פירוש על עבודה זרה 97:2

This is an attempt at a resolution of the contradiction between the two statements of R. Yose. It could be that R. Yose is stringent in cases of idolatry. He would hold that in cases involving idolatry when there are two causes, the product is still prohibited (i.e. the case of the mishnah with the falling leaves) but lenient in other cases (the case of orlah). The problem is that the Talmud cites another case involving idolatry. These cases are also “this and that are causes.” The manure fertilizes the field, but so does the dirt that is already there. The vetch fattens the cow, but so does other food. And yet the Talmud suggests the R. Yose is the lenient baraita because even in cases of idolatry he holds that two causes are permitted.

The Talmud rejects the identification of the baraitot and suggests that instead of a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis, we have here a dispute between R. Eliezer and the rabbis. This means that R. Yose can be stringent in the case of idolatry (the mishnah) but lenient in other cases (orlah).
The following section will attempt to identify which dispute between the rabbis and R. Eliezer is also about cases in which there are two causes.