Question (Ri): Also according to him (Abaye), that Heter Mitztaref l'Isur b'Eino Mino, Chachamim should be stringent about Min b'Mino!

Answer: These are different. The Chiyuv of k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras applies also somewhat to Min b'Mino, since he eats some of the Isur;

If it would be recognizable [it would not be Batel, and] he would be liable for it according to Torah law, since k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is mid'Oraisa;

However, Heter Mitztaref l'Isur never applies when there is mostly Chulin. Even if it were recognizable, he would be not liable according to Torah law.

Explanation: [Abaye] said to [Rav Dimi] what is your source that "Mishras" teaches that Heter joins with Isur? Perhaps it comes to [forbid] Ta'am k'Ikar!

However, the Gemara interrupted to ask that initially, Abaye disagreed with Rav Dimi and asked him all these questions...

I.e. even regarding other Isurim, [Abaye held that] we should say that Heter joins to Isur.

And then, [Abaye] said to him [perhaps it comes to forbid] Ta'am k'Ikar. I.e. now he wants to say that we should never say Heter Mitztaref l'Isur!

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that after Rav Dimi answered and brought proofs, [Abaye] agreed with him, but asked Rav Dimi him what is the source that "Mishras" comes for this, to teach that Heter joins with Isur? Perhaps it comes to [forbid] Ta'am k'Ikar!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Orlah is Asur b'Hana'ah, and there is no Heter for its Isur. Within the three years of Orlah, they (Orlah fruits) will never be permitted.

Explanation #2: It seems to me that surely, its Isur is permanent, but there is a Heter for its Isur, e.g. in the fourth year. One redeems it and afterwards eats. There is a solution for the Peros through Pidyon, like Ma'aser Sheni, even though they came from a vineyard of Orlah.

Explanation #3 (R. Yom Tov ben R. Yehudah): There is a Heter for its Isur, i.e. one may cause the Isur, e.g. to plant a tree, even though it will be Orlah;

This is unlike Kil'ai ha'Kerem. Similarly, one may vow to be a Nazir.

Question: Perhaps he does not hold that Ta'am k'Ikar!

Answer: Surely, had he not learned Ta'am k'Ikar from another verse, he would not establish "Mishras" to teach that Heter Mitztaref l'Isur;

It would be more reasonable to establish "Mishras" to teach that Ta'am k'Ikar, since there is a k'Zayis if the Isur itself, just it is not intact, only it is tasted;

Therefore, he asks from which verse he learns.

Reference: In Pesachim (44b) we [initially tried to] learn from Basar v'Chalav. Here, the Gemara is concise to say that we learn from absorptions in Kelim of Nochrim.

Note: It seems that Tosfos' text of our Gemara omits the suggestion to learn from Basar v'Chalav, and the rejection.

Question (R. Yosi, Ish Yerushalayim): We cannot learn from absorptions in Klei Nochrim, for there is no Heter for its Isur!

Answer (R. Yosi): Regarding all Klei Midyan, the Torah obligated Hag'alah (Kashering), even those that absorbed wine [but no Isurim]. Yisrael Nezirim were forbidden to use them, for the verse discusses all Kelim.

Those Kelim in which the Midyanim cooked wine, they were forbidden to Yisrael Nezirim. Regarding all of them, the Torah said to pass them through fire (Kasher them. Tosfos did not answer that the Kelim were permitted the next day because the absorptions were Pagum. This is not a Heter to the Isur; the Heter is only because the Isur is not intact! The Shach (YD 137:10) says that absorptions of wine do not become Pagum. Even if Tosfos disagrees, he could learn from a Nazir who finished his Nezirus. He is permitted, even if the absorbed wine is not yet Pagum, e.g. within 24 hours - PF.)

Note: I find this difficult. The Torah required Kashering Klei Midyan based on their normal usage. Perhaps this was lest they absorbed Stam Isurim, which have no Heter. Tosfos holds that if we knew (e.g. through testimony of soldiers) that a Kli was used in the last 24 hours only for Heter, it was permitted without Kashering to a non-Nazir. If the Havah Amina was that Ta'am k'Ikar does not apply to Isurim with a Heter, perhaps it was permitted even to Nezirim, for this reason!

Explanation: What absorbed is [eaten] like the stringent [one absorbed] in it, i.e. to male Kohanim within the curtains for one day and a night, like Chatas.

Note: Chatas is eaten in the Azarah. Tosfos adopted words of the Mishnah (Zevachim 53a). Rashi explains that it refers to the curtains in the Mishkan.

Alternate text: Some texts say like the stringency in them. This implies that there is a stringency in Shelamim that is not in Chatas;

We find this if the Shelamim was slaughtered yesterday. The Shelamim may be eaten until [the second day ends, i.e. the start of] night, but no longer. The Chatas was slaughtered today. [Normally] it may be eaten the entire night. Now [that it was absorbed in Shelamim], the Chatas is eaten like the stringency of Shelamim.

Inference: The Torah revealed about Chatas that Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. Isn't it the case that a half-k'Zayis of permitted fat is absorbed in a half a k'Zayis of Shelamim?

We need [Yikdash] for this (Heter Mitztaref l'Isur), for we already learn Ta'am k'Ikar from Gi'ulei Nochrim to all Isurim.

Citation of Gemara: The text says "Rabanan need both of them..."

Implied question: The Beraisa learns [that Isurei Nazir join] from "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin." We expounded this above through Klal u'Ferat!

Answer: Here we expound "mi'Kol". Even the one who does not expound "Kol", he expounds "mi'Kol", and all the more so R. Akiva, who expounds "mi'Kol".