Previous daf

1)

(a) We just concluded that, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yonasan, what grows is not Mevatel the Ikar, with the exception of Sh'mitah, because it is the ground which causes the Isur and therefore the Bitul.
What does Rebbi Yanai (Batzel shel Terumah) hold?

(b) How does Rebbi Aba explain our Mishnah 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu she'Ani Ochel ... be'Davar she'Ein Zar'o Kalah, Afilu Gidulei Gidulin Asurin' to reconcile it with the opinion of Rebbi Yanai?

(c) We may well not ask from the previous Beraisa ('Litra Ma'aser Tevel', where the growth is also not Mevatel the Ikar), because we prefer to ask from a Mishnah.
Why else might it be preferable to ask from the Mishnah of Konamos rather than from the Beraisa of Ma'aser?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Terumos say about a Sa'ah of Terumah Temei'ah that fell into less than a hundred of Chulin?

(b) Why does the Tana mention specifically 'Terumah Temei'ah'?

(c) The mixture cannot be eaten, because even a Kohen may not eat Terumah Temei'ah.
But why does one not follow the regular procedure of burning it?

(a) Why does this Mishnah present Rebbi Yanai with a Kashya?

(b) Why did we not then ask how Rebbi Yanai could permit Bitul, with regard to an onion of Terumah that the owner planted, seeing as Terumah is a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin?

(c) How do we answer the Kashya on Rebbi Yanai? Why is Terumah not considered a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin', even though Konamos are?

(d) How might we have answered, if the Seifa had not stated ...

1. ... 'Im Haysah Tehorah, Timacher le'Kohen ... '?
2. ... 'Chutz mi'Demei Osah Sa'ah'? Why will this answer no longer work?

5)

(a) What did Rav Chisda ask Rabah, concerning Rebbi Yochanan's ruling that a Litra of onions which the owner Ma'asered and then re-planted must be Ma'asered again from scratch?

(b) Why should this be any different than Gidulin shel Heter, which are Mevatel the Ikar shel Isur? By the same token, why should the growth which is Tevel not be Mevatel the Ikar which is Chulin?

(c) How does Rav Chisda refute Rabah's proof from the Mishnah in Shevi'is 'Betzalim she'Yardu Aleihem Geshamim ve'Tzimchu, Im Hayu Alin she'Lahen Shechorin, Asurin', implying that the onions are completely Asur (a proof that what grows is Mevatel the Ikar completely)?

(d) But did we not explain earlier that, as far as eating is concerned, the Heter of growth is indeed Mevatel the Isur even according Rebbi Yochanan and presumably, this will apply to the Isur of growth being Mevatel the Heter, too?

7)

(a) How does Rav Chisda, who just established the Mishnah in Shevi'is 'Betzalim she'Yardu Aleihem Geshamim ve'Tzimchu, Im Hayu Alin she'Lahen Shechorin, Asurin' by the Tosefes', reconcile this with the Beraisa, where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel comments 'ha'Gadel be'Chiyuv, Chayav, ha'Gadel bi'Petur, Patur'? Is that not precisely what the Tana of the Mishnah said?

(b) How will we now reconcile this Mishnah with Rebbi Yochanan, who said 'Litra Betzalim she'Tiknah ve'Zar'ah, Mis'aseres le'Fi Kulah'? Why there, is the growth Mevatel the Ikar completely?

(c) From the Mishnah, we see that even though the section of onions that grow does not become Bateil to the Ikar, yet it does not nullify it either, in spite of the theory to the contrary (that if it is not Batel to it, it automatically nullifies it), that we cited earlier . This might well be because it is Isur that usually becomes Bateil in Heter, and not the other way round.
What other reason might there be to differentiate between the two cases?

(d) When, earlier in the Sugya, we attempted to resolve Yishmael Ish K'far Yama's She'eilah (of 'Batzel she'Okro bi'Shevi'is') from 'Batzel she'Nat'o be'Kerem, ve'Ne'ekar ha'Kerem' (Rebbi Yonasan), why did we not use the same argument to refute the proof from there?

(a) Having just learned that according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, when one deliberately plants Isur to become Bateil in the Gidulin, then it does become Bateil, how will we then explain the Beraisa that we discussed earlier ' ... ve'Osah Litra Me'aser Alehah mi'Makom Acher le'Fi Cheshbon'?
Why does the Ikar not become Bateil in the Shevi'is produce that grows (which is Patur from Ma'asros)?

(b) How do we learn this from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Aser Te'aser es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa"?

(c) What is the problem with this Derashah, bearing in mind that we are talking about seeds that do not decompose before re-growing?

(d) In fact, the Pasuk is no more than an Asmachta.
What is the real reason that Tevel that is re-planted cannot become Bateil ...

1. ... in the Sh'mitah-year? Does the fact that the two Isurim are different make any difference?
2. ... in the other years of the cycle?

(a) How will Rebbi Yanai, who learns that Gidulin are Mevatel the Ikar, reconcile his statement with the Mishnah in Terumos 'Gidulei Terumah Terumah'?

(b) Seeing as Gidulei Gidulin are Tevel, how can Rebbi Yanai say 'Mutar'?

(c) In light of the Mishnah which specifically states 'Gidulei Gidulav Chulin (not Terumah)', what exactly, is Rebbi Yanai coming to teach us?

(d) How will Rebbi Yanai then establish the Mishnah in Terumos, which specifically states that Gidulei Gidulav by something whose seeds do not decompose, are forbidden?

Next daf