Opinion: Some explain that we do not say the law that a prohibited item that adds a negative taste to a mixture is permitted regarding a prohibition that is forbidden if one eats even a small amount of it. This is because there is no taste that is insignificant like one part in a thousand parts of a mixture (and yet it is still forbidden). Similarly, if it is a negative taste it should not make a difference (and should still be forbidden).

Opinion (cont.): This opinion therefore explains that when the Gemara deduces that we must be talking about Nosen Ta'am (giving a good taste), this shows that the mixture is permitted when there is no positive taste. If it would be forbidden even due to a small amount, it would even be forbidden if there was a bad taste.

Question #1: There is no proof from here, as the Gemara is merely deducing from the difference made in the second part of the Mishnah. This indicates that the first part of the Mishnah is referring to Nosen Ta'am, as this is what the Mishnah is discussing.

Question #2: Additionally, when a small amount of something forbidden is mixed into a large amount of a similar item the taste is not nullified at all, even if the larger is one thousand times greater, being that their tastes are the same. However, if it would normally give a bad taste to the mixture, it would be nullified.

Implied Question: There are some who have the text in Pesachim (30a) that Rav understands that even a small amount of Chametz is forbidden, even in a mixture with something that is not its type. This is despite the fact that the taste is nullified. However, one should not say that if the Chametz gives a negative taste to the mixture it is forbidden. (Why not say this if the taste clearly does not matter?)

Answer: This is because we do not want the secondary prohibition to be more stringent than the main prohibition. The fact that a small amount of prohibited item is forbidden when mixed with a large amount of a different permitted item (in some situations) is because there is a law that when the types are the same the mixture is prohibited! Rather, there must be no difference between them, and any permitted item that the forbidden item gives a negative taste to is permitted.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if they fell into the pot, and there was not enough of each spice separately to spice the pot (of food), if they together spiced the pot and they are forbidden they combine to forbid the contents of the pot.

Question: This is difficult. According to Rashi it seems these are one thing, while the Beraisa indicates these are in fact two different things! (The "things" being discussed are the rulings of the Beraisa that they are "Assurim" and "Mitztarfin." The understanding of Tosfos is that Rashi holds they forbid the pot because they combine, not that they forbid the pot, and that they also combine to be an amount of forbidden spice.)

Explanation #2: The Rashbam therefore explains that "Assurim" means the dough or food in the pot is forbidden if a good taste is given. "Mitztarfin" means that they even forbid a dry item without giving it a good taste. For example, if they fell into regular food and there is two hundred parts more of permitted regular food than one of the spices, even so the spices will not be nullified until there are two hundred parts more than the amount of each of the spices.

Question: Why do say both that they are "Assurim" and "Mitztarfim?" If it would merely say they are Mitztarfin we would know that both by wet and dry mixtures they combine!

Answer: If it would say this, I would think that Rebbi Shimon who is quoted in the second part of the Mishnah (Orlah 2:10) argues regarding both cases, whether it causes Nosen Ta'am in a pot, and whether it affects nullification in two hundred parts of a permitted item. This is why both are stated, in order to teach that Rebbi Shimon admits regarding Nosen Ta'am that they combine.

Answer (cont.): Even though they did not decree regarding a mixture of Dmai, they still said that Se'or and Tavlin are different as they are made for taste and are not nullified.

Explanation: When we say that something made for taste is not nullified, we do not mean it is not nullified at all. Rather, it is not nullified as are other prohibited items. However, it certainly will be nullified if we know for certain that the taste has been nullified, for example if a small amount falls into a very large pot.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that three such things would be white pepper, black pepper, and long pepper. They are all the same type, and they are all called peppers.

Question #1: This is difficult, as the second part of the Mishnah in Orlah (2:10) states that Rebbi Shimon says that whether they have three different names and they are one type or they are three different types with one name, they do not combine.

Question #1 (cont.): According to Rashi who explained that "names" refers literally to names, the case of three different names of one type is understandable, as I have explained. However, how can there be a case of "three types that have the same name" if name literally means a name?

Question #2: There is another difficulty. Throughout the Talmud, the word "name" means a category of prohibition, as in "these names" mentioned in Bava Metzia (should read 111a).

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that "names" means categories of prohibition. This is similar to the phrase, "this is not the nature of this name" in Shabbos (102a), which is used when the Gemara discusses the case of a person who eats something and is liable to bring five different Korbanos Chatas.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Mishnah here means that spices of two or three different prohibitions, such as a pepper of Kilayim, Orlah, or Terumah that are all a type of pepper, or three different types of spices such as peppers, cinnamon, and other types of items that are all prohibited due to one prohibition (i.e. Orlah).

Explanation #2 (cont.): According to this explanation it is understandable how three types of items can have the same name. This means they are all prohibited due to the same prohibition, such as Terumah, Orlah, or Kilai ha'Kerem.

Proof: The Yerushalmi also implies this explanation. The Mishnah says in Orlah (2:1) that Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser, Chalah, and Bikurim combine with each other. The Yerushalmi comments that according to Rebbi Shimon this is needed. Even though Rebbi Shimon says that both "names" do not combine, he admits here that they are all called Terumah. This implies clearly that "names" refers to categories of prohibition.

Question: If so, why does Chizkiyah insist the case is regarding sweet (i.e. similar tasting) spices? Even if they are not sweet they combine due to the rule, "Whatever I have made an abomination for you etc.?"

Answer #1: Rashi answers that this is indeed a valid point. According to Rava, there is no need for Chizkiyah's comment that the Mishnah is only referring to sweet spices.

Question: It appears to me that if this is correct, the law should not follow Chizkiyah being that Rava, a later Amora, argues on his opinion. However, the Gemara in Shabbos (89b) implies that Chizkiyah's opinion is indeed correct. The Gemara there asks, doesn't the Mishnah say that spices of two or three different names (i.e. prohibitions according to Tosfos)...and Chizkiyah said the Mishnah is referring to sweet spices? Being that the Gemara there asks a question from Chizkiyah's statement, it implies that the law follows his opinion!

Answer #2: It therefore appears that Chizkiyah's opinion is even according to Rava who holds like Rebbi Meir.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rebbi Meir says that all prohibitions in the Torah combine without them having to be sweet, due to his teaching that whatever I have made an abomination for you etc. (How, then, can Rava hold like Chizkiyah?)

Answer: This is only when the prohibited item is clearly recognizable. In this case half a Kzayis of each prohibited item combines to make one liable, even if they do not have the same sweet taste. However, when they are mixed up together in a cooked dish and are not clearly recognizable as in the case of two or three types of forbidden spices etc. that spice a pot of food, even Rebbi Meir admits to Chizkiyah that they only combine if they give a sweet (i.e. good) taste. They combine because they both sweeten the pot.

Answer (cont.): However, if they are not similar in their sweetness they do not combine, being that they do not both give a good taste to this pot. This is because one is coming to sweeten, while the other is coming to make the taste bolder. (In other words, the spices only combine if they are doing the same thing. A spice that thickens but dulls flavor will not combine with a spice that sweetens the flavor, even if they are both commonly used spices.)

Implied Question: This is even according to the opinion that one does not receive lashes due to a prohibition which includes many prohibitions.

Answer: This opinion is only, for example, in a case where grape leaves and soft string-like parts of the vine are eaten by a Nazir, as both are derived from the Pasuk, "from all that is made from the grapevine of wine" (see Nazir 34b). Another example would be in a case where someone eats a Korban Pesach, part of which is raw and part of which is cooked in the hot springs of Teveryah. Both prohibitions, though different in nature, are derived from the Pasuk, "just roasted."

Answer (cont.): However, if each prohibition is stated separately like most prohibitions are, if we see from the Pasuk in our Gemara that they can combine, it is not considered a negative prohibition that includes many prohibitions.

Question: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction regarding whose opinion we should follow. We rule like Rava over Abaye. We also rule like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says in Bava Basra (96a) that something that smells like vinegar and tastes like wine is vinegar. Rebbi Yochanan is the one who says that it is considered wine. (How can we reconcile these rulings?)

Answer: There is another version in the Gemara in Bava Basra (ibid.). Deromai say that Rebbi Yochanan is the one who says that it is vinegar, while Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says it is wine, as is the opinion of Rava.

Observation: It appears from here that it is permitted to make Kidush on Erev Shabbos on wine that smells like vinegar but tastes like wine.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we a hole is made in the cover of the barrel in order to be able to smell the wine.

Question: However, the word "Bas (Tiha)" is difficult.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Chananel explains that there is a straw that is stuck in the barrel that sticks out of the barrel, and a small straw is stuck into this straw like a nipple. People smell the wine through this nipple. This is why it is called a Bas Tiha.

Answer: One can answer Rashi's explanation by saying that in this hole that is made in the cover of the barrel a small straw is inserted, and people smell the wine through that straw. This is why it is called a Bas.

Implied Question: The lesson taught by this statement is as follows. (Why would I think that it would be forbidden for a Nochri to sniff Jewish wine?)

Answer: We do not make a decree that a Nochri cannot sniff a Jew's wine due to the prohibition against a Jew sniffing wine of a Nochri.

Explanation: It must be that the case is where the Nochri does not pay him or owe him a favor, as this is also considered benefit, which would mean he is benefiting from things that are forbidden from benefit.

Explanation: He is considered as if he is drinking the wine.

Implied Question: One cannot say that the reason is because he is considered as having benefit from the wine. (Why not?)

Answer: If so, what is the question asked from cumin of Terumah whose smell entered the bread of a regular Jew? One could answer that Terumah is different as it is permitted for a Jew to have benefit from it if this benefit does not destroy it. This is similar to our case, where there is only a smell of Terumah in his bread. The case is where the regular Jew did not stoke the oven, as if he did this would destroy the cumin. Rather, the Kohen stoked the oven.

Answer (cont.): Rather, they clearly must be arguing whether or not this is considered drinking.

Explanation: Rava's reason that this is not considered drinking is because the smell goes into his face and bothers him. More damage is done to him than good, and it is therefore permitted. This is as the Gemara states in Chulin (8a) regarding a knife of idolatry that it is permitted to slaughter with it because it does more harm than good.

Explanation (cont.): However, sprinkling Yayin Nesech (in a room) is certainly forbidden as it is totally beneficial. This is as the Gemara states in Pesachim (20b) that one should buy wine for drinking that costs one Sela per Lug, but he should buy wine for sprinkling that costs two Sela per Lug.

Explanation (cont.): However, we certainly do not say that sprinkling is considered drinking. This is apparent from the Gemara in Pesachim (20b) that permits sprinkling impure Terumah wine. If it is considered drinking, it is considered drinking impure Terumah which makes one liable to be killed!

Explanation (cont.): Rather, it must be that sprinkling is merely called a benefit, and is therefore forbidden to perform with Yayin Nesech.

Explanation (cont.): This is unlike Bas Tiha (which is permitted according to Rava), as smelling from a Bas Tiha causes the strong scent of wine to enter one's body forcefully in a damaging way, as opposed to sprinkling where the smell spreads out (and is therefore pleasant).

Observation: In Pesachim (76b), Rav and Levi argue regarding smells. The case is where kosher fatty meat was roasted (close) together with Neveilah meat. Rav forbade the kosher meat, and Levi permitted it. The Gemara there quotes a Beraisa that supports the position of Rav.

Opinion #1: Rashi there explains that even though the Beraisa supports Rav who said the meat is forbidden, the law follows Levi who permits the meat. This is because Rava, in our Gemara regarding Bas Tiha, agrees with Levi. We always rule like Rava over Abaye. Rashi therefore rules like Levi in Pesachim (76b).

Question #1: This does not seem correct. The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) discusses an incident where a fish was roasted in the same oven as a piece of meat. Rava from Parzaka forbade the fish to be eaten together with Kutach (a milchig dip). A practical ruling is a strong indicator of the law. Additionally, Mar bar Rav Ashi even forbade eating the fish with salt (i.e. to eat it at all), and the law always follows his opinion except in two cases.

Question #2: There is another difficulty. If Abaye and Rava have the same argument as Rav and Levi, the Gemara should have quoted their argument in our Gemara!

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that the law certainly follows the opinion of Rav in Pesachim (ibid.) that smell is significant (i.e. is considered a physical mixture of prohibited item). The law also follows Rava in our Gemara that the smell of a Bas Tiha is insignificant.

Opinion #2 (cont.): Abaye, who says in our Gemara that smell is significant, can say that he agrees with Levi that it is insignificant. Our case of Bas Tiha is different, as he benefits from the smell, and he is smelling directly from the prohibited wine itself. It is therefore fully comparable to drinking from the wine itself.

Opinion #2 (cont.): However, in Pesachim (ibid.) the case is where prohibited smell enters a permitted item, and the permitted item is being consumed. In such a case, even Abaye admits that smell is insignificant.

Opinion #2 (cont.): Rava can say that he can agree with Rav in Pesachim (ibid.) who says that smell is significant. Our case is different, as the smell is bothering him because it is (forcefully and in a damaging fashion) entering his body. This is why Rava understands it is insignificant in the case of Bas Tiha.

Opinion #2 (cont.): Accordingly, both Abaye and Rava in our Gemara can hold like either Rav or Levi in the Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.).

Observation: Based on this answer, there are many different degrees of smell. The strongest is that of hot bread above an open barrel (of Terumah wine), which is forbidden according to everyone.

Observation (cont.): The smell of meat is the subject of an argument between Rav and Levi. We rule like Rav. There is also the argument regarding Bas Tiha in which we rule like Rava. The next category is cold bread above an open barrel or hot bread above a closed barrel. Everyone agrees that cold bread above a closed barrel is permitted.

Opinion: Regarding the smell discussed in the Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.), the law follows Rava who says that the smell is significant. However, this is only in a case involving their ovens which were small, or if they were together under our large pans (together with a fire) that are called a Tarpid, where we commonly bake Pastida (i.e. a knish). However, in our large ovens there is no reason to worry about smell, as long as the opening of the oven is not closed.

Opinion (cont.): One does not have to worry about baking a Pastida at the same time as he baked a cheese tort in the oven, as long as they do not touch each other or any forbidden item such as a Pastida of Neveilah. Similarly, if prohibited grease (i.e. juices from the unkosher food) was on the Palah (item used to put things in the oven), one cannot put a permitted item on it the entire day.

Opinion (cont.): However, when it is not a Ben Yomo (used within the last twenty four hours) one can use it Lechatchilah. They did not make the decree not to use an unkosher vessel that is an Aino Ben Yomo due to the prohibition regarding a Ben Yomo, even Lechatchilah, being that it is impossible. This is because the Nochri (who is in charge of the oven) will not listen to the Jew who insists he use a new Palah everytime some forbidden grease spills on the Palah. However, if unkosher grease went out of the Neveilah and touched the permitted food or went under the permitted food, it becomes forbidden.

Question: Why didn't the Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.), while discussing the argument between Rava and Levi, quote the Mishnah regarding the cumin of Terumah quoted in our Gemara and push it aside, as does our Gemara?

Answer: The cases are incomparable. The case in Pesachim (ibid.) is referring to a smell from roasting fatty meat or Neveilah. This is why Rav says that the smell is significant, as the smell indeed travels and causes a pungent smell to be given to the kosher meat. However, regarding cumin that is in an oven and does not give a fatty or pungent smell, even Rav agrees that the smell is insignificant.

Opinion: Regarding the wheat and Chometz that was found in one of the Matzos (in a batch of Matzos) on the fourteenth of Nisan, the other Matzos are unquestionably permitted if they were found before six hours into Erev Pesach. This is because they are Batel b'Shishim like Chametz when it is not Pesach.

Opinion (cont.): Even after six hours into Erev Pesach the other Matzos are permitted because the Chametz is still not considered to be in the time when it is forbidden by punishment of Kares. When Chametz is not punished with Kares, a small amount is not prohibited. This only happens during the actual seven days of Pesach.

Proof: This is also implied by the Gemara in Pesachim (30a). The Gemara says there that after Pesach, Chametz is forbidden if it gives taste. This is even according to Rebbi Yehudah who says that Chametz after Pesach is forbidden to eat due to a Torah prohibition. The same therefore should apply after six hours on Erev Pesach. However, it is appropriate to forbid the Matzah in which the wheat is found from being consumed.

Opinion: If the Matzah in which the wheat was found was baked in a batch of Matzos that was baked during the seven days of Pesach, all of them are forbidden and the oven should also be forbidden.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in our ovens smell is not deemed significant. (Why, then, should the batch be forbidden?)

Answer: Even though it does not provide taste, there is some tiny amount that spreads, even in an oven that is not baking something with a fatty or pungent aroma.

Question: How is this different from the Beraisa in Pesachim (26b) that says that bread that was baked in an oven stoked with peels of Orlah is forbidden, according to the opinion that the improvement of the wood (i.e. peels) is in the bread?

Answer: One cannot forbid the improvement of the wood in the bread unless the improvement is from things that are forbidden from benefit. This is because the improvement is a forbidden benefit from the forbidden wood.

Answer (cont.): Therefore, regarding the Orlah used to make the fire the benefit is indeed forbidden for this reason. However, regarding Terumah which is clearly permitted for benefit even for regular Jews there is no reason to forbid the bread due to the improvement made to the bread by the Terumah.

Proof: This is clearly true, as indicated by the Gemara in Shabbos (38a) that says that one who accidentally cooks on Shabbos can have benefit from it, as opposed to one who purposely cooks. Why should this be? Isn't all wood Muktzah on Shabbos even if they were cut before Shabbos, and there is benefit from the wood in the bread? If so, when one eats such bread he is essentially eating benefit of Muktzah (on purpose)! Rather, it must be as I have stated, that we only forbid such improvement when the forbidden item is forbidden from benefit, and it is permitted to benefit from Muktzah.

Opinion: We see from here that hot bread that was baked on Yom Tov is permitted, even though there is a suspicion that the sticks used to make the fire were cut on Yom Tov and were therefore Muktzah. Even if they were, I have just explained that we only say the forbidden improvement of the wood is in the bread if the wood was forbidden from benefit.

Opinion (cont.): If one would suspect that the wheat had been ground and kneaded that day there is also no problem, being that when they were wheat they were able to be eaten.

Opinion #1: However, the Bahag considers wheat ground on Yom Tov to be Nolad.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Yechiel held this bread was permitted.

Opinion: Additionally, even on Shabbos there are those who permit taking hot bread from a Nochri based on the reason I have just stated.

Opinion (cont.): However, on the two days of Rosh Hashanah, I heard from my teacher that some say this is forbidden. This is because sometimes the harvest goes until Rosh Hashanah, and some therefore harvest on the first day of Rosh Hashanah in order to bake on the second day of Rosh Hashanah. It is therefore appropriate to be stringent on the two days of Rosh Hashanah.

Question: This is difficult. Didn't we already know that Nosen Ta'am l'Fgam is permitted? We knew this from the first part of the Mishnah!

Answer: The Mishnah is teaching us that even though the vinegar improves the beans if they are cold as stated in the Gemara, if it falls into boiling beans it is permitted. This is because we do not decree that it should be forbidden due to its being forbidden when the beans are cold.