Clarification: One cannot ask on Rebbi Yochanan, since he does not Darshen "Kol".

Question: But in the last Perek of Yoma (Daf 74.) Rebbi Yochanan Darshens from "Kol Cheilev" that Chatzi Shi'ur is Asur min ha'Torah'?

Answer: The Ri explains that he only Darshens an Isur from there, but not a Chiyuv Malkos, like there is if one eats a full Shi'ur.

Conclusion: And the same will apply to Chametz.

Explanation #1: And the explanation is that the Gemara now thinks that Dimu'a is d'Rabanan,

Question #1: And it is difficult to the Riva, for it implies that that the garlic and the oil are in an observable quantity since it says 'he touched part of them', and not 'part of it',

Question #2: And also since it says in the latter section: 'when is that?- when it is in a block in a dish, but if it was spread about it is Tahor'. And if the point of contact is Pasul due to Meduma, the opposite should be true: when it is scattered about there is more reason that it should be Meduma.

Question #3: And furthemore, why is only the point of contact and nothing more rendered Pasul? Since it is considered entirely Terumah via the Dimua, everything should be rendered unfit, or (alternatively) nothing should be rendered Pasul- even the point of contact! For this dispute appears explicitly in Maseches Tvul Yom with respect to dough that has become Meduma'as, and the one who renders it Pasul, does so entirely, and the one who renders it fit does so in its entirety.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains like Rabeinu Tam, according to whom the Mishnah speaks where the garlic and the oil are unmixed, and like text written in the Sefarim 'Makom Maga'o Amai Pasal, ve'ha Lo Havi ke'Beitzah?'

Explanation #2 (cont.): And since it is only subject to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan,it ought to be Bateil on account of the stew, as the Gemara explains in Perek Kol Sha'ah (earlier on Daf 33.)

Implied Question: Why do we not say that, since if he were to collect some of the garlic or some of the oil he would receive Malkos for eating it, it will not become Bateil in the stew?

Answer: Because that is not the way that it is usually eaten.

Question: The question is asked that in 'ha'Shochet' (Chulin Daf 34.) the Gemara states 'Leave 'N'zid ha'Dema', which does not contain a k'Zayis bi'Che'dei Achilas P'ras', implying that N'zid ha'Dema' does not generally contain a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras?

Answer #1: The Gemara had a tradition that here it speaks where it did.

Answer #2: And according to Rabeinu Tam, who establishes the case where the garlic and the oil are not mixed, it is even better, in that if they were mixed, it would not be a k'Zayis bi'Che'dei Achilas P'ras!

Refutation of Text: It seems that this text needs to be erased ...

Reason #1: Because otherwise, what prompts Abaye to query Rav Dimi, seeing as the same Kashya applies to himself?

Reason #1 (cont.): One must therefore say that according to Abaye the Kashya does not exist, since the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Akiva; Because Rebbi Akiva exclusively holds 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' throughout the Torah, which he learns from Nazir; whereas the Rabbanan, who learn from "Mishras 'Ta'am ke'Ikar', do not hold 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' anywhere.

Reason #2: Moreover, the Gemara in Nazir, in Perek Sheloshah Minim (Daf 37:) the text in the Sugya of 'Sh'tei Kupos' (which willbe cited here shortly) reads - 'Alright according to me, who holds 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', speaks where there is a majority of Chulin ...

Reason #2 (cont.): It transpires that, according to Abaye, Heter is Mitztaref le'Isur speaks where there is more Isur than Heter, or at least where they are equal, but not where the majority is Isur.

Reason #2 (cont.): Whereas according to Rav Dimi, Heter is not Mitztaref le'Isur under any circumstances, as the Gemara concludes later - since Chatas and Nazir constitute 'two Pesukim that teach us the same thing', which we do not therefore learn.

Conclusion: And this is the explanation (of our Sugya) 'If so,why do the Rabbanan argue?

Conclusion (cont.): According to me, the Rabbanan argue - seeing as Rebbi Eliezer Darshens "Kol", which comes to include, even where the Isur is minimal; whereas the Rabbanan do not Darshen "Kol", so when the Isur is minimal, it does not combine, as it usually does.

Conclusion (cont.): But according to you, on what grounds do they argue?

Conclusion (cont.): And likewise the Gemara fits nicely by 'Kupah' and 'Meduchos', according to Abaye.

Question: The Rashba asks that seeing as the T'rumah of spices is de'Rabbanan, why, by 'garlic', does it render Pasul by touching?

Answer: It is possible to draw a distinction.

Question: Why does the Gemara ask why we say 'she'Ani Omer ... ',

Question (cont.): bearing in mind that it is obvious that min ha'Torah, 'Min be'Mino is always Bateil in a majority, and it is speaking here where the Chulin are more than the Terumah, since the Gemara currently thinks that it speaks with regard to T'rumah d'Oraysa,

Question (cont.): Because things that are d'Oraysa, require a majority, even according to Rebbi Yochanan, as we learnt in 'ha'Areil'(Yevamos Daf 82.)?

Answer: The Gemara wants to establish that the Halachah applies in all cases, even by Min be'she'Eino Mino, such as wheat flour in barley flour which can become mixed together in a manner that one cannot tell apart the wheat from the barley.

Precedent: And the Gemara makes the same statement in the first Perek of Kidushin (38.) with regard to Chadash.

Explanation #1: Rashi interprets 'Ein Isuro Isur Olam' to mean that after three years it becomes permitted.

Refutation: What becomes permitted after three years is the tree, and the tree was never forbidden in the first place; only the fruit - and the fruit does not have a Heter?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains 'Hu ha'Din le'Orlah bi'Shetayim' with regard to the fourth year, whose Isur has a Heter either by redeeming it or by bringing it to Yerushalayim.

Explanation #3: Whereas the Ri explains that 'the Isur of Nazir and Chadash are not permanent', seeing as, what grows from the vine after the Nezirus terminates regarding the one, and what emerges from the stalk after the Omer has been brought regarding the other, is not subject to the Isur, the latter since it took root before the Omer

Explanation #3 (cont.): And likewise Orlah after three years; what subsequently grows is not subject to Orlah

Explanation #3 (cont.): Whilst 'Yesh Heter le'Isuro', one can explain like Rashi; namely, that Nazir has a Heter via She'eilah (nullifying it via a Chacham), and Chadash, according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says 'Yom Henef (the entire sixteenth day of the Omer) is forbidden', in which case it has a Heter during that period via the brining of the Omer.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Where Orlah does not have a Heter during the period of Isur.

Implied Question: And although a young sapling becomes permitted if it is grafted into an old tree ...

Answer: This is not the tree of Orlah, but a new tree.

Alternative: Moreover the Ri explains the fruit of Chadash that already became forbidden, and similarly what comes from the vine before the completion of Nezirus become permitted when the period of Nezirus terminates.

Alternative (cont.): Whereas with regard to Orlah and Kil'ayim, the fruit that has becomes forbidden never becomes permitted,.

Conclusion: And this explanation is the main one, did in the previous explanation).

Implied Question: One cannot ask according to this explanation, why it does not reckon 'Yesh Heter le'Isuro' via She'eilah and the Omer, l,eaving us with three cases by Orlah?

Answer: Since the Tana does not concur with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, but as soon as the east lights up, it is permitted.

Answer (cont.): And Nazir too, even if one does ask a She'eilah, it is not considered a Heter of a thing that was Asur, because the Chacham uproots the Neder retroactively, and it transpires that it was never forbidden.

Conclusion: But according to the first explanation, the Gemara could have reckoned the fact that the fruit itself is forbidden forever, in which case he could have listed three cases with regard to Orlah (and not just two).

Clarification: According to this, the Lashon 'Letzaref' is appropriate - meaning to combine the wine that it has absorbed.

Question: The Rashba asks that is goes well according to Rava, but according to Abaye, who learns in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin Daf 108.) that Basar be'Chalav is not a Chidush, why do we need to learn 'Ta'am ke'Ikar from Nazir [See end of Amud f.)

Question: Rav Yosef asks how Rebbi Akiva can learn 'Ta'am ke'Ikar' by Nazir from Gi'ulei Nochrim, seeing as Nazir is the most lenient of all the Isurei Torah, inasmuch as its Isur is not permanent, and its Isur can become permitted?

Answer: In Midyan too, there were vessels that had absorbed wine and were therefore forbidden to a Nazir.

Chachamim: Yet the Torah forbids it.

Clarification (cont.): In that case, it is not possible to draw a distinction between vessels on the same day and vessels on the next day - and in fact they are all Asur.

Rebbi Akiva: According to Rebbi Akiva, on the other hand, vessels are not Pogem at all on the same day, where from the following day onwards, when they are, they are permitted - as we learn from Neveilah. Rebbi Shimon too, holds like that in the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 67:)

Rebbi Meir: And Rebbi Meir argues with him there, and holds that 'Nosein Ta'am li'Fegam' is forbidden, and he learns this from the absorption of vessels belonging to Nochrim, which the Pasuk forbade (in the Parshah of the vessels of Midyan) even though it was a case of 'Nosein Ta'am li'Fegam', since even vessels on the same day inevitably spoil a little (like the Rabanan).

Rebbi Meir (cont.): Gi'ulei Nochrim, according to him, is not a Chidush.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Torah permits Neveilah is ...

Answer: Because it speaks when it was off initially.

Rebbi Meir (concl.): According to Rebbi Meir, we can also learn from Gi'ulei Nochrim 'Ta'am ke'Ikar', seeing as it is not a Chidush.

Conclusion: We now have three opinions in the matter.