רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר מין במינו לא בטיל
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he stated a principle that if a particular type of food is mixed with food of its own type, it cannot be nullified under any circumstances.
אבל לא נימוח מאי לא תעלה אדתני אבל חתיכה של חטאת טהורה שנתערבה במאה חתיכות של חולין טהורות לא תעלה ניפלוג וניתני בדידה בד"א בשנימוחה אבל לא נימוחה לא תעלה
The Gemara asks further: But had the piece of meat not been crushed, what would the halakha be? Presumably, it would not be nullified. If so, there is a difficulty, as instead of teaching a case involving non-sacred meat in the second half of the baraita, as follows: However, if a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred meat, the impure piece of a sin-offering is not nullified; let the tanna distinguish and teach it in the case involving only sacred meat, as follows: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the piece of meat has been crushed and broken into small parts, but if it has not been crushed, it is not nullified.
טהורות בטהורות עדיף ליה
The Gemara answers: Even so, the tanna prefers to address the case of an intermingling of ritually pure items with other ritually pure items and thereby teach a novel halakha, notwithstanding the fact that he could have made a distinction within the case of a ritually impure piece itself.
ולר"ל מאי שנא רישא ומ"ש סיפא א"ר שישא בריה דרב אידי רישא בטומאת משקין דרבנן סיפא דאורייתא
The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, who establishes the baraita as referring to a piece of meat that has been crushed, what is different in the first clause of the baraita and what is different in the latter clause? Why is nullification possible in the case of impure pieces, but not in the case of pure ones? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The first clause is dealing with a piece of a sin-offering that contracted ritual impurity due to liquids, which is imparted by rabbinic law. Since the sacred food contracted impurity that is only rabbinic in origin, it may be nullified rather than allowed to go to waste. The latter clause, on the other hand, deals with sacred food that became intermingled with ordinary non-sacred food. The sacred food is forbidden to non-priests by Torah law, and therefore it is not nullified.
אבל טומאת שרץ מאי לא תעלה
The Gemara asks: But had the piece of meat mentioned in the first clause of the baraita contracted ritual impurity through contact with a creeping animal, which is imparted by Torah law, what would the halakha be? Presumably, it would not be nullified.
אדתני סיפא אבל חתיכה של חטאת טהורה שנתערבה במאה חתיכות של חולין טהורות לא תעלה ניפלוג וליתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים בטומאת משקין אבל בטומאת שרץ לא טהורה בטהורות עדיף ליה
If so, there is a difficulty, as instead of teaching a case involving non-sacred meat in the latter clause of the baraita, as follows: However, if a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred meat, the impure piece of a sin-offering is not nullified; let the tanna distinguish and teach it in the case involving only sacred meat, as follows: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the piece of meat contracted ritual impurity due to liquids, but where it contracted ritual impurity through a creeping animal it is not nullified. The Gemara answers: Even so, the tanna prefers to address the novel case of an intermingling of ritually pure items with other ritually pure items.
רבה אמר רישא איסור לאו סיפא איסור כרת
Rabba said that an alternative explanation may be suggested for the difference between the two clauses of the baraita: In the first clause of the baraita, which deals with the intermingling of impure sacred meat with pure sacred meat, there is concern about the violation of a standard prohibition, i.e., the prohibition against eating impure sacred meat; therefore, the piece of meat is nullified. In the latter clause of the baraita, which deals with the intermingling of sacred meat and non-sacred meat, there is concern about the violation of a prohibition that bears the punishment of karet, which bars a non-priest from eating pure sacrificial food; therefore, the piece of meat is not nullified.
והא רבה הוא דאמר כל בדאורייתא לא שנא איסור לאו ולא שנא איסור כרת קשיא
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it Rabba himself who said: With regard to the nullification of any item forbidden by Torah law that became intermingled with a permitted substance, there is no difference between that which is forbidden due to a standard prohibition and that which is forbidden due to a prohibition that entails the punishment of karet. The Gemara concludes: This is difficult for Rabba.
רב אשי אמר סיפא משום דהוי ליה דבר שיש לו מתירין וכל דבר שיש לו מתירין אפילו באלף לא בטיל
Rav Ashi said yet another explanation: In the latter clause, where ritually pure sacred meat became intermingled with ritually pure non-sacred meat, the sacred meat does not become nullified because it is an object whose prohibition is temporary. The piece of sacred meat is not absolutely forbidden, as it is permitted for a priest to eat it. And the halakha is that any object whose prohibition is temporary cannot be nullified, no matter how great the amount of permitted substance, even in a mixture of one to one thousand.
והא דרב אשי בדותא היא למאן אי לכהן מישרא שרי אי לישראל לעולם אסור אלא הא דרב אשי בדותא היא
The Gemara comments: Now, that teaching ascribed to Rav Ashi is certainly a mistake [beduta], as the application of this principle to the case at hand can easily be shown to be erroneous. With regard to whom is the prohibition temporary? If one would say that it is for a priest, the sacred meat was always permitted to him, even before it became intermingled, as a priest may eat both sacred and non-sacred food, and therefore it was never a forbidden mixture with respect to him. And if one would say that it is for an Israelite, the meat will always be forbidden to him. Rather, that teaching attributed to Rav Ashi is clearly a mistake.
וסבר ר' יוחנן תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא והתניא שתי קופות אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ולפניהם שתי סאין אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ונפלו אלו בתוך אלו הרי אלו מותרים שאני אומר תרומה לתוך תרומה נפלה וחולין בתוך חולין נפלו
The Gemara raises a question with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan maintain that teruma in the present applies by Torah law? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: There were two large baskets, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma, and before them were two one-se’a vessels, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma. And these, the contents of each of the se’a vessels, fell into those, each of the baskets. It is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, and it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. Nevertheless, the produce found in the basket containing the non-sacred produce is permitted, as I say that the teruma fell into the teruma and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce.
ואמר ריש לקיש והוא שרבו חולין על התרומה ור' יוחנן אמר אע"פ שלא רבו חולין על התרומה
And Reish Lakish said that this is only the case if the non-sacred produce in the basket was greater in quantity than the teruma in the one-se’a vessel, so that even if the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, it is nullified. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mixture is permitted even if the non-sacred produce was not greater in quantity than the teruma, as one may rely on the assumption that each type of produce fell into its own type.
בשלמא לריש לקיש קסבר בדרבנן נמי רבויא הוא דבעינן אלא לרבי יוחנן קשיא
Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that teruma nowadays applies by rabbinic law, this is logical, as he maintains that even with regard to teruma that is in effect only by rabbinic law, we also require the permitted portion of the mixture to be greater in quantity so that it can nullify the forbidden part. But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, it is difficult because if he maintains that even nowadays teruma is mandated by Torah law, how can one disregard the concern and permit the mixture based merely on the assumption that the events occurred in a way that preserves the produce in its permitted state?
הא מני רבנן היא
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan can say: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that teruma nowadays is in effect only by rabbinic law.