

Also, it says in Bechoros (25b) that shearings of a blemished Bechor that became mixed with Chulin shearings, any amount forbids. If so, this is Es she'Darko according to R. Yochanan!

Answer: Perhaps the Yerushalmi discusses only the matters taught in Maseches Orlah in that Mishnah, but there are more. In Yevamos I elaborated more.

Opinion #1 (R. Tam): The text does not say "and others in others" anywhere in this Mishnah, which is taught at the end of Maseches Orlah...

[And the text does not say so] in Avodah Zarah (49b) regarding "and he baked bread with [wood from an Asheirah]", and regarding a garment died with peels of Orlah, and in several places like these.

Source #1: It asks below (74a) about Shmuel, who forbids a Sefek-Sefeka about idolatry, from a Beraisa that permits;

We find that Shmuel can hold only like R. Yehudah, who forbids a Sefek-Sefeka even regarding other Isurim, e.g. pomegranates of Badan. Shmuel holds like him regarding one matter (idolatry), and argues with him about one (other Isurim).

If the text said here and in Avodah Zarah "and others in others", [the Gemara] should have brought a proof for Shmuel from these Mishnayos, and not given a difficult answer from the Beraisa of R. Yehudah!

Source #2: We can derive from the Mishnah itself there in Orlah. Regarding a garment dyed with peels of Orlah, and a Tavshil cooked with peels of Orlah, and this case of bundles of clover, it teaches "they became mixed with others";

And regarding one who dyed the length of a Sit with peels of Orlah and sewed it into a garment, and does not know which, and regarding one who weaves the length of a Sit of wool of a Bechor in a garment, it does not teach "they became mixed with others."

The reason is because if it became mixed with other garments, he could remove the length of a Sit from each, and [all] are permitted due to Sefek-Sefeka, which is permitted.

Disclaimer: However, there is one Beraisa in Beitzah (3b) that forbids a Sefek-Sefeka. It teaches "a Safek about it is forbidden", and we establish it to discuss a Safek Tereifah [egg], and it teaches there "if it became mixed with 1000, all are forbidden."

Implied question: Why wasn't this brought below [to support Shmuel]?

Answer #1: It is a Beraisa. It is no stronger than the Beraisa of R. Yehudah. Also that Beraisa (of the egg), Rav Papa establishes it in Beitzah like R. Yehudah according to R. Yehoshua;

[The Gemara] prefers to bring the Beraisa in which R. Yehudah explicitly said so.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): What was taught [there] "if it became mixed with 1000, all are forbidden" does not refer to a Safek [that became mixed], rather, a Vadai [Tereifah that became mixed].

Proof: Even R. Yehudah, who forbids a Sefek-Sefeka below, this is only for pomegranates of Badan...

Inference: This is only for pomegranates of Badan, which are Es she'Darko, and they are preferable, for they are one of the six matters. For these, R. Yehudah forbids a Sefek-Sefeka;

Question: Why did R. Yehudah mention pomegranates of Badan? Even Kol she'Darko forbids according to R. Yehudah, like is proven in the Beraisa of a Litra of dried figs, and a piece among pieces. R. Yehudah says that it is not Batel, in Yevamos (81b);

A piece is Kol she'Darko Limnos, like is proven there, for R. Yochanan said that a piece is Batel because it is Kol she'Darko, and we require Es she'Darko [to forbid any amount];

The Gemara establishes it when it melted only according to Reish Lakish!

Answer: We can say that he mentioned pomegranates of Badan due to R. Shimon who argues with him, [and holds] that even pomegranates of Badan, a Sefek-Sefeka is permitted.

Support #1: We must explain like this the Beraisa below (74a), which taught a cup of idolatry that fell into a storehouse full of cups. All of them are forbidden. If one of them fell into 10,000, and from the 10,000 into 10,000, they are permitted;

Question: Why did it mention from the 10,000 into 10,000? If one separated from them into 10,000, it is permitted, and all the more so from 10,000 into 10,000, which is a third Safek!

Answer: Rather, it mentioned it to teach that the one who forbids, he forbids even several Sefekos.

Support #2: You are forced to say that according to R. Yehudah, pomegranates of Badan is not precise, since a Mishnah taught in Kelim (17:5) "the pomegranate taught (if a Kli was punctured and pomegranates can fall out, it is Tahor) is not big or small, rather, average;

Why were pomegranates of Badan taught? They forbid any amount. R. Meir says so. R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, it is to gauge [Taharah of] Kelim;

R. Akiva says, it is for both of these, to gauge Kelim, and they forbid any amount;

R. Yehudah says, pomegranates of Badan and leeks of Geva were mentioned only because everywhere they are tithed Vadai." I.e. Stam, we assume that they are from Nochrim. The Aruch explained so in Erech "Chatzir".

Inference #1: We can deduce from that Mishnah that Stam pomegranates are not considered even Kol she'Darko according to R. Meir, lest R. Meir contradict himself according to Reish Lakish, who says that the Mishnah teaches Kol she'Darko Limnos;

Inference #2: And according to R. Yehudah, all pomegranates are considered Kol she'Darko, for R. Yehudah holds that a Litra of dried figs is not Batel, and he taught that pomegranates of Badan were not taught regarding Kidush (to forbid any amount);

Inference: All pomegranates are Mekadesh, and they are the same as pomegranates of Badan, for if average pomegranates are not Mekadesh, [R. Yehudah] should have mentioned [pomegranates of Badan] regarding Kidush, like R. Meir did!

Question: This requires investigation in the Yerushalmi in Orlah. It seems that the text is errant.

Opinion #2: Some explain that even if the text of all these Mishnayos says "and others into others", we could not bring a proof that Sefek-Sefeka is forbidden. Perhaps it means that all the others fell into others.

Implied question: What is the Chidush to teach twice, since all the others fell into others?

Answer: It must teach that even though there are two majorities [it is forbidden]. Regarding other matters, we forbid one majority and permit two majorities, regarding lineage in Kesuvos (15a, e.g. if we are unsure about the father of a child);

It says that we follow the majority of the city (if most have Kosher lineage, the child is Kosher), but only if there is also the majority of traffic with it, and even if it is a small city;

NOTE: It seems that Tosfos means that even if the city has less people than the traffic nearby, the majority of traffic does not suffice. We need also the majority of the city.

And we do not follow the majority of a city alone, and even if it is great like Antuchya.

Question: Why is here different than what was taught "all are burned" when they became mixed, and also for all the Isurim taught there in Orlah?

R. Eliezer does not argue to say that he casts the benefit to the Dead Sea, like in Avodah Zarah (49b), and the Halachah follows him, like we rule!

Answer #1: The Rashbam explained there that the same applies to all Isurim. R. Eliezer says that he casts the benefit to the Dead Sea.

Answer #2: It seems that R. Eliezer argues only about idolatry, because it is Tofes Dameha (transfers its Isur to what is paid for it). When he casts the benefit to the Dead Sea, it looks like he casts the Isur;

For this reason, we say so here also regarding Shevi'is, regarding what was taught in Bava Kama (101a) that a garment dyed with peels of Orlah must be burned, if it became mixed with others, we would say that he casts the benefit to the Dead Sea.

However, regarding Orlah, Kil'ayim and a Nazir's hair, and all other Isurim that are not Tofes Demeihem, we say that according to R. Eliezer, it is burned, even if it became mixed.

Consequence: According to this reason, a ring and cup below, which discuss idolatry, it suffices to cast the benefit to the Dead Sea.

Answer #3: We can say that only regarding an oven ignited with wood of idolatry and he baked bread in it, or he took a spindle from [an Asheirah] and wove a garment with it, we say that he casts the benefit to the Dead Sea when it became mixed, for there is no intact Isur;

The man for whom a barrel [of Yayin Nesech] became mixed with his wine, (Rav Chisda told him to cast four Zuz to the Dead Sea, and then he may benefit from it - Avodah Zarah 49b), since through casting the benefit [to the Sea] he is permitted only benefit not of the matter itself, only to sell it or give it to his workers (not Yisraelim).

However, he cannot benefit from itself, for it is forbidden to drink it - therefore, it is permitted through four Zuz.

Question: Why don't we say regarding all these in Maseches Orlah that they sell all to a Nochri, except for the value of the Isur Hana'ah in it, like R. Shimon ben Gamliel says in Avodah Zarah (74a) about Yayin Nesech?

Answer: The Yerushalmi asks this and answers that for all of them, we are concerned if he will sell it to a Nochri, lest the Nochri sell it to a Yisrael. However, regarding Yayin Nesech, there is no concern.

And the same applies to bread and a garment in Avodah Zarah (49b). Even though bread of Nochrim is forbidden to eat, one may benefit from it, and we are concerned lest a Yisrael buy it from him and give it to his workers.

Ploni's barrel, if he wanted to sell all the wine together, likewise he could have sold, except for the value of the Isur in it;

Also Stam barrels, there is concern lest the Nochri sell them to Yisrael. It discusses olive oil or apple wine.

Explanation: They are called so because they get crushed, like it says in the Pesikta of "Yehudah v'Yisrael Rabim", after Parshah Ki Sisa;

We expound on "El Ginas Egoz" that Yisrael are compared to a nut, that has three types. Of Parech is crushed by itself.

Explanation: However, of a baker, no (they can be Batel), for they are small.

Implied question: It connotes in Yevamos (81b) that a piece of Lechem ha'Panim is not Batel in Chulin!

Answer: Lechem ha'Panim is different, because it is ha'Reuyah Lehiskaved with a piece.

And the case of one who baked bread with [wood from an Asheirah] in Avodah Zarah (49b), we must establish it to discuss loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis, for it taught that if they became mixed with others, all are Asur b'Hana'ah.

Distinction: The case of one who baked bread with [peels of Orlah] in Orlah (3:5) does not discuss of a Ba'al ha'Bayis, for it teaches that it is Batel in 201.

Remark: If not for the Mishnah in Orlah, we would not need to distinguish between Lechem ha'Panim and other bread;

We could establish our Mishnah in Avodah Zarah even with baker's bread, and like R. Meir, we say that Es she'Darko Limnos is Mekadesh, or Kol she'Darko according to Reish Lakish;

However, our Mishnah in Orlah proves that Stam bread, even according to R. Meir, is Batel in 201.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Why did it not teach "what is proper for Terumah, Terumah"? Also regarding Terumah, since it is important, it is not Batel, and it is not permitted in 101 [parts of mixture]!

Citation (cont.) Answer #1: It is because all of them are proper for Terumah. It is not applicable to teach this expression (what is proper for Terumah...)

Answer #2: It seems that we can also answer because it taught "they are burned, and they are Batel in 201 [parts of mixture]", and this does not apply to Terumah.

Answer #3: Also, we could have answered that this Tana holds that there are two conditions [to be Mekadesh] - something normally counted, and Isur Hana'ah, like we say in Avodah Zarah (74a) on the Mishnah there in the last Perek.