Implied Question: One might say that Rebbi Shimon requires the Pesukim regarding kashering to teach Ta'am k'Ikar. This is indeed the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in Pesachim (44b).

Answer: It is impossible to say this. If Rebbi Shimon derives Ta'am k'Ikar from kashering, the Gemara should ask what Rebbi Shimon does with the Pasuk of "Mishras." It would no longer be needed if Rebbi Shimon would derive Ta'am k'Ikar from kashering.

Implied Question: One cannot say that Mishras is needed to teach that permitted items combine with prohibited items (to make an amount for which one is liable to receive punishment by Beis Din), as stated in the Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) according to Rebbi Akiva, and that we derive Ta'am k'Ikar from kashering. (Why not?)

Answer: Why would Mishras be needed to teach permitted items combine with forbidden items? If a person eats a Kzayis from the taste of a forbidden item absorbed in a permitted item, he is liable due to Ta'am k'Ikar. If he eats a half Kzayis of forbidden food plus a half Kzayis of permitted food, it clearly does not combine. This is why we would need a Pasuk regarding permitted items combining with forbidden items.

Answer (cont.): However, we understand from Rebbi Shimon (in Makos 17a) that even a small amount would make one liable to receive lashes. If so, why does he need to derive that permitted items combine with forbidden items? (One is even liable to be punished for eating a small amount according to him!) Rather, it must be that Rebbi Shimon admits that a Ben Yomo pot must have a slightly bad taste, as we have explained. This is the understanding of Rebbi Shmuel from Ivra. (This is the Maharsha's understanding of this part of Tosfos according to the Avodah Berurah. He changes part of the text of Tosfos. Others change the text differently, resulting in a slightly different explanation.)

Question: Rabeinu Yakar from Kinon pushes this aside, as it is possible to say that Mishras is required according to Rebbi Shimon even though he holds that only a small amount is necessary to make one liable to be punished.

Question (cont.): Rabeinu Tam explains later that this is only if the prohibited item is physically present. However, Rebbi Shimon does not hold this way if the prohibited item is in a mixture, as is apparent later regarding Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem.

Proof: This must be. If it were not so, you would never find that a prohibited item would be Batel (nullified), not even b'Rov regarding dry foods or b'Shishim regarding wet foods.

Question (cont.): If so, Mishras is indeed needed to teach that permitted items combine with forbidden items. For example, in a case where a half of a Kzayis of prohibited matter was swallowed up in a half Kzayis of bread and eaten, as stated regarding a Nazir who dipped his bread in wine and there is enough bread and wine together to make a Kzayis, one is liable. We could still say that Rebbi Shimon derives Ta'am k'Ikar from kashering. This is how Rabeinu Yakar pushes aside Rabeinu Shmuel from Ivra's opinion.

Answer: My teacher Rabeinu Peretz upholds Rabeinu Shmuel's explanation, and says that the question asked by Rabeinu Yakar is not correct. Certainly, once we know kashering according to Rebbi Shimon, we no longer need Mishras to teach that permitted items combine with forbidden items. This is because even without combining them, even a small amount of prohibited matter that is not physically present but rather is absorbed into bread is prohibited. Why shouldn't it be prohibited just because it is absorbed?

Answer (cont.): Being that Ta'am k'Ikar is derived from kashering, the taste that is absorbed is considered as if it is physically present. If so, being that if even a small amount of the prohibited item was physically present Rebbi Shimon would say that one is liable, so too if it is absorbed in a permitted item Rebbi Shimon will says one is liable being that it has taste, and Ta'am k'Ikar.

Proof: This is clearly true. Being that Rebbi Shimon says one receives lashes on even a small amount and the Rabbanan say one must have a Kzayis, we can equate a small amount according to Rebbi Shimon to a Kzayis according to the Rabbanan.

Proof (cont.): According to the Rabbanan, one is liable for eating a Kzayis of a forbidden item even when it is not physically present, but rather absorbed in something otherwise permitted. If he will eat enough of the permitted item that he will also eat a Kzayis of the absorbed forbidden item he will be liable as if he ate it when it was physically present, being that we say Ta'am k'Ikar.

Proof (cont.): If so, according to Rebbi Shimon if one eats a small amount that is absorbed in something else, it is as if he has eaten it when physically present, being that we say Ta'am k'Ikar. If we derive Ta'am k'Ikar from kashering according to Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Shimon does not need to derive anything from Mishras.

Proof (cont.): Rebbi does not need to derive the combining of permitted and forbidden items from Mishras, as he says one is liable for a small amount of absorbed forbidden items as well due to Ta'am k'Ikar, as I have explained. If so, why does the Torah say "Mishras" regarding Nazir according to Rebbi Shimon if kashering pots where the taste is not blemished at all teaches us Ta'am k'Ikar?

Proof (cont.): Rather, it must be that Rebbi Shimon holds that a pot that is a Ben Yomo has a slightly bas taste. Everything is now understandable, as Rebbi Shimon cannot learn Ta'am k'Ikar from kashering, being that it is a novel law that one must kasher when there is a slightly bad taste, and without a Pasuk we would have said the vessel could be used without kashering if there was a slightly bad taste. This is why we need Mishras to teach us Ta'am k'Ikar.

Implied Question: Rabeinu Yakar had pushed aside Rabeinu Shmuel's statement based on Rabeinu Tam's explanation later regarding Orlah and Kilayim that Rebbi Shimon did not say a small amount makes one liable to receive lashes when it is mixed with a permitted item unless it is physically present. (Why isn't Rabeinu Yakar's point valid?)

Answer: My teacher explained that Rabeinu Yakar's question is not difficult. Rabeinu Tam only discussed a mixture that should be permitted using the laws of Bitul, such as a majority of permitted dry goods mixed with a minority of forbidden dry goods, where the Torah said, "Follow the majority to turn," indicating that Bitul applies. Similarly, the case could be Bitul b'Shishim by a wet mixture where there is no taste given by the prohibited item.

Answer (cont.): Wherever Bitul applies, Rebbi Shimon did not say that even a small amount can make one liable for lashes, as a small amount according to Rebbi Shimon is no different than a Kzayis according to the Rabbanan. Just as a Kzayis according to the Rabbanan is Batel b'Rov in a dry mixture and Batel b'Shishim in a wet mixture, the same holds true for Rebbi Shimon regarding a small amount of something prohibited. The Torah said it is nullified!

Answer (cont.): However, where Bitul does not apply, for example when the prohibited item's flavor clearly is present in the mixture, there is no Bitul being that we say Ta'am k'Ikar. If taste is present, Rebbi Shimon will indeed say one is liable for even a small amount of prohibited item when it is in a mixture as if it was physically present. This is the understanding of my teacher (Rabeinu Peretz). [See also Tosfos in Shabbos 89b, DH "Assurin" and Tosfos in Meilah 18a, DH "Tani."]

Observation: According to Ula it must be that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon do not argue regarding the Pesukim of Neveilah, as if they did there would be no reason to differentiate between something that caused improvement and then detracted versus something that detracted immediately.

Observation (cont.): Rather, it must be they argue in logic. Rebbi Meir understands that being that there originally was improvement when the vinegar fell causing the mixture to become prohibited, there is no way to permit it afterwards even if it ended up detracting from the taste. Rebbi Shimon says that once it reaches a stage where it is detracting, it is permitted.

Question: The Gemara earlier regarding Neveilah implies that the argument is in a case where the prohibited item made the mixture improve originally, and then made it taste worse.

Question (cont.): Rebbi Meir understands that the only case that is permitted is if it was originally bad tasting, not if the mixture was originally good and then became bad, in which case it would be forbidden. Rebbi Shimon says it is permitted even when originally it was good and it then became bad. This implies that they argue regarding a case where it originally made the mixture good and it then became bad! (This is unlike our Gemara's statement that everyone agrees in this case that it is forbidden!)

Answer: The case here regarding an improvement which then turned into a bad taste and the case of Neveilah quoted earlier are incomparable.

Answer (cont.): The case here is when the prohibited item fell into the permitted item, creating a good taste and then later causing a bad taste. For example, if the vinegar fell into cold beans (making them taste good), and he then boiled them (making them taste bad). In such a case everyone holds it is forbidden, as it was originally a good taste, and was therefore deemed a forbidden mixture.

Answer (cont.): However, in the case of Neveilah earlier where Rebbi Shimon argued and permitted it because it is rotten now even though it had not been rotten previously, when it was a Neveilah it already had a bad taste (meaning that it tastes bad in its original form without being mixed) and is therefore permitted.

Question: How can there be a doubt in this regard (whether or not there is an argument in the case of Hishbi'ach uli'b'Sof Pagam)? If so, when Rebbi Yochanan said earlier that when there is a bad taste originally it is permitted and when there is a good taste and then a bad taste it is forbidden, who is this like? It is unlike the opinion of both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon, as Rebbi Meir forbids all bad tastes and Rebbi Shimon permits all bad tastes!

Answer: He holds like Rebbi Shimon regarding a bad taste originally, and he holds like Rebbi Meir regarding when there is originally a good taste and it turns into a bad taste.

Implied Question: The Gemara says Teiku despite the fact that the Gemara later concludes based on a Beraisa that if it was originally bad there is an argument, and if it was originally good and then became bad tasting everyone agrees it is forbidden. (Why does our Gemara say Teiku?)

Answer: Even so, in the Beis Medrash they originally concluded with Teiku, and later understood the law.

Proof: We find a similar chain of events in Nidah (25a) regarding the argument regarding dirty, but with clear etc. [See also Tosfos earlier 53a, DH "Oh Dilma."]

Implied Question: The Gemara could have answered its question from the case where Terumah fell first, as is obvious later in the Gemara. (Why didn't it just do this?)

Answer: It was better for the Gemara to quote all of the Beraisos discussed in order to give their correct explanation.

Explanation: These three cases refer to the two cases regarding sourdough, and the case of the wine that fell into the lentils.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding sourdough there are two cases, one where the Terumah fell first and one where the Chulin fell first. (This would seemingly mean there are three cases of sourdough!)

Answer: Both cases are considered like one, being that the case where the Terumah fell first ends up explaining the case where Chulin fell first, in order to teach us that even when there at first is a bad taste the Tana Kama says that it is forbidden (if it ends up being a good taste).

Question: Why don't we say their argument is regarding Zeh v'Zeh Gorem (when there are two factors in producing an item), just as we saw earlier (49a)?

Answer: This would only apply if both items do not have enough to cause leavening. When they would combine, it would be called Zeh v'Zeh Gorem. However, when each item has enough to cause leavening, it is not possible to say Zeh v'Zeh Gorem. Accordingly, even the one who was lenient there would be stringent in our case. [See Tosfos in Pesachim 27a, DH "Ad."]

Question: This is difficult, as in Meilah (18a) the Gemara asks from the fact that Rebbi Shimon holds that Orlah and Kilayim do not combine that Rebbi Shimon apparently contradicts himself, as he also holds that one only needs to eat a small amount to be liable to be punished with lashes! The Gemara therefore asks, why should Rebbi Shimon have to combine to make one liable?

Question (cont.): The Gemara there answers that not combining means that it does not have to be combined. This means that one is liable even for a small amount. Our Gemara, however, implies that when Rebbi Shimon says they do not combine, he means they literally do not combine to create a prohibition!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the case the Gemara asks from in Meilah is a Mishnah in Orlah (2:1) where Rebbi Shimon says that Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem do not combine. This is a case where they are each alone and not mixed. Rebbi Shimon therefore says (i.e. means) that they do not need to be combined.

Answer (cont.): The case brought here is not the Mishnah in Orlah (ibid.), but rather a Beraisa discussing mixtures. The Beraisa there states, "Orlah and Kilayim combine with each other. Rebbi Shimon says they do not."

Answer (cont.): The Tana Kama means that one can combine the two to forbid a mixture with permitted food if there is not two hundred times the amount of the forbidden food in the permitted food. If half a Lug of Orlah and half a Lug of Kilai ha'Kerem fall into less than two hundred Lug of permitted items, they combine to forbid this mixture. Rebbi Shimon says that they do not combine. Being that there is two hundred parts of permitted mixture against the Orlah itself or against the Kilai ha'Kerem itself it is permitted, even though there is not two hundred parts of permitted food against both the Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem together.

Answer (cont.): This is now good, as this Beraisa indeed means that they cannot be combined, as I have explained.

Answer (cont.): One cannot say that this Beraisa means that they do not have to be combined as is the explanation of the Mishnah in Orlah due to needing only a small amount for lashes, as the Gemara states there that Rebbi Shimon holds only a small amount is required for lashes.

Answer (cont.): This is because it is specifically regarding a prohibited item that is by itself (not mixed). However, he does not hold this is true if the item is mixed with permitted items. Otherwise, there would never be a rule of Bitul b'Rov, Bitul b'Shishim, or Bitul b'Ma'asayim. Rather, it must be that Rebbi Shimon admits that when prohibited items are mixed with permitted items there is Bitul.

Answer (cont.): However, where Bitul is not possible, for example where there is a taste of prohibited matter in the mixture, we consider this as if the prohibited item is extant by itself, as we rule Ta'am k'Ikar as I explained earlier. [See Tosfos in Meilah 18a DH "Tani," Tosfos in Shabbos 89b, DH "Assurin," and Tosfos in Bechoros 27b, DH "v'Chi Haza'ah."]

Question: This is difficult, as it is a mixture of cold with cold (which should not forbid the beer once the mouse is taken out)!

Answer: The case is where the mouse was in the beer for a day or two, and it was therefore "pickled" in the beer, which is similar to its being cooked in it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Torah seemingly did not have forbid a mouse (as people stay away from it anyway). This is the novelty regarding the mouse. He similarly explains this later regarding semen.

Question #1: It seems to me that even though it is disgusting and people stay away from it, we would not know that one who eats it is included in the negative prohibition of eating a Sheretz, or that one would be declared impure due to semen. (This is why the Torah clearly must say it!)

Question #2: Additionally, if so, the usual meaning of "novelty" when used in the Gemara would not seem to apply here. Usually this means that it is prohibited instead of permitted, or permitted instead of forbidden.

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that the Gemara means that people stay away from it, and we should therefore say it is permitted to be eaten being that it is bad tasting, and bad tasting things are normally permitted. Even so the Torah forbade it, including any bad tasting Sheratzim, being that the nature of the prohibition is that all Sheratzim are forbidden regardless of how they taste.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara's statement is now understandable and like other places where the Gemara uses the term "novelty," as in all of the Gemara it means that we would forbid something instead of permit or permit instead of forbid.

Explanation: This is because it is a novel law, as the Gemara stated earlier (see previous Tosfos).

Question: What is the Gemara's question? It is understandable that prohibited items are a novel prohibition if they do not taste good, as we generally say that a prohibited item that adds a bad taste is permitted. The Torah forbade them anyway (making this a novel law). However, regarding impurity, who cares if it does not add taste? There is no difference regarding impurity concerning good or bad taste!

Answer: Regarding impurity it is also a novel law that he makes something impure when it has bad taste, as the Torah indicated regarding Neveilah that something that is unfit for a Ger (Toshav), meaning that it is rotten, is not even called a Neveilah.

Explanation: This means that even regarding Sheratzim we say Nosen Ta'am l'Fgam is permitted. One should not say that Sheratzim is a novel law where this is forbidden, as we stated earlier. Rather, even regarding Sheratzim a bad taste means it is permitted.

Explanation (cont.): When Rava says that we do not know why a mouse that fell into the beer should be forbidden, he means that we do not know if the reason is because Rav held that a bad taste is forbidden, even regarding other Sheratzim, and we simply do not rule like his opinion.