Proof: This is evident from the fact that whenever we forbid a small layer, we never say that the small layer itself helps forbid what is next to it in order to forbid everything. Rather, this must be because the taste of the prohibited item does not go further than the small layer.

Answer #3: Rebbi Eliezer from Metz made a distinction that we do not say the piece itself becomes Neveilah regarding part of a piece, only regarding an entire piece. This (part of a piece) is not considered taste.

Proof: This is evident. If we did not say this, there would be no such thing as meat that would be permitted to eat! We rule that all salted meat that stayed this way for one or two days has a lot of taste of salt. Even so, we do not say that salt that is on the meat that became forbidden to eat because it absorbed the blood of the meat should now cause the meat to be forbidden!

Proof (cont.): Rather, it must be that even though the taste of the salt is absorbed by the meat, the taste of the blood that is in the salt does not become absorbed in the meat at all.

Explanation: This is why even the head is forbidden.

Implied Question: The Mishnah in Pesachim (75b) says that if part of the juices of the Pesach dripped onto the earthenware oven and the juices then went back onto the Pesach, he should take off the area of the Pesach where the juices went, and no more than that (the entire Pesach does not become forbidden because it is "Tzli Cheres" instead of "Tzli Aish"). (What is the difference between the two cases?)

Answer: This is because juices do not bubble (i.e. spread) up so much, as they are like brine, not like fat.

Question: If so, in our Mishnah there is fat of the Gid that does bubble. Even if it is roasted, we should say the entire animal should be forbidden!

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam understands that the fat of the Gid does not bubble.

Answer #2: Rebbi Meir explains that since the fat of the Gid is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law, as they decreed it should be forbidden due to the Gid itself, when the Gid does not forbid they were not stringent that the fat should forbid.

Observation: According to his explanation plus the fact that we hold like the opinion (99b) that Gidin do not actually have taste, even if it (i.e. the fat) is cooked it will not cause the meat to be prohibited just as the Gid itself will not cause the meat to be prohibited.

Implied Question: Ravina later says that certain thighs were forbidden (because they were salted together with the Gid ha'Nasheh). (How can he say they are forbidden because of the taste of the Gid ha'Nasheh when it has no taste?)

Answer: It must be that he holds that Gidin do have taste, as is the position of the Tana of our Mishnah.

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that the animal was scrawny and therefore it is permitted, as weak (i.e. thin) fat does not bubble up (i.e. spread).

Explanation #2: Alternatively, one can say that since it was scrawny it did not have a lot of forbidden fat, and the forbidden fat was nullified because the meat that was permitted was sixty times greater than the amount of fat.

Explanation: This is because there was a membrane separating the kidney and the rest of the meat.

Opinion: It seems that one must separate from the kidney a small layer because the membrane itself absorbs from the fat, as stated earlier (93a) that there are three membranes (that are forbidden due to forbidden fat).

Question: Why don't we forbid the kidney because the white fat in the kidney bubbles? Rebbi Yochanan himself said earlier (92b) that this fat is prohibited, as we said that he must uproot it!

Answer: Since it is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law, it does not prohibit the kidney itself.

Implied Question: Rava did not ask regarding our Mishnah (96b) which discusses a thigh that cooked together with the Gid ha'Nasheh, "Who will taste it?" (Why didn't Rava ask this regarding our Mishnah?)

Answer: This is because (the Mishnah said that) we measure it like meat (i.e. the Gid) mixed with a turnip (i.e. the meat, see Rashi on the Mishnah 96b, DH "k'Basar").

Question: However, there is a difficulty on our Mishnah later (108a) that says regarding a drop of milk that fell on a piece of meat, if it gives a taste etc. Rava could have asked his question on this Mishnah!

Question (cont.): Similarly, he could have asked his question on the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (73a) that says that if wine was mixed with water or visa versa (one being prohibited due to idolatry and the other being permitted), it depends on the taste.

Answer #1: It is easy to measure with sixty in such a case. However, here it is difficult to measure what is absorbed in the pot unless one actually tastes it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he understands that the Beraisa is discussing tasting, just as it meat tasting when it discussed Terumah, which can be tasted by a Kohen.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that he is a Nochri. (How is he believed if he is a Nochri?)

Answer: Since he is a baker he will not lie, in order that he should not lose his business.

Opinion: Later (109a, DH "v'Su Lo"), Rashi rules like Rebbi Yehudah that Min b'Mino is not nullified.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that Rebbi holds like him, as he said Rebbi Yehudah's words seem correct. Additionally, Rav and Shmuel say all Torah prohibitions that are mixed with their same type are forbidden with even a little of that type. The Beraisa in Avodah Zarah (73a) supports their opinion.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue (on Rav and Shmuel), and there is a Beraisa that also supports their position. (Why rule like one pair over the other?)

Answer: We see that Abaye and Rava, who are later Amoraim, agree with Rav and Shmuel. This is as the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (66a) states that vinegar that mixes into wine etc.

Answer (cont.): In Pesachim (30a), we also find that Rava rules that Chametz on Pesach forbids a mixture whether it is mixed with its type or not, if there is even a small amount of Chametz. This is like the position of Rav.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara (ibid.) explains that Rav holds that all Torah prohibitions mixed with their type are forbidden with even a small amount. If they are mixed with a different type, Rav decrees that they are forbidden with even a small amount of Chametz because people do not stay away from Chametz (as they eat it the entire year) and they will not take the prohibition seriously. The above is a quote from Rashi.

Question: Rabeinu Tam says that all of the above is not a proof. The Halachah does not follow Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi, or Rav and Shmuel. The Halachah is always like Rebbi Yochanan when he argues with Rav, as stated in Beitzah (4b), and when he argues with Shmuel, as stated in Eiruvin (47b).

Question (cont.): Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi also holds later (98a) that Min b'Mino is nullified, as he derives this from the Zeroa that is cooked (together with the rest of the ram brought by a Nazir, which is considered a Shelamim) and is Min b'Mino. (The Zeroa, given to the Kohen, is cooked together with the rest of the Shelamim. This is despite the fact that a non Kohen may not eat the Zeroa. It must be that Min b'Mino is nullified.)

Question (cont.): Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is very reliable, and the Halachah is always like his opinion, even when he argues on Rebbi Yochanan.

Proof: This is implied by the Gemara in Megilah (27a). Rav Papi there states in the name of Rava that on can turn a shul into a Beis Medrash, but may not turn a Beis Medrash into a shul. Rav Papa says in the name of Rava that the exact opposite is correct. The Gemara there says that Rav Papi's opinion is most probably correct, as Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that one is allowed to turn a shul into a Beis Medrash. The Gemara proves this from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, even though Rebbi Yochanan argues on his opinion as stated in Megilah (ibid.).

Answer: However, Rabeinu Tam himself pushed aside this proof, as it is possible that when Rebbi Yochanan argues there by saying that the Pasuk, "The great house" refers to a house where prayers are raised to Hash-m, it could be he means that this is even where prayers are raised to Hash-m.

Answer (cont.): This could be why the Gemara proves this from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rav Papa who says the opposite of Rav Papi cannot agree with either Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi or Rebbi Yochanan.

Proof: Even so, there is proof (that we rule like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi over Rebbi Yochanan) from the fact that in the Seder Tanaim v'Amoraim the Halachah is always ruled to be like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam understands that the case of wine falling into vinegar and new wine with grapes is discussing Tevel and Yayin Nesech. In those cases Rebbi Yochanan admits (that Min b'Mino is nullified), as stated in Avodah Zarah (73b).

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that Rava himself holds here that if it is impossible to discern the level of taste in a Min b'Mino mixture, it is nullified with sixty times (the amount of the prohibited item).

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Efraim pushed this aside by saying that our case is referring to new wine with grapes. It is called Min b'Mino because their tastes are the same. However, they in fact have a status of Min b'She'aino Mino, as Rava determines the nature of a mixture based on the name of the items mixed (which here are quite different).

Question: It does not appear that this is correct, as if it were correct the Gemara would not call this mixture Min b'Mino.

Question (cont.): Rava also says in Menachos (23a) that Rebbi Yehudah holds that whenever there is Min b'Mino and something else etc. implying hat Rava himself holds that Min b'Mino is nullified.

Implied Question: In Pesachim (30a), Rava says that the Halachah is that Chametz on Pesach, whether b'Mino or b'Sheaino Mino is forbidden with even a small amount, as per the opinion of Rav. (This indicates that Rava does hold like Rav that Min b'Mino is never nullified!)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam does not have the text, "with even a small amount as per the opinion of Rav." The absence of this text is also implied by the Bahag. He writes that since Rava did not say an amount, it must be that it is even forbidden with a small amount like Rav. Based on this statement of the Bahag, some Sefarim do not have this text.

Answer (cont.): Rather, the text is "it is forbidden," meaning it is forbidden if the prohibited item gives a taste as is the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan there. The Gemara there explains why it did not explicitly rule like Rebbi Yochanan. The Sheiltos of Rav Achai (Gaon) also rules that Rava's opinion is based on the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.

Observation: Even so, Rabeinu Tam did not rule this way practically regarding Chametz on Pesach (that it is nullified if it does not give taste). When people used to find a kernel of wheat in a boiling chicken on Pesach, he would require that they keep it until after Pesach (and did not allow them to eat it on Pesach).

Implied Question: Rabeinu Tam says that this is despite the fact that the Mishnah in Ohalos (11:7) says regarding birds and fish that they digest flesh of a dead person as quickly as if the flesh would go into a fire and get consumed. (Accordingly, shouldn't the kernel of wheat be considered digested?)

Answer: Even if we derive prohibition from impurity and say that the wheat should be considered digested, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah argues in the Mishnah (ibid.) and says that in fish and birds it takes an entire day to digest. In a Torah argument, we must rule like the stringent opinion.

Opinion: Even if we would have the text (in Pesachim 30a), "with even a small amount like the opinion of Rav" perhaps Chametz is different as it is more stringent, as one transgresses Bal Yeira'eh. Additionally, one does not stay away from it (as he is used to eating it all year round).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara there explains that Rav's opinion is based on his reasoning etc. (How can we suggest a different reason if the Gemara says the reason?)

Answer: Rava rules like Rav, but not because of the reasoning of Rav. Rav reason is because he holds in general that Min b'Mino is forbidden even with a small amount. We decree on Pesach that Min b'Sheaino Mino is forbidden due to Mino. However, Rava holds that even though all other prohibitions in the Torah are judged by whether or not they give taste even when they are Mino, he is stringent regarding Chametz on Pesach that even a small amount forbids the mixture even when it is not Mino.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, in the old Sefarim they do not have the text, "Rav is based on his reasoning." Rather, their text is as follows. "Don't Rav and Shmuel both hold that all prohibitions in the Torah that are not Mino are dependent on whether there is taste (given by the forbidden item)?" The Gemara answers, "Rav decrees that Chametz when it is not Mino is forbidden with a small amount, just like Chametz that is with Mino."

Implied Question: Chametz on Pesach is not discussed together with Tevel and Yayin Nesech in the Beraisa that supports Rebbi Yochanan. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because when Tevel and Yayin Nesech are mixed Shelo b'Mino they are dependent on whether they give taste. Chametz is forbidden with even a little bit even if it is Shelo b'Mino.

Opinion: Even Rebbi Yehudah Gaon rules that Rava only holds like Rav regarding Chametz. However, regarding other prohibitions, the law follows the opinions of Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish.

Proof #1: Rabeinu Tam brought another proof from the Gemara in Zevachim (79b) that discusses grapes, where Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says that Min b'Mino is nullified. We know that the teachings of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov are only mentioned in a few places (akin to a Kav which is a small measurement) but they are "clean" (meaning that the Halachah always follows his opinion).

Proof #2: The Gemara also seems to hold this way in Beitzah (38b) regarding Rebbi Abba who says that if someone had a Kav of wheat mixed etc. Rav Oshiya said that it was understandable why people laughed at Rebbi Aba's statement. Why should wheat mixed with barley be different? This is because it is not Min b'Mino and therefore it is nullified. Accordingly, even though Rebbi Yehudah holds that Min b'Mino is not nullified, the Rabbanan hold that it is! This indicates that this is the Halachah. This is why they laughed.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara there discusses the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, implying that the first part of the Mishnah is the Rabbanan. (The Maharam explains that Tosfos implies the following question. It is possible that when the Gemara there said that this is unlike the Rabbanan, it merely mean that the main opinion in the Mishnah which is not a case of Min b'Mino is like the Rabbanan. However, we might not hold this way, meaning it is not a proof that the Gemara holds that Min b'Mino can be nullified!)

Answer (cont.): Even so, the Rabbanan there are not discussing Min b'Mino. (The Maharam explains that this means that while Min b'Mino is not discussed in the Mishnah, it would not make sense for the Gemara to say this statement regarding a case of "wheat mixed with wheat" unless it clearly understood that the Rabbanan would hold this way regarding Min b'Mino.)

Opinion: The Bahag of Aspamya rules that a piece of forbidden meat mixed with many other pieces of kosher meat is dependent on if it gives taste. He quotes the statement of Rava that the Rabbanan said it should be nullified with sixty (i.e. the equivalent of taste) as the Halachah.

Opinion (cont.): Rashi himself rules in Avodah Zarah (66a) regarding the argument between Abaye and Rava that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan that it is dependent on taste.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (ibid.) says that Yayin Nesech is not even nullified if there is a small amount. (How can this be if we hold Min b'Mino is nullified?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that this is specifically regarding wine that was poured before an idol, as it is discussing the Mishnah of wine being mixed with wine and water being mixed with water. The case of water and water can only refer to water that is poured before an idol.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam found a Teshuvas ha'Gaonim, in a letter written by Rabeinu Yosef Tav Alam, that wine poured before an idol is forbidden from benefit and is not even nullified with one thousand times more kosher wine. This is as we learned in the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (74a), "The following are forbidden, and they forbid a mixture with even a small amount." This indicates that regular wine owned by Nochrim and other prohibitions, aside from Tevel and wine poured for idolatry, are always nullified if the forbidden item does not give taste to the mixture, whether it is a case of Min b'Mino or not.

Question: There is a difficulty from a Tosefta. The Tosefta says that a Nochri who was an official measurer (and tasters of the government) who tasted from the cup and returned it to the barrel (of wine) has forbidden the barrel. If he drew it out (from the barrel) using a straw and a drop of his wine fell back into the barrel, the entire barrel is forbidden. This is because a drop of wine is forbidden, and forbids a mixture with even a small amount. This indicates that even regular wine (touched by a Nochri) forbids a mixture with a small amount.

Answer: This Tosefta is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says that Min b'Mino is not nullified.

Implied Question: In the case of Knishkinin (a jug that has many straws sticking out of it), if a Nochri stops drinking from the straw first (causing his wine to drop back into the barrel) it causes the wine in the barrel to be forbidden as stated in Avodah Zarah (72b).

Implied Question (cont.): This is despite the fact that it is only the droplet that was in his mouth that causes the wine to be forbidden. This opinion clearly does not hold that the stream of wine flowing through the Nochri's straw when he is drinking causes the wine in the barrel to be forbidden because it connects it to the Nochri's mouth, as if so it could not hold that if the Jew stops drinking before the Nochri it is permitted. (This implies that even a small drop of regular wine forbids an entire barrel!)

Answer #1: It is possible to explain that when it says that it is forbidden, it means that it is forbidden Lechatchilah for one to arrange such drinking arrangements with the Nochri Lechatchilah, as it is forbidden to nullify prohibited items Lechatchilah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, this is according to the opinion that Min b'Mino is forbidden even with a small amount.

Question: This is difficult. If the thickness of the pot is fifty Kzaysim and he put ten Kzaysim of water in it, and he then proceeded to cook one Kzayis of forbidden fat in that water, how can that Kzayis of forbidden fat be nullified in the water (due to combining the water and the thickness of the pot)? It is obvious that the water will taste like forbidden fat!

Answer: It appears that the case here is where the forbidden fat is no longer present, as it dissolved in the pot that had already absorbed permitted food. Additionally, permitted food was cooked in it afterwards. We therefore include the thickness of the pot in the amount required to nullify the prohibited item dissolved in it.

Observation: Since Rebbi Yochanan does not say that we measure as if it was meat mixed with turnips as stated in our Mishnah (96b) regarding Gid ha'Nasheh, the implication is that other prohibitions are unlike Gid ha'Nasheh.

Observation (cont.): A Gid does not give off a lot of taste, and therefore the mixture is looked at as meat mixed with turnips. However, with other prohibitions that do give off more taste we measure with onion and leek.

Observation (cont.): Since Rav Nachman says that a Gid is nullified with sixty times more (of a permitted item), it implies that meat mixed with turnips are nullified with sixty times more (permitted turnips).

Observation (cont.): According to this, Rebbi Yochanan argues on Rava's statement earlier that all Torah prohibitions are nullified with sixty times more (of a permitted item).

Opinion: We rule like the opinion of Rava, as he is a latter Amora. This is also how we rule Avodah Zarah (69a) regarding the mouse in the beer.

Question: Since the utter itself is forbidden as stated later, why don't we say that the meat itself becomes Neveilah? This would require sixty times more permitted meat etc. besides the utter!

Answer: The reason that it is forbidden is not because the taste of the milk is in the utter anymore than it is in the rest of the meat. Rather, since there are holes in the utter, and the milk that has a taste like meat is gathered inside of it and it cannot be separated from the utter after it was cooked, it no longer helps to tear it.

Question: Why is the utter itself prohibited? All of the milk that is gathered inside of it into the holes in the meat has been emitted and spread out, being emitted evenly into all of the pieces of meat. This is as it is said that we measure everything.

Question (cont.): The Gemara also asks, this means that if it fell into another pot it should not forbid it! This indicates that it is obvious to the Gemara that the entire amount of milk was emitted, as I will explain later.

Answer: When it starts cooking, before the milk is totally emitted, the milk in the utter is forbidden due to the taste of the meat in it. It therefore could not be taken out of the utter through tearing it open.

Answer (cont.): Accordingly, even after it finished cooking and all of the milk has been emitted it cannot be permitted, as the Gemara holds that even if a forbidden absorption should be able to be squeezed out it is forbidden. (In a case where an item is forbidden because it absorbed a forbidden item, it would seem it could be made permitted again by cooking it together with other permitted items. Some of the forbidden item absorbed in the first item should be emitted, causing both the first item and what it is being cooked with it to be permitted if they are more than sixty times the absorption.)

Answer (cont.): Even according to the opinion that one can cause an item to emit (at least partially) into other permitted items causing both to be permitted, here we decree that this is forbidden as he might eat the utter before the milk was completely emitted.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding bloody meat we permit him to eat it after he put it on a spit and it was totally roasted. We do not decree that he will come to eat it before it is totally roasted (as we do here)!

Answer: The case there is different, as it is normal for the blood to go out through salting and roasting. Therefore, he roasts the meat in order to get the blood out. Additionally, all the blood ends up separating from the meat and falling onto the ground. However, here when all of the milk is emitted it is still in the pot. It is merely considered nullified. If we permit him to eat it in the end, he will end up eating it before it is ready.

Text: Some Sefarim have the text that it is forbidden when it is not torn and it was cooked together with the meat.

Question: Even if it was cooked by itself it should be forbidden, since there is a taste of the meat of the utter in the milk in the holes!

Answer: Due to the first version of Rav's statement later (10b) that says that if one does not tear it he does not transgress and it is permitted, the Gemara here must say that the case is where he cooked it with the meat.

Explanation: Since we measure the entire amount of meat, the entire prohibited item is deemed to have been emitted. However, if we only measure what came out, it is understandable why it can forbid another pot, as the entire amount was not emitted.

Question: Perhaps the reason that we count the entire piece of meat is because we are unsure if the whole amount was emitted? This is why it would cause the pot it fell into to be forbidden, as perhaps not everything was emitted.

Answer #1: This was obvious to him without a doubt. It was known to them whether the entire amount was emitted or only part of the amount was emitted.

Answer #2: Additionally, he would say that another pot is forbidden due to a doubt, as the milk of a slaughtered animal is only prohibited according to Rabbinic law.

Answer #3: It also seems that the Gemara's question "Rather now etc." is a question on the statement, "And the utter is included (in the amount)." This indicates we do not consider it a piece of forbidden meat, and that it is only forbidden due to the milk that is in its grooves. If so, if it falls into another pot it should not forbid it, as any milk that will end up coming out will go into the first pot.

Observation: The Gemara does not ask that it itself should not be forbidden, as I explained earlier (DH "u'Kechal").

Observation: This is also true regarding other prohibitions.

Observation (cont.): This specifically needs to be said regarding an egg because there are non kosher eggs that do not forbid, as people say that they are considered like water.