Answer (R. Avahu citing R. Lazar): [Our Mishnah] teaches that kinds of sweeteners join.

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): There are three laws of giving taste;

Anything that [Isur fell in and harmed the taste, and] a commoner tastes it, and says 'this pot is not lacking anything (no spice will fix it)', this is Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam; it is permitted;

And even if [a commoner] said 'spice Ploni is in the pot (and therefore the Isur is li'Fgam)', this is Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam; it is permitted.

And anything that an expert [cook] tasted it, and he said '[it is bad because] spice Ploni is not in the pot', this is Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam that is forbidden (for it can be fixed through adding the spice. We explained this like GRA.)

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): All Isurim [that became mixed with Heter, and we cannot test whether or not it gives taste), we estimate them like onions or leeks (if the Isur's volume of onions or leeks would give taste to the mixture, it is forbidden).

Question: This is for something that it is normal to gauge with onions and leeks (one adds as much as of it as he would add onions and leeks). Something that it is not normal to gauge with onions and leeks, how does he gauge it?

Answer #1 (R. Yudan): Didn't R. Avahu citing R. Lazar say that [our Mishnah] discusses kinds of sweeteners? Kinds of sweeteners, because they are normally added like onions and leeks, we gauge them as if they are onions and leeks. All Isurim, which are not normally added like onions and leeks, we gauge them with their species.

Answer #2: R. Mana did not say so. Rather, didn't R. Avahu citing R. Lazar say that [our Mishnah] discusses kinds of sweeteners? Kinds of sweeteners, because their taste is the same, we gauge them as if they are onions and leeks. All other Isurim, because their taste is not the same, we do not gauge like onions and leeks.

Cumin, it is a question (how we gauge it).

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): All [Isurim] that give taste, one is not lashed for them until he tastes intact Isur.

Question (R. Chama b'Ribi Yosi, to R. Yochanan): Meat and milk, he does not taste intact Isur, and you say that he is lashed!

He accepted [the question].

What does it mean he accepted it? This is like a man who heard a claim from his opponent, and he took it (he was not concerned to answer him, for meat and milk is a Chidush).

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): All Nosenei Ta'am, one is not lashed of them, except for Nosenei Ta'am of Nazir. (He did not explain this. R. Zeira and R. Aba bar Mamal argue about what he meant, and resolve it with R. Avahu's teaching above.)

Explanation #1 (R. Ze'ira): All Nosenei Ta'am, one is not lashed of them unless he tastes intact Isur. For Nazir, [he is lashed] even if he does not taste intact Isur.

Explanation #2 (R. Ba bar Mamal): All Nosenei Ta'am, Isur and Heter do not join [to a Shi'ur to be liable]. For Nazir, Isur and Heter join.

A Beraisa supports this one (R. Ze'ira), and A Beraisa supports this one (R. Ba bar Mamal).

Support (for R. Ze'ira - Beraisa #1): If a k'Zayis of wine fell into a pot, and [a Nazir] ate a k'Zayis of [the food inside], he is exempt, until he eats all of it (for then, he consumed the entire k'Zayis of wine).

According to R. Ba bar Mamal, once he ate a k'Zayis of it, he is liable (for the Heter joins to the Isur)!

Support (for R. Ba bar Mamal - Beraisa #2) Question: Since it says "v'Chol Mishras Anavim Lo Yishteh va'Anavim Lachim vi'Yveshim Lo Yochal'' - what did the Torah not say (that it needed to say "v'Chol Mishras Anavim'')?

Answer: Rather, because it says ""mi'Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag Lo Yochal'', and it says "mi'Yayin umi'Shechar Yazir'' - why does it say "v'Chol Mishras Anavim Lo Yishteh''? Rather, [this teaches that] if he soaked grapes in water, or similarly if he soaked his bread in [wine], and there is enough to join to a k'Zayis (i.e. the grapes and the water they absorbed, or the bread and the wine it absorbed), he is liable.

From here you learn to all Isurim in the Torah. What comes from the vine, it is not a permanent Isur (it is permitted after he finishes Nezirus), and it is not an Isur Hana'ah, and there is a Heter after its Isur (even during the term the accepted, through Heter Chacham), and Ta'am k'Ikur (what absorbed the taste of the Isur is forbidden like the Isur itself)...

Other Isurim in the Torah, their Isur is permanent, it is an Isur Hana'ah, and there is no Heter after its Isur, all the more so we should say that Ta'am k'Ikur! From here Chachamim learned to all Nosenei Ta'am, that they are forbidden.

Note: If another Isur has even one of these three stringencies, there is a Kal v'Chomer. The Bavli (Kidushin 38a) says that Chadash has all three leniencies. Rishonim argue about the Heter after its Isur. Perhaps the Yerushalmi argues, and holds that Chadash has no Heter after its Isur. Alternatively, we do not learn to all other Isurim. (PF)

This is difficult for R. Ze'ira [who says that] everywhere [else] one is liable only if he tastes [intact Isur], and here (Nazir) even if he did not taste it. (We explained this like GRA.)