Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagreed regarding an androgynous – could he permit his wife to eat the breast and calf (chaze v’shok) of the animal? Or only truma? Reish Lakish permits only truma, was because he holds that truma was only a rabbinic law after the Temple was destroyed and that is why it is permitted to her. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Reish Lakish’s assumption about truma and holds that it is still a Torah law even after the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Yochanan proves it from a braita about a piece of sacrificial meat that is impure that is mixed with pure meat. How does Reish Lakish explain that braita? Three different explanations are brought. Difficulties are raised with each of them – on the first explanation, the difficulties are resolved. On the other two, they are not. Does Rabbi Yochanan really hold that truma nowadays is obligated by Torah law? In a braita, there is a case with two boxes, one of chulin and one of truma, and two baskets, one with chulin and one with truma, and each basket falls into a box. Rabbi Yochanan is more lenient than Reish Lakish here and permits each one as we can assume the truma fell into truma and the chulin into chulin, even if there wasn’t a majority of the chulin in the box before the contents of the box fell in. How can Rabbi Yochanan explain his lenient opinion here if truma is a Torah law? After explaining that Rabbi Yochanan was explaining the braita as corresponding to an opinion he doesn’t hold by, a further question is raised. If the source follows one who says truma is only rabbinic, why is there no need for a majority, while in a similar case of a mikveh there is a need for a majority? The Gemara brings two answers. In the Mishna it says that an androgynous can get married to a woman but cannot be betrothed by a man. Is the first part of that sentence ab initio or de facto?