Explanation of question: If it were only Mi'et v'Ribah, we would expound it like Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et, like I explained!

Implied question: Also regarding Ribah u'Mi'et v'Ribah, he says that the first Ribuy does not help at all! (Why are we concerned if the latter Mi'ut in Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et does not help?)

Answer: Granted, there we can say that the first Ribuy is the way of the verse to begin with it, e.g. v'Lakachta ha'Martze'a;

However, we cannot say so about the latter Mi'ut.

Conclusion: Therefore, we must say that there is no Midah to expound [Mi'et v'Ribah v'Mi'et]. Even according to the opinion that expounds Ribuyim and Mi'utim, he expounds it like Prat u'Chlal u'Ferat.

Explanation: If one ate a half k'Zayis of [Kosher] meat and a half k'Zayis of Chelev, he is not liable.

Citation of Gemara: Except for Isurei Nazir, for the Torah said "v'Chol Mishras Anavim Lo Yishteh."

Explanation: If one soaked his bread in wine, and there is bread and wine to combine to a k'Zayis, he is liable.

We expound like this below. If there is a k'Zayis of wine itself, why do we need the verse? We expound [Heter Mitztaref l'Isur] due to "Mishras", which is extra, and not from "Kol".

Assertion: The text should not say like it says in Seforim "Mishras v'Chol Mishras." This implies that we learn from v'Chol Mishras;

Source: If so, we should challenge also R. Avahu 'like whom did he teach? Like R. Elazar, who expounds "Kol"!'

Suggestion: Perhaps Rabanan expound "v'Chol Mishras", even though they do not expound "Kol"!

Answer: In any case, what was the question below "we need Mishras for Heter Mitztaref l'Isur!"? He should say "I learn from v'Chol!"

Conclusion: Rather, surely he learns from Mishras, and not from v'Chol.

Citation (Pesachim 42a): [R. Eliezer expounds] "Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu" to include Kutach ha'Bavli (a dip made with bread) and beer of Madai (i.e. mixtures of Chametz), and Chachamim disagree.

Explanation #1: Rashi explained there that Ze'iri explains the Beraisa in Menachos (58a)...

Citation (58a - Beraisa): "Ki Chol Se'or v'Chol Devash Lo Saktiru" teaches only if it is totally [Se'or or honey]. What is the source if it is partially? It says "Kol". What is the source for a mixture? It says "Ki Kol".

Explanation: This teaches only if the entire k'Zayis [is Se'or or honey]. What is the source for part, i.e. half a k'Zayis? It says "Kol".

This is Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. It teaches about half a k'Zayis of Se'or, and half a k'Zayis of Matzah.

Question #1: If so, Ze'iri explains the Beraisa like Abaye there. Here it says that Ze'iri` comes to argue with Abaye!

Question #2: What was the question "like whom [did he teach]? Like R. Elazar"? His teaching can be also according to Rabanan!

Granted, Rabanan do not expound "Kol". However, they expound "Ki Chol"! It says so in Pesachim (43b);

If so, also Rabanan expound the first Drashah "what is the source for part, i.e. half a k'Zayis of Se'or and half a k'Zayis of Matzah?", from "Ki Chol Se'or"!

Granted, Rabanan do not expound the latter Drashah from "Kol" like R. Elazar. In any case, they expound the first Drashah, which is simpler, which R. Elazar expounds from "Kol". Rabanan expound it from "Ki Chol"!

Explanation #2: It seems that Ze'iri explains the Beraisa in Menachos like Rava explains there. This teaches only if it is totally [Se'or or honey], i.e. the entire Kometz, i.e. two k'Zeisim. He holds that a Kometz cannot be less than two k'Zeisim;

Citation (cont.): What is the source for part, i.e. half the Kometz, which is a k'Zayis? It says "Kol".

Citation (cont.): What is the source for a mixture, i.e. half a k'Zayis of Se'or and half a k'Zayis of Matzah? This is Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. It says "Ki Kol".

Support: Now it is fine that we asked 'like whom [did he teach]? Like R. Elazar, who expounds "Kol".' Since "Kol" teaches about a half Kometz, "Ki Chol" is extra to teach about a mixture, i.e. Heter Mitztaref l'Isur, like I explained;

However, according to Rabanan, who do not expound "Kol", [they expound] only "Ki Chol", for part, i.e. half the Kometz, which is a full k'Zayis;

However, a mixture, i.e. Heter Mitztaref l'Isur, they do not learn at all.

Question: According to Abaye, who expounds "what is the source for part", i.e. half a k'Zayis, and he holds that there is Haktarah less than a k'Zayis, what was the question "what is the source for a mixture?"

Note: Here, "half" is not precise. The same applies to any amount. However, above, we said that the Heter is Mitztaref l'Isur. There cannot be less than a k'Zayis of Isur, for if so the Heter is the majority, and it is not Batel to the Isur.

According to Abaye, we do not need its mixture to join Heter to Isur. [Any amount of] the Isur alone makes him liable, like I explained!

Answer: He explains "what is the source for a mixture?", i.e. dissolved [Isur]. The Reisha of the Beraisa includes an intact half a k'Zayis, and the Seifa teaches even if it is not intact, rather, dissolved, which is not recognizable. Also Rashi explained so in Menachos.

Explanation: He prefers to teach about Se'or, to teach unlike Abaye;

He teaches that there is no Haktarah [less than a k'Zayis], and if [Heter] joins [with Isur], yes (he is liable). If not, [he is] not.

He (Abaye) explains the Beraisa in Menachos as follows. This teaches only about all, i.e. a k'Zayis [of Se'or or honey]. What is the source for part, i.e. half a k'Zayis, for so he holds [that one is liable for a half a k'Zayis]?

Explanation (cont.): What is the source for a mixture, i.e. a little Se'or mixed in? One might have thought that since it is mixed with Heter, it is Batel. It says "Ki Chol".

Observation: According to him (Abaye), joining does not apply, for one is liable even for less than a k'Zayis of Se'or.

Question: According to Abaye, who expounds from "Kol Se'or" less than a k'Zayis, why doesn't he expound also [regarding] Chametz to obligate for less than a k'Zayis, according to R. Elazar?

Answer: Chametz is different, for eating is written regarding it, and less than a k'Zayis is not [called] eating.

Explanation: [He asks why the place he touched is Pasul, because] the spices should be Batel is the majority. [The Makshan] holds that Dimu'a (a mixture of Terumah) is forbidden mid'Rabanan;

I.e. mid'Oraisa one [part of Isur] is Batel in two [parts of Heter]. This that one measure of Terumah is Batel only in 100 [measures of Chulin] is only mid'Rabanan.

Explanation #1: [A Zar is lashed for a k'Zayis of Dimu'a] because it is called Terumah. Therefore, also regarding Tum'ah, it is called Terumah.

Distinction: However, it is not as stringent as Terumah to be Posel everything. Rashi explained like this in Pesachim.

Question #1 (R. Tam): Since we asked "it should be Batel is the majority", this connotes that the garlic and oil are not intact. Something intact is not Batel;

It connotes unlike this, for it taught "a Tevul Yom touched Miktzaso (part of it)." This connotes that it refers to the garlic and onions, and not the porridge, since it did not teach "Miktzasah" (feminine, like the word porridge)!

Inference: This connotes that the garlic and onions are intact.

Question #2: The Seifa of this Mishnah in Maseches Tevul Yom (2:3) teaches "R. Yehudah says, when is this? It is when they are a clump in the bowl";

Inference: [The garlic and onions] are intact.

Question #3 (Riva): A Mishnah there teaches "if a dough was mixed with Terumah, it is not disqualified through a Tevul Yom. R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, it is disqualified."

Inference: Regarding Dimu'a that is mixed and [the Terumah] is not recognized, we do not distinguish between where he touched and where he did not touch. Rather, the one who forbids, forbids everything, and the one who permits, permits everything.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): We discuss when the garlic and onions are scattered on the porridge and are recognized. The Reisha discusses porridge of Terumah, and the garlic and onions are totally Chulin;

We can say that the garlic and onions are like Yados (handles) for Tum'ah. Regarding Yados, we say elsewhere (Chulin 118a) that they bring Tum'ah (if Tum'ah touched the Yad, it is as if it touched the matter for which it is a Yad).

Distinction: However, when the porridge is Chulin and the garlic and onions are Terumah, he disqualifies only the garlic and onions that he touched.

The text: The text says "we asked, why did he disqualify the place that he touched? It is not k'Beitzah!

Question: Rashi rejected this text, for in several places Rashi explained that any amount of food can receive Tum'ah;

We expound in Toras Kohanim "Ochel Yitma" to teach that any amount is Mitamei (becomes Tamei);

Citation (Toras Kohanim): Perhaps any amount is Metamei others! It says "Asher Yochal" - [the largest amount of] food that can be eaten (swallowed) at once, i.e. a Beitzah (is Metamei others, but not less than this).

Answer (R. Tam): It is a mere Asmachta;

Source: In Ohalos (13:5) a Mishnah teaches that less than a k'Beitzah of food diminishes [the size of an opening to prevent it from allowing Tum'as Ohel to pass to the other side], and the Seifa teaches "this is the general rule. What [can become] Tamei does not diminish. (I.e. mid'Oraisa less than k'Beitzah is not Mekabel Tum'ah, therefore it diminishes.)

Implied question: Why does it say here "it is not k'Beitzah!"?

Answer: We must say that we do not ask from the oil, for less than a Revi'is of liquids are Mitamei. Rather, we ask about the garlic.

Note: We never find that k'Beitzah is the Shi'ur for a liquid. However, if the Shi'ur for Tum'ah of liquids were a Revi'is, the question "it is not k'Beitzah" would apply to the oil and the garlic.

Question: What was the question? Indeed, garlic is not Mekabel Tum'ah if there is less than a k'Beitzah, mid'Oraisa. In any case, it is properly disqualified!

Even though it is not Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, in any case mid'Rabanan they are Metamei! What was the question? "Disqualified" means, mid'Rabanan!

Answer: The expression "disqualified" connotes mid'Oraisa.

Observation: The Gemara answers "since a Zar is lashed for a k'Zayis." This is not precise that he is lashed, for Terumah of garlic is mid'Rabanan (like we say below on 36b).

Rather, it means that since a Zar would be lashed for a k'Zayis if it were Terumah mid'Oraisa, it is proper to consider it [important], and it is not Batel to the porridge.

Explanation: [We must say that he is lashed because Heter joins with Isur,] for [otherwise] we do not find that he is lashed for a k'Zayis [of garlic through eating the porridge - Malei ha'Ro'im].

Question: Why don't we say that it is because a Zar is lashed for a k'Zayis, if he would gather a k'Zayis of garlic from the porridge?

Answer (Ri): This is not the normal way to eat it. This is not a reason to say that [the garlic] is not Batel to the porridge.

Explanation: [He answered that] he is lashed for it, i.e. when there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras. He is lashed for eating the Isur itself.

Observation: This is fine according to Rashi's text, which says "it should be Batel";

Now he answers that since we find that he is lashed for the Isur, this shows that it is not Batel regarding Isur. Similarly, it is not Batel regarding Tum'ah.

Question: However, according to R. Tam's text, he asked that there is not a k'Beitzah of the Terumah. How can it become Pasul? If so, what was the answer now "since a Zar is lashed for eating the Isur itself in the time to eat a half loaf"?

Still, how does he disqualify the Terumah, and how does Heter join with Isur regarding touching? Regarding lashes, Heter does not join with Isur!

Answer: According to R. Tam, we can say that he answered that since regarding lashes, the Heter helps, for it joins with Isur to be lashed for it...

If he would gather the Isur from the porridge and eat it, he would not be lashed, for this is not the normal way to eat, like we explained (36a DH Mishum).

Note: There, Tosfos said that is not the normal way to eat, but he connotes that one who does so is lashed. There, Birkas Rosh says that there he discusses when the garlic is intact on the porridge, and here he discusses when it is mixed in. In another case of abnormal eating, the Gemara says Batlah Daito Etzel Kol Adam; Rashi says that one is not lashed, and Tosfos disagrees (below, DH Hanach, part 2).

Inference: The Heter helps, that he eats [the Terumah] with the porridge, to join it for Isur to be lashed. Similarly, the Heter should help to join it to Isur to become Pasul, even though there is not a k'Beitzah [to Terumah] in the place he touched. This is difficult. (Tif'eres Tziyon - regarding lashes, the Heter merely causes that the Terumah was eaten normally. What is the source that it joins with Isur to a Shi'ur?!)

Citation of Gemara: No, there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras.

Explanation: If he eats a half-loaf, i.e. [the volume of] four eggs, there is a k'Zayis of Terumah. Therefore he is liable, and it is not Batel.

Implied question (Maharam): A Mishnah in Kerisus (12b) teaches that all foods join bi'Chdei Achilas Pras!

Answer: That refers to one who eats Chelev, which is intact. However, in a mixture, since Heter does not join with Isur, [the Isur] is Batel;

Also if he would gather the Isur from the Heter and eat it by itself, bi'Chdei Achilas Pras, he would not be liable for the Isur itself, and even though Heter does not join with it;

Note: Perhaps Tosfos means "even though it is not mixed with Heter that could be Mevatel it." Arzei ha'Levanon suggests that the text should say "since Heter does not join with it." See also the note above on DH Amar Lei, d:1:i.

Therefore, [Abaye] asks in astonishment "is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras mid'Oraisa even in such a case?!"

Question (Rashbam): What was the question? Even if k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras were not mid'Oraisa, it should suffice [to be lashed] because Ta'am k'Ikar!

Abaye [himself] brings below that "Mishras" teaches that Ta'am k'Ikar!

Inference: [Isur] forbids because it gives taste, and it is not Batel, and all the more so here, that the Ikar itself is not Batel! (I.e. it is intact. It did not dissolve.)

Answer (Rashbam): Now, Abaye holds that one is liable for Ta'am k'Ikar only if he eats a k'Zayis of the taste at once, e.g. a k'Zayis of wine was absorbed in two k'Zeisim of bread, and he ate (swallowed) them at once;

It is logical that taste is not more stringent than the Ikar, and now he holds that the Ikar itself, he is liable only if he eats it at once.

Explanation: We are thinking that there is k'Zayis [of Chametz] bi'Chdei Achilas Pras of Kutach ha'Bavli.

According to him (Abaye), surely the case of porridge is fine. He understands that the reason is because Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. This is according to R. Elazar, who expounds "Kol";

However, according to Rabanan, who do not expound "Kol", it is obvious to him that they argue with him.

However, regarding this that he is lashed, that [Rav Dimi] said that according to R. Yochanan, it is due to reasoning (because there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras), we do not find that Tana'im argue about this!

Question: (Why did Abaye ask?) He should say that Rabanan argue with R. Elazar about Kutach ha'Bavli, i.e. when he eats precisely a k'Zayis, for he did not eat a k'Zayis of Isur!

R. Elazar obligates, for he expounds "Kol" [to teach that] Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. However, if he ate so much that there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras, Rabanan agree that he is liable!

Answer: Since [Chachamim] said there in Pesachim (43a) "for absolute Chametz of grain, one is Chayav Kares. For its mixture, he is not liable at all", this connotes even if he ate much Kutach, [they] say that he is not liable.

Explanation: "Sarif" is an expression of swallowing, like it says "Sorfah Chayah" (he swallows it raw - Avodah Zarah 29b).

Citation of Gemara: Batlah Da'ato Etzel Kol Adam (we are not concerned for his opinion. The Halachah is based on normal people.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Pesachim 44a): If this occurs, he is exempt, for this is not the normal way to eat it.

Explanation #2: It seems that if this occurs, [Chachamim] agree that he is liable. They do not discuss this. (Rather, they discuss one who consumes it normally.)

Explanation: He dips [other food] in it, like the normal way [of consuming Kutach], he does not consume k'Zayis [of Chametz] bi'Chdei Achilas Pras.

Support: The same applies to Kutach ha'Bavli. [Chachamim and R. Elazar] argue also about it there.

Implied question: It is normal to drink it by itself!

Answer: However, it is not normal to drink so many cups consecutively [to consume a k'Zayis of Chametz] bi'Chdei Achilas Pras. If he drinks them consecutively, Batlah Daito Etzel Kol Adam.

Explanation: There are spices in them. If you will say that k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is mid'Oraisa, why do we make a lenient assumption [that the Terumah fell into the Terumah...]?

Since if the Terumah fell into the Chulin, one (a Zar) who eats it is Chayav Misah, we should not make a lenient assumption!

The Gemara did not think that there is not k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras.

Citation of Gemara: [Some texts say] rather, what [do you say]? Heter joins to Isur? [Also for you it is difficult,] why do we make a lenient assumption?

Question: Abaye should answer that even though he said regarding porridge that Heter Mitztaref l'Isur, this was according to R. Elazar, who expounds "Kol". This is like Rabanan, who do not expound "Kol"!

Answer: He does not want to say that two Stam [Beraisos] argue with each other. If this is like R. Elazar, and this one is.

In Pesachim, this is not in Seforim. Rather, it says "do not ask from Terumah of spices, which is mid'Rabanan";

The Torah wrote [to separate Terumah from] grain, wine and oil. (Everything else is mid'Rabanan.) This is why we make a lenient assumption.

Explanation: There is grain in [the boxes]. If you think that [k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is mid'Oraisa, why do we make a lenient assumption]?

Citation of Gemara: Granted, according to me, that we say Heter Mitztaref l'Isur, we say so only when there is more Isur [than Heter].

Question #1: Kutach ha'Bavli has more Heter (the minority is Chametz)!

Question #2: Regarding mortars, we infer "rather, what [do you say]? Heter joins to Isur? [If so,] why do we make a lenient assumption?" He should answer "we are lenient because there is more Chulin [so Heter does not join to Isur]"!

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): Surely, when there is Nosen Ta'am, e.g. regarding Kutach ha'Bavli and mortars, that the Isur gives taste [to the Heter], then the Heter joins to the Isur;

This does not apply here, with two boxes. We discuss when both are the same species. Heter does not join to Isur. Since the Heter is the majority, the Isur is Batel immediately. It is proper that we make a lenient assumption!

Question: If so, why do we need to say "I say [that the Terumah fell into the Terumah]"? Even if the Terumah fell into the Chulin, it is Batel immediately is the majority! (Keren Orah questioned this, for mid'Rabanan Terumah is Batel only if there is 100 times as much Chulin.)

Answer: Now we are thinking that Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa. Mid'Oraisa, we make a lenient assumption only if there are two reasons. Firstly, there is more [Heter]. And secondly, "I [can] say..."

Note: Tosfos connotes that "I can say" is not synonymous with "making a lenient assumption. E.g. if both boxes were Chulin, but now he needs only one of them, we would not assume that the Terumah fell in the other box, for there is no reason to permit the one he wants more than the other.

Support: We ask like this against R. Yochanan in Yevamos (82a. If Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa, why do we make a lenient assumption?)

Question: Since you established above that we discuss Min b'Mino, and it is not Nosen Ta'am, what was difficult? Mid'Oraisa, Min b'Mino is Batel is the majority;

There are two proper reasons to permit. There is more [Heter], and [we can say] "I say..."!

Answer: If it is true that k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is mid'Oraisa for Min b'Eino Mino, also for Min b'Mino we should not rely on the majority to make a lenient assumption;

It is proper that Chachamim be stringent, just like the stringency of Min b'Eino Mino. (Chachamim were stringent to say that Min b'Mino it is Batel only in 60, like the law of Min b'Eino Mino. This Dibur continues on the coming Daf.)