Study Yevamot folio 82A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud answers: R' 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.
The Talmud 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 ritual
The Talmud 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.
The Talmud 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 Talmud 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.