(Mishnah): If blood became mixed with water, if it still looks like blood, it is Kosher (for Zerikah).

79a (Rava): Bitul can depend on the majority, whether the minority can be tasted, or on whether it affects the appearance.

Something in which (the taste is irrelevant, but) there is appearance (e.g. liquids poured into a Mikvah), it depends on appearance (an Isur that changes the appearance is not Batel).

Bava Kama 101a - Question: Do we say that wool increases in value due to ingredients (of dye)?

Answer #1 (Mishnah #1): If a garment was dyed with peels of (fruit of) Orlah, it must be burned. (This teaches that the appearance is significant.)

Rejection (Rava): Orlah is special. A Beraisa expounds "Va'araltem Orlaso" to forbid dying with Orlah.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): If a garment was dyed with peels of (fruit of) Shemitah, it must be burned.

Rejection: Shemitah is special. "It will be" teaches that the appearance counts.

Contradiction (Rava): Mishnah #1 teaches that appearance is significant. Another Mishnah disagrees!

(Mishnah #2): If a Revi'is of blood was absorbed in a garment, (it is Tamei, but) it has Tum'as Ohel if a Revi'is of blood will come out through washing it. (The mere appearance of blood makes no difference!)

Answer (Rav Kahana): (Normally, appearance is significant.) Mishnah #2 discusses Dam Tevusah (we are unsure if the blood came out before or after death). Its Tum'as Ohel is only mid'Rabanan, so Chachamim were lenient.

Nidah 62b (Mishnah): If a Keli Cheres (earthenware) absorbed fluids of a Zav and fell into an oven, if the oven was ignited it is Tamei, for the fluids will ultimately leave the Cheres.

(Reish Lakish): If the fluids were Avos ha'Tum'ah (e.g. his urine), the oven is Tamei even if it was not ignited.

(R. Yochanan): Even then, the oven is Tamei only if it was ignited.

Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah #2): Blood absorbed in a garment is Metamei b'Ohel only if a Revi'is will come out (easily) through laundering.

Answer (Rav Kahana): Mishnah #2 discusses Dam Tevusah. Its Tum'as Ohel is only mid'Rabanan, so Chachamim were lenient.

Beitzah 37a (Mishnah): If Leah lent to Sarah spices, water and salt for her dough, they may be taken only within the Techum of both of them.

38a - Question: Why aren't the water and salt Batel to the dough?

Answer #1 (R. Aba): Leah's property cannot be Batel to Sarah's property.

38b - Rejection (R. Oshaya): Min b'Eino Mino (something mixed with a different species) is Batel even regarding money!

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): This is a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim (the Isur is permitted at another time or situation). It is not Batel even in 1000.

Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 15:23): If a potter used peels of Orlah to fire bowls or cups, one may not benefit from them, for Isurei Hana'ah made them new.

Radvaz: If they became mixed with others, they are Batel in 201. They are no different than a garment dyed with Orlah peels, for appearance is significant.

Ran (Avodah Zarah 22b DH Garsinan): R. Eliezer permits benefit from bread baked using wood of idolatry after casting the value of the idolatry to the Dead Sea (Avodah Zarah 49b). Some say that his Heter is only for idolatry. Since idolatry what it is traded for, it is as if the Isur was removed. I say that the Heter is only for bread baked using wood of idolatry, since it is a light Isur. We cannot permit something dyed with Orlah, since it is as if the Isur itself is mixed in. Bava Kama proved this. We equated something dyed with Orlah to blood absorbed in a garment.

Rashi (79a DH Heicha): If something does not depend on taste, rather, on appearance, such as Tevilah in a Mikveh, if Isur changed the appearance (it is not Batel).

Tosfos (Beitzah 39a DH Mishum): Even though I explained that Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim applies only to Min b'Mino, we are stringent about Techumim, as if it was Min b'Mino, since it is his property. Alternatively, since the dough is kneaded only through water, and the food is fixed only through spices, when he mixes them together, it is as if they are one Min.

Tosfos (Nidah 62b mi'Kulei): In Bava Kama, Rav Kahana resolved the contradiction in Mishnayos. Here, only Reish Lakish holds like Rav Kahana. How can R. Yochanan answer? He must say that Tum'ah depends on what people care about. Since the blood does not come out easily, it is Batel. We forbid regarding Orlah, because he wants the appearance. There we answer according to Reish Lakish, i.e. even if you equate Tum'ah to Orlah, we can answer.

Shulchan Aruch (OC 513:3): If b'Shogeg, an egg laid on Yom Tov was cooked with meat or a food, if the rest is 60 times (the volume of) the egg it is all permitted, except for the egg. If the egg whitened the food, it is for appearance and taste, so it is not Batel.

Taz (4): In YD 102, the Shulchan Aruch says that Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim does not apply to Min b'Eino Mino. Here, since it gives taste and appearance, it is like Min b'Mino.

Magen Avraham (7): The Shulchan Aruch connotes that if it is not Nikar (recognizable), but it can be tasted, it is Batel, even though it is added to the food for taste, just like water and salt added to a dough. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 102) connotes that an egg put in a chicken is not Batel only if it filled (the inside) and the appearance is Nikar.

Machatzis ha'Shekel: The Magen Avraham explains that the Shulchan Aruch rules unlike the second answer in Tosfos (Beitzah 39a). Even if something is added to fix the food, it is not considered Min b'Mino (unless it gives taste and appearance).

Mishnah Berurah (9): The Magen Avraham explains that it is not Batel only if it gives taste and appearance. The Shach and Gra in YD 102 explain that it is not Batel if it has one of these.

Kaf ha'Chayim (16): Also the Taz in YD and all the Acharonim hold that either one makes it like Min b'Mino. We follow them.

Kaf ha'Chayim (15): The Pri Chodosh (YD 102:5) proved that an Isur that changed the appearance is not Batel only if it was added for appearance.

Kaf ha'Chayim (17): Even if the egg gives taste or appearance only with other things, since it is added for this purpose, it is considered Min b'Mino.

Rema (YD 98:8): If an Isur gives taste to a pot, and it is forbidden due to itself, it is not Batel even in 1000 if one can sense its taste.

Taz (11): In OC 513, the Shulchan Aruch rules that something added for taste and appearance is not Batel. Surely, here taste itself forbids. Normally, if the Isur is less than one part in 60 we assume that it cannot be tasted, but if one tastes it in the mixture, he may not eat it. If it changed the appearance, regarding Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, we are not lenient to taste the mixture, lest the Isur can be tasted.

Mishbetzos Zahav: The Taz explains that since the egg gives appearance, we are concerned lest it gives taste. This is difficult.

Shulchan Aruch (102:1): If a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, e.g. an egg laid on Yom Tov, was mixed Min b'Eino Mino, it is Batel in 60.

Rema: If it whitened the food, or it was put in the pot to fix the food, e.g. to fill a chicken, it is not Batel. See OC 513.

Shach (5): Since it is added for appearance, it is not Batel, like in OC 513.

Taz (6): The Rema teaches that not only when it whitened the food, and it is for appearance and taste, rather, even if it was put in to fix the food, also this is called Min b'Mino. Whenever the ingredients need the other, e.g. water and salt in a dough, this is Min b'Mino. Tosfos (Beitzah 39a) says so. The Rema discusses filling a chicken, for this is intact Isur, as opposed to what he says below (Sa'if 4) that taste is not considered Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim. The Rema learned from the Terumas ha'Deshen that anything to fix the food is like Mino. If one ingredient is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, it forbids the mixture until 1000 parts. We normally say that mid'Oraisa, Min b'Mino one part in two is Batel, and Min b'Eino Mino requires 60. There, b'Eino Mino is more stringent, so something that fixes the food is like b'Eino Mino.

Pri Chodosh (5): Rava holds that letter of the law, appearance is significant. It is like the Isur itself. The Isur regarding Orlah is not due to a Gezeras ha'Kasuv. Rava explained that earlier Chachamim, who did not resolve whether or not appearance is significant, could explain the Isur of Orlah due to the verse. However, the contradiction suggests that appearance is significant only for Orlah! We reject this, and say that perhaps it is significant only for Torah laws. The Halachah follows R. Yochanan again Reish Lakish. He holds that the Mishnah discusses proper blood of a Mes, which is Tamei mid'Oraisa. The Rambam rules like R. Yochanan (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 3:10), yet he rules (Hilchos Gezeilah 3:10) that the question was not settled! Tosfos in Nidah answered that really, the question was not settled. The Gemara merely rejected the proof from the Mishnah. Rashi explained that Rava says that appearance is significant when taste does not apply. Rava himself was unsure if appearance forbids (when taste applies). He taught what he was sure about. Since the question was not settled, we are lenient about mid'Rabanan laws.

Gra (6): In OC, the Rema says that anything added for appearance or taste is like Min b'Mino. Appearance without Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim does not forbid. In Bava Kama we did not resolve whether appearance is important. The Poskim (CM 363) say that it is a Safek. Rava distinguished between mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan, i.e. for Torah laws, appearance is significant. Perhaps R. Yochanan holds like this even for mid'Rabanan laws. This is only regarding Isurei Hana'ah. The Pri Chodosh erred.

Shulchan Aruch (112:6): Where people permit bread of Nochri bakers, this is even if it is coated with eggs.

Rema: Some forbid if it is coated with eggs, for they are intact and they are not Batel to the bread, so this is Bishul Akum (food cooked by Nochrim).

Gra (14): The first opinion holds that since the eggs are only for appearance, appearance is insignificant, like Rashi says in Zevachim.

Mishbetzos Zahav (100:1 DH Emnam Chazusa): Minchas Kohen says that appearance is mid'Rabanan. This is only if it is intended to give appearance. The Pri Chodosh agrees. Minchas Yakov says that appearance applies only to garments, which are commonly dyed, but regarding food, if there is no taste, we are not concerned for appearance. Even mid'Rabanan, it is Batel. In Siman 102:1 and OC 513, we merely consider the egg to be intact (if it gives appearance). The Pri To'ar agreed.

Shulchan Aruch (CM 363:11): If Reuven had wool and dying ingredients, and Shimon stole them and dyed the wool with the ingredients, and the wool declined in price and it is worth no more than when it was white, Shimon is exempt from paying for the ingredients. If Reuven seized the money, he keeps it.

SMA (27): The Gemara did not resolve whether appearance is significant, so it is a Safek whether it is as if he returned the theft. Therefore, ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah (to take money from Shimon, Reuven must bring proof).