Answer: There it is Min b'Eino Mino, even though it is considered a little Min b'Mino (because the appearance is the same), to say that it [would be] Batel in a majority, if not for Ro'in, just like Min b'Mino. In any case, it is not full Min b'Mino.

Difficulty: However, according to this text we cannot resolve why it taught "full of saliva" like [we resolved above] according to Rashi. It could have taught "a Kli with saliva."

Question: What forced [Abaye] to answer "this is his opinion, and this is his Rebbi's"? He should say that the Beraisa is like Rabanan of our Mishnah, who say Ro'in, and Min b'Mino is Batel!

Answer: If our Mishnah were Rabanan, it would require so much Mikveh water that if the Mei Chatas were red wine, it would pale, and the Beraisa taught that a majority suffices.

Question: According to R. Yehudah, why does a majority suffice? We should say Ro'in!

Answer: We heard that R. Yehudah says Ro'in only regarding Min b'Eino Mino, e.g. white wine and milk. However, absolute Min b'Mino, we did not hear him say Ro'in.

Question: Why are Kodshim, Tum'ah and Mikveh different, that we say Ro'in here, and regarding Isur we do not say Ro'in, rather, Min b'Mino mid'Oraisa is Batel in a majority?

Also regarding Tum'ah, there are places where we do not say Ro'in, regarding brine in Bechoros (23b) and a fetal sac that is not Metamei through touching or carrying, and R. Yochanan said (there) that it is due to Bitul in a majority.

Conclusion: One cannot give a reason. Where it was said (Ro'in), it was said. Where it was not said, it was not said.

Question: We must clarify why sometimes we say Ro'in the Mevatel, e.g. in the Mishnah of blood that became mixed with blood of a Behemah, [or] it became mixed with wine, and sometimes [we say so about] the Batel, regarding a bucket full of white wine or milk;

[And why] sometimes we say Ro'in to be stringent, like the case of the bucket, and sometimes we say so to be lenient, like in our Mishnah, in which we are Machshir [blood] for Zerikah!

Answer: Due to the minority, so it will not be Batel, we say that Ro'in the minority or the majority, whether this is to be lenient or stringent.

Implied question: Why do we hold in the entire Gemara that R. Yehudah holds that Min b'Mino is not Batel? (Abaye answered that R. Yehudah himself holds that it is Batel!)

Answer: We rely on Rava's answer.

Question #1: If so, when it is full of saliva, why is it as if he did not immerse it? (There is no concern lest he rush to remove it!)

Question #2: When it is full of urine, why do Ro'in as if it is wine?

Answer: Perhaps Rava teaches only about Mei Chatas. (Shalom Rav, citing Taharas ha'Kodesh - for other matters, there is no reason to require a majority.)

Inference: Since he did not say [that some matters are Batel] in 60 or 100, this connotes that he discusses mid'Oraisa, that it depends on taste.

Support: It connotes like this above, that Ta'am k'Ikur mid'Oraisa, for it says that rice [bread] that has a taste of grain is obligated in Chalah, and one is Yotzei with [such Matzah] on Pesach.

Question: This is difficult for Rashi's Perush in Chulin (98b) regarding "this is needed only for Ta'am k'Ikur. In Kodshim it is forbidden, and here it is permitted" (regarding Eil Nazir. It is cooked whole, and Zarim may eat it, even though it absorbs taste from the foreleg, which only Kohanim may eat. The foreleg is one part in 60 of the entire animal if we gauge with the bones, or one part in 100 if we gauge only the meat.)

Rashi explained there that it taught "Zehu" to exclude other Kodshim, but we properly learn Chulin from it [to require for Bitul] 100 or 60, for we hold that "Acharei Rabim Lehatos", that [a minority] is Batel in a majority, and we learn from [Eil Nazir] to be stringent, that it is Batel only in 100 or 60.

Rava does not hold that Ta'am k'Ikur in Chulin, like he proceeds to explain. Mid'Oraisa it is Batel in a majority. Rather, mid'Rabanan (we require 100 or 60).

Support: We find that R. Yochanan holds like this in Avodah Zarah (67b). Any Isur that its taste (is recognized in a mixture), but there is no substance of Isur, one is not lashed for it.

Implied question: In Pesachim (44a) we learn from Nazir that "Mishras" (a Nazir may not eat bread that was soaked in wine) forbids Ta'am k'Ikur!

Answer #1: The later Amora'im hold that it is a mere Asmachta. We do not learn from it [mid'Oraisa], because Nazir and Gi'ulei (absorptions in Kelim of) Nochrim are Shnei Kesuvim (two verses, one of which teaches something that we could have learned from the other verse. They do not teach to elsewhere.)

Answer #2: We do not learn from Gi'ulei Nochrim, because it is a Chidush, like we say there (that they forbid even after 24 hours, even though the taste is detrimental), and Mishras teaches that Heter joins to Isur.

Rebuttal: So Rashi explained. One cannot say so, like is proven in our Sugya.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Min b'Eino Mino, mid'Oraisa it forbids through taste, for we learn from Mishras. Min b'Mino [is Batel] in a majority.

Implied question: Abaye said in Chulin (98a) "this teaches that elsewhere, the Torah forbids taste without substance. If it were only mid'Rabanan, why don't we learn from meat and milk?!"

[Perhaps you will say that it is because] it is a Chidush. If it is a Chidush, it should forbid even if there is no taste [of meat in the milk or vice-versa]!

Rava [rejected this.] The Torah forbids in the way of cooking (one would not add meat to cook with milk, or vice-versa, unless it will give taste). I.e. really, the Isur is only mid'Rabanan!

Answer: There, it is a mere Dichuy. I.e. you cannot derive from here.

Implied question: In Avodah Zarah (67b), R. Yochanan said that taste without substance is forbidden, and one is not lashed for it! (This connotes that it is forbidden only mid'Rabanan.)

Answer: This refers to Mino. Mid'Oraisa it is Batel in a majority;

It says there that one is lashed for taste and substance, e.g. the Isur is intact, and he recognizes it;

Implied question: Why does it say there that one is not lashed for taste without substance? The same applies to taste and substance if he does not recognize it!

Answer #1: He mentioned taste without substance for a Chidush. Even so, it is forbidden.

Answer #2: He mentioned taste without substance because this is true in every case, but b'Eino Mino taste without substance is forbidden and one is lashed for it if there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras.

Answer #3: He teaches totally about b'Eino Mino. When there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras, he calls this taste and substance. When there is not k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras, he calls this taste without substance.

Explanation #3 (Ri of Orlins): He is not lashed for Ta'am k'Ikur, even b'Eino Mino, for R. Yochanan holds like R. Akiva, who learns [Ta'am k'Ikur] from Gi'ulei Nochrim. There is [no Lav,] only an Aseh "Ta'aviru ba'Esh." [The Torah] requires Libun (making the Kli glowing hot) or Hag'alah (Kashering in boiling water, before using the Kli for hot food).

Rebuttal (R. Tam): We should say that the Torah returned it to its Isur (e.g. if the Kli emits taste of Neveilah, it is forbidden like a Neveilah, with a Lav and lashes), like we find in Bechoros (15b);

Implied question: A Mishnah teaches that one who shears or works with [Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, even after Pidyon, just like for Tam Kodshim], even though we learn [the Isur] only from "Tizbach", and not shearing (which is only an Aseh)!

This is because the Torah returned it to its Isur "Lo Sa'avod... v'Lo Sagoz."

Defense: Here is not so similar to there. There, the Torah said "Tizbach" - I permitted to you Shechitah of Kodshim that became blemished, and not shearing. (The Isur of shearing and working never changed. Here, the Torah forbade Neveilah. It never forbade with a Lav something that absorbed taste from a Neveilah!)

Implied question - Citation (Yerushalmi in Orlah - R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): Everything that gives taste, one is not lashed for it, except for Nosen Ta'am of Nazir.

Answer: We can say that he discusses Heter joining with Isur, for in Pesachim (43b) and in Nazir (35b), R. Avahu said in the name of R. Yochanan himself that all Isurim in the Torah, Heter does not join with Isur, except for Isurei Nazir.

The Yerushalmi calls this Nosen Ta'am, like a Nazir who soaked his bread in wine.

Objection: However, the Sugya in the Yerushalmi proves that it discusses giving taste!

Question: If Ta'am k'Ikur is mid'Oraisa, what was the question in Pesachim (44a) and in Nazir (36b) about two boxes, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, and in front of them are two Sa'im...

[The Gemara] asked if you will say that k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is mid'Oraisa, why do we say "I say [that Chulin fell into Chulin?" We should be stringent, for it is a Safek mid'Oraisa!]

Also now that we say that k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is not mid'Oraisa, it is difficult why we say "I say...", since Ta'am k'Ikur is mid'Oraisa!

Answer: There, it is b'Mino (Ta'am k'Ikur does not apply).

Support: It connotes like this in Yevamos (82a). Reish Lakish taught that this is when Chulin became the majority over Terumah. If this discusses b'Mino, this is fine (that a majority suffices). However, if it is not Mino, becoming the majority does not help! (Yad Binyamin, based on Maharam Lublin in Yevamos - even if Ta'am k'Ikur is not mid'Oraisa, mid'Rabanan 60 are required!)

Question: If it is b'Mino, since there is a majority, [the Terumah] is Batel in the majority, even if there is k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras!

Answer: In any case, [the Gemara] asks that if k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is stringent, that one is lashed for it Lo b'Mino, we should be stringent about [a Safek about] it b'Mino;

We should not say "I say...", since one is lashed for it Lo b'Mino. In every way we equate them, just like we require 60 both b'Mino and b'Eino Mino.

Question: Still it is difficult, for the Sugya in Nazir and Pesachim is according to R. Yochanan, and R. Yochanan establishes it in Yevamos even if there is not a majority;

If so, even if we say that k'Zayis bi'Chdei Achilas Pras is not mid'Oraisa, it is difficult for him why we say "I say." Since there is not a majority, it is a Safek mid'Oraisa!

Answer: [The Gemara] could have said ul'Taimech (it is difficult also for you, the Makshan). We find like this many times.

Remark: I elaborated in Chulin (99a DH Gali) that R. Tam's text says "it (what we learn from Eil Nazir) is needed only for Heter joins with Isur."

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes Kesav Yad and Tzon Kodoshim say that the following begins a new Dibur.

Citation: Min b'Mino [is Batel] in a majority.

Observation: This is unlike the Tana of our Mishnah, who says "Ro'in" even regarding blood and blood.

Explanation: This was while the Mikdash stood, that all three were mid'Oraisa.

Question: What is the source that he holds that Mitzvos are not Mevatel each other? Perhaps he took much of each one. In such a case, they are not Batel, like I explained above (78a DH ha'Pigul! Birkas ha'Zevach adds an answer to the text of Tosfos. One can swallow at once only two k'Zeisim (Kerisus 14a), or three if they are ground up. He understands that the Mitzvah is to swallow a k'Zayis of each, all in one swallow. Therefore he can take only precisely a k'Zayis of each. Surely, some of each is a minority mixed among the other two. Therefore, we must say that Mitzvos are not Mevatel each other - PF.)

Inference: From here R. Tam brought a proof in Avodah Zarah (33b) regarding cups. The first and second times, they are forbidden. The third time, they are permitted;

It discusses rinsing [three times] after a Nochri drank [Yayin Nesech] in them, similar to the case here.

It is not like Rashi explained [there], that it discusses when the Nochri drank initially the first and second times, before the Yisrael drank at all;

Pesak: Only a Kli Cheres requires rinsing three times, but cups of wood or silver, even once suffices.

Inference: This is a proof for R. Tam that Min b'Mino is Batel, for we hold that the teachings of R. Eliezer ben Yakov are few, but clean (the Halachah always follows him).

Explanation: He wets it with water.

Question #1: Also when he did not wet it, a Mishnah in Nidah (54b) teaches that if [her saliva and other matters] can be soaked and return to their initial state, they are Metamei whether wet or dry!

Question #2: What is Rabanan's reason?

Answer #1: It taught there "how are they soaked? It is in warm water for 24 hours." Here it did not return within 24 hours. Therefore, if it is dry, it is Tahor. (I.e. and R. Yehudah is unlike the Mishnah in Nidah.)

Rebuttal (and Answer #2): It seems that R. Yehudah does not refer to Rabanan's opinion about dry, rather, what they said about wet, and he teaches that it does not leave its Tum'ah through soaking, even in much water. (In the Reisha, Rabanan are Metaher because it was washed. In the Seifa, it is still moist from her mouth. R. Yehudah can agree with the Mishnah in Nidah.)

Support: Also the Tosefta connotes like this. Rabanan say that even this, when one put it in water and there is a majority [over her saliva], it is Tahor.

Question: What was the question "what do they argue about"? We should say that they argue about "I view." R. Eliezer permits to throw, because we say "I view Dam Pesulim and Dam Tamtzis as if they were water";

And Rabanan forbid, for they do not hold "I view", and it is forbidden to through Dam Pesulim on the Mizbe'ach.

Strengthening of question: They argue like this in the Seifa, regarding Nisnim above that became mixed with Nisnim below! This is the reason also for Nisnim one Matanah [that became mixed] with Nisnim four Matanos.

Answer: It does not connote that they argue about this, since R. Eliezer did not explain that he is Machshir because "I view", like he explains in the Seifa;

Rather, surely these Rabanan hold "I view", and their reason is because they decree.

Support: We must say so, from the need to teach this clause at all, and the clause of blood of Ba'ali Mumim;

Now, [in a mixture of] blood [that must be] put above [and blood] put below, that both of them are Kosher, [Rabanan] do not say "I view". Need they teach so about Dam Pesulim?!

Implied suggestion: perhaps it is needed to teach that R. Eliezer says "I view" even for Dam Pasul!

Rejection: If so, R. Eliezer should have explained so explicitly.

Answer #2: It seems like I explained above (77b DH b'Dam) regarding Dam [Kodshim] that became mixed with blood of a [Chulin] Behemah or Chayah, that regarding Chulin, Pesulim and Dam Tamtzis, all permit [Zerikah] l'Shem water;

[Rabanan] forbid only something that is offered, e.g. blood put above with blood put below, or blood that needs one Matanah with blood that needs four Matanos;

Since both of them are Kosher blood, we should not permit to deviate with Kosher blood to throw it on the Mizbe'ach, even for the sake of water, in order to be Machshir the upper [blood].

However, with Chulin and Pesulim he is not concerned if it permitted to throw it l'Shem water with the Kosher [blood], since Yesh Bilah (they mix uniformly);

If so, you are forced to say that their reason is because we decree. However, regarding Chulin and blood of a Chayah, which are not common in the Azarah, they did not decree.

Suggestion: They decree when there is no Dam Pesulim in order to be Mevatel the Kosher due to when there is enough to be Mevatel.

Rejection: If so, R. Yehudah should argue about this, for he said "blood is not Mevatel blood." (The Kosher blood will never be Batel!)

Support: It asks like this below (81b) regarding Nisnim inside that became mixed with Nisnim outside "R. Eliezer should argue also about this"!

Explanation: Rather, here they decree lest they come to be Machshir to throw Dam Pesulim by itself, and similarly Dam Tamtzis. This decree applies even according to R. Yehudah.

Support: Rashi explained so above on this Mishnah.

Implied question: Why don't we decree about Dam Behemah and Dam Chayah?

Answer: It is because people will not come to err and be Machshir it by itself.

Observation: However, according to Rav Papa, who says that they argue about whether it is common for Dam Tamtzis to become the majority over Dam ha'Nefesh, we cannot say so;

You are forced to say that he decrees when it is not the majority due to when it is the majority. This decree surely does not apply to R. Yehudah, for it is Min b'Mino!

Version #1: So it is written in Seforim.

Version #2: R. Tam found in an old Sefer "all agree that we do not decree." He explains that we do not decree lest he come to throw it by itself. People would not err about this;

This that we forbid Pesulim, we decree a minority [of Dam Pesulim] due to a majority. R. Eliezer agrees about this, because it is common.

Rebuttal: This explanation is strange, and this Sugya is strange [according to this text]. The text of Seforim is primary.

Explanation: R. Eliezer did not think that R. Yehoshua would challenge him from Bal Tosif, because [he knows that R. Eliezer says] I view as if they were water;

R. Eliezer [did not answer I view. Rather, he] answered [R. Yehoshua] according to R. Yehoshua's opinion, that he does not say I view it l'Shem water.

Explanation: This is a stringency of Mei Chatas, for mid'Oraisa [Min b'Mino] is Batel in a majority.