Mishnah: He is permitted gravy and Kipah.

Explanation: Kipah is tiny pieces of meat that descend to the bottom of the pot.

Mishnah: R. Yehudah says, a case occurred, and R. Tarfon forbade to us...

Explanation: This is brought to support R. Yosi. (Rashash - in the Ran's text, R. Yosi forbids gravy and Kipah.)

Mishnah: They said to him.

Explanation: Those who argue with R. Yosi.

Mishnah: So it was!

Explanation: It is like you testify! However, this is not a proof, for R. Tarfon forbade only when he said 'this meat is Alai';

Since he said 'this', he made the meat to him like a piece of Isur, and he is forbidden what comes from it.

Mishnah: One who vows from a matter.

Explanation: I.e. [he said] 'this matter.'

Mishnah: And it became mixed with another [food] - if it is b'Nosen Ta'am.

Explanation: If there is in the species [that forbids] enough to give taste to the Heter, e.g. there is not 60 times as much Heter, this forbids. (I do not understand why the Ran mentions 60. Chachamim gave a Klal, that Stam Isurim do not forbid more than 60 times their volume, for we cannot always rely on a Goy to taste it and tell whether or not the Isur can be tasted. Here, another Yisrael can taste it, unless he forbade it to everyone; the Mishnah does not imply that this is the case. - PF)

Question: How can we say here that if it is Nosen Ta'am (gives taste), it is forbidden? This implies that if it does not give taste, it is permitted;

Nedarim are Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim (they are permitted afterwards or in another situation), like we say below (59a), because it is a Mitzvah to permit them through She'elah, due to R. Nasan's teaching (that one who vowed and fulfilled it, is like one who built a Bamah and offered on it, when this is forbidden);

We hold that anything she'Yesh Lo Matirim is never Batel, even in 1000 parts of Heter!

Answer: We say that it is never Batel, even in 1000, only regarding Min b'Mino. Here it teaches when it became mixed with something else that is Eino Mino, like the case of eggs cooked with it (meat);

Every [Isur that is] Eino Mino, even a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, [forbids only] b'Nosen Ta'am.

Support #1 - Citation (Chalah 3:10 - Mishnah): If one put Se'or (sourdough) from a wheat dough into a rice dough, if there is taste of grain, it is obligated (one must separate Chalah from it). If not, it is exempt.

Citation (cont.) Question: If so, why did they say that Tevel (produce that was not tithed) forbids b'Mashehu (any amount forbids the entire mixture? Here we permit if it is not Nosen Ta'am!)

Citation (cont.) Answer: [It forbids b'Mashehu] b'Mino. B'Eino Mino [forbids] b'Nosen Ta'am;

Tevel is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, and even so, it taught that b'Eino Mino [it forbids only] b'Nosen Ta'am!

Support #2: The Yerushalmi in our Perek explicitly says so. It says that R. Shimon said a Klal (general rule) in the name of R. Yehoshua:

Citation (Yerushalmi): Anything she'Yesh Lo Matirim, e.g. Tevel, Ma'aser Sheni, Hekdesh and Chadash, Chachamim did not give a Shi'ur. Min b'Mino forbids b'Mashehu, and b'Eino Mino [forbids] b'Nosen Ta'am;

Citation (cont.): Anything she'Ein Lo Matirim, e.g. Terumah... Min b'Mino or b'Eino Mino forbids b'Nosen Ta'am;

Citation (cont.) Question: How do we judge Nedarim? Are they like Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, or like Ein Lo Matirim?

Citation (cont.) Answer: Presumably, they are like Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, for a Mishnah teaches that a Chacham uproots a Neder from the beginning....

Citation (cont.) Question: Our Mishnah treats Nedarim like Davar she'Ein Lo Matirim, for it teaches that one who vowed from something, and it became mixed with something else, if it is Nosen Ta'am, it is forbidden!

Citation (cont.) Answer: Our Mishnah discusses Min b'Eino Mino. [Really, Nedarim are] like Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim.

Note: The Rashba explains like this. Others change the text to say Ein Lo Matirim. I.e. b'Eino Mino, Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim is like Davar she'Ein Lo Matirim.

Conclusion: This is explicitly like we wrote.

Question: Some challenged the Rif, who wrote in his Halachos in Chulin regarding bread baked in an oven with roasting meat, which we forbid eating it with Kutach (a dairy dip)...

Implied question: We hold that smell is not significant! (The bread merely absorbed vapors, i.e. smell, from the meat.)

Answer (Rif): [We forbid the bread it with Kutach] because it is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, for one may eat it with meat. Therefore, it is not Batel even in 1000.

Inference: The Rif holds that even b'Eino Mino is not Batel. This cannot be, like we wrote with clear proofs!

Suggestion (those who asked): Perhaps the Rif relied on what it says in Beitzah (37a) about a woman who borrowed water and salt for her dough. One may take the dough only [within the Techum] where both (she and the lender) are permitted;

Citation (38a) Question: The water and salt should be Batel to the dough!

Citation (39a) Answer (Rav Ashi): It is because it is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, and it is not Batel even in 1000.

Inference: Water and salt regarding a dough are Min b'Eino Mino, and even so [Rav Ashi] said that the reason is due to Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim. This shows that even b'Eino Mino is not Batel!

Rebuttal: There is no source to say so. Water and salt are different. Since a dough requires them, this is like Min b'Mino.

Proof: We said at the beginning of the Sugya there (38a), when we asked that the water and salt should be Batel to the dough, R. Aba said to them "if a Kav of his wheat became mixed with 10 Kavim of his friend's wheat, will the latter eat [the entire mixture] and rejoice?!"

Citation (38a): They laughed [at R. Aba's words], and R. Oshaya said that they had proper reason to laugh. Why didn't [R. Aba] discuss wheat [that became mixed with another's] barley? It is because it is Min b'Eino Mino and [the minority] is Batel;

Citation (cont.): Also wheat that became mixed with wheat, granted, according to R. Yehudah it is not Batel, but Rabanan hold that it is Batel!

Inference: Since R. Oshaya said so, and he did not say that water and salt regarding a dough [are like] wheat and barley, this shows that we compare it to wheat mixed with wheat, since you cannot have a dough without water and salt. The Rishonim said so.

Answer: I say that the Rif is correct. Our Mishnah taught here that Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim b'Eino Mino is Batel, only when it is forbidden now and will be permitted later, like Nedarim.

Source - Question: Since Rabanan hold that regarding all Isurim, Min b'Mino is Batel just like Min b'Eino Mino, why did Chachamim distinguish regarding Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim between Mino and Eino Mino? What is the reason?

Answer: I say that it is because we find that Rabanan and R. Yehudah argue about whether or not Min b'Mino is Batel, and we say in Menachos (22a) that both of them expounded the same verse;

It says "v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par umi'Dam ha'Sa'ir." Even though the bull's blood is the majority, [the goat's blood] is [still] called Dam ha'Sa'ir. This shows that it is not Batel;

R. Yehudah holds that the reason is because Min b'Mino is not Batel, since anything that resembles another matter does not weaken it and nullify it. Rather, it supports it and strengthens it;

Therefore, R. Yehudah holds that for all Isurim, Min b'Mino is not Batel.

Rabanan do not hold like this, for in any case, Min b'Mino of Isur and Heter do not resemble each other. One is forbidden and the other is permitted;

It is not proper to [make their law] follow their essential (physical) similarity. Rather, we follow their distinction between Isur and Heter!

Rather, the reason that bull's blood is not Mevatel the goat's blood is because since both of them are Olim, i.e. they are Kosher to throw on the Mizbe'ach, they are not Mevatel each other;

Just like R. Yehudah follows their essential similarity, Rabanan follow their similarity of Heter!

Consequence: Therefore, whenever they differ about Isur and Heter, even Min b'Mino is Batel, since it is like Min b'Eino Mino.

Answer (cont.): Therefore, we say that regarding Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, Rabanan were stringent to adopt R. Yehudah's opinion, since this is not totally different than the Heter, like [regular] Isur and Heter [differ]...

Since even it (the Isur) is destined to become permitted like it (the Heter), we say that it is not Batel in Mino;

If so (it became mixed with Mino), they would be very similar. Firstly, they are the same species. And further, they are not totally different regarding Isur and Heter!

Therefore, it is Batel only b'Eino Mino, so that the distinction between Mino and Eino Mino will complete (the distinction, and compensate for) the equality that was added due to Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim;

This is because the distinction between the Minim is a reason for Bitul, and the equality is a reason not to be Batel.

Conclusion: Therefore, whatever is forbidden now, and the only thing lacking from the Isur is that later it will be permitted, that deficiency of Isur, since it is small, it is proper that the distinction between Mino and Eino Mino fills it (the deficiency);

However, when now there is Heter, like the case in Beitzah, that even the water and salt are permitted in a place where both women may go, the Heter of the dough is very close to the water and salt;

Since their Heterim are close, the distinction between Mino and Eino Mino cannot fill (the lack of difference between them);

Source: According to Rabanan, the distinction between Isur and Heter is preferable to the distinction between Mino and Eino Mino, for they argue with R. Yehudah about this;

Therefore, something that is permitted now, like water and salt, it is more proper that it is not Batel to the dough, even though it is Min b'Eino Mino, than it is proper for something that is forbidden now and later will be permitted later [not to be Batel] Min b'Mino.

Consequence: Therefore, granted, we conclude that Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim is Batel b'Eino Mino, because it is forbidden now...

[Even so,] Rav Ashi concluded there that water and salt, which are permitted now, are not Batel to the dough, even though it is Min b'Eino Mino.

Implied question: Why does it say there at the beginning of the Sugya (38a) "why is this different than wheat [mixed] with wheat, or wheat [mixed] with barley?"

Answer: Those are mere questions. We do not conclude like them, for they laughed at him (R. Aba), like it says there. In the conclusion, Rav Ashi did not rely on them at all.

Rather, he concluded that since it is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, for even now it has a time when it is permitted, even b'Eino Mino it is not Batel.

Comparison: Bread baked in an oven with roasting meat is like this. Even now it has a Heter to eat it without Kutach. Therefore, it is proper that even b'Eino Mino, it is not Batel.

Support: Further, even if you would not be so meticulous, follow the reason!

You see that the more the Heter is increased, Rabanan were more stringent about its Bitul. Since in the end it will be permitted, they said that it is not Batel in Mino;

Therefore, the more the Heter is increased, that even now it has a permitted time, it is proper to be stringent about its Bitul, that it is not Batel even b'Eino Mino.

Consequence: Therefore, the conclusion here, that Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim is Batel in b'Eino Mino, does not contradict the conclusion in Beitzah, that Rav Ashi concludes that [Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim] even in b'Eino Mino, it is not Batel.

We do not need poor answers at all. The case of bread baked in an oven with roasting meat is like the case in Beitzah.

Further, it is better than it (there is more reason to be stringent about it), for we can say that when we can be stringent about Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim b'Mino, we are not stringent b'Eino Mino.

However, the case of bread baked in an oven with roasting meat, we cannot be stringent about it b'Mino, for this does not apply at all (the case pertains only to b'Eino Mino), if we would not be stringent b'Eino Mino, there will be no stringency about it at all.

Conclusion: The Rif's words are logically sound. So it seems to me.

Question: They challenged the Rif from Yevamos (81b) regarding a piece of Chatas that became mixed with 100 pieces of Chulin. It is not Batel;

Rav Ashi explained that this is because it is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, and any Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim is not Batel even in 1000.

We concluded there that Rav Ashi erred. For whom [is it Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim]? For a Kohen, it is permitted [even now]. For a Yisrael, it is always forbidden! Rather, Rav Ashi erred.

Inference: We call something Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim only if it is forbidden now, and afterwards it is permitted;

This bread is always permitted with meat, and always forbidden with Kutach! Therefore, it is not called Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, like we conclude there [in Yevamos].

Answer: This question is mistaken. There [in Yevamos], we say that since for a Yisrael it is always forbidden, why should we be stringent to a Yisrael due to the Heter for a Kohen?! This is improper;

However, bread baked in an oven with roasting meat, since he (the owner) and every person has a Heter now, it is proper to be stringent about its Bitul. This is obvious.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi says that Ashishin are lentils kneaded and fried in honey. The Gemara asks from R. Yosi;

According to Rabanan, it is not difficult. Even though regarding [one who vowed from] milk, they permit whey, this is because whey is not milk;

However, Ashishin, even though they were fried in honey, they are lentils.

However, R. Yosi contradicts himself. If here he permits because since they have honey, they are called Ashishin, all the more so he should not forbid whey, which is a totally different matter [than milk]!

Explanation (cont.): We answer that R. Yosi's reason is because in his area, they called whey "whey of milk." Anything that has the name of its source on it, it is forbidden [to one who vowed from the source];

However, Ashishin, since they changed, and they are not called lentils, are permitted.

Also Rabanan permit whey because in their area, they called milk "milk" and whey "whey".

Question: According to R. Yosi, granted, one who vowed from milk is forbidden whey, since it is still called milk, because they call it "whey of milk";

However, one who vowed from whey, why is he forbidden milk? They do not call it "milk of whey"!

Answer: Since they call whey "whey of milk", milk and whey are one matter.

Mishnah: If one vowed from wine, he is permitted a Tavshil that has the taste of wine.

Explanation: The connotation of one who vows from wine is only when it is intact.

Mishnah: If he said 'Konam wine that I will taste', and it fell into a Tavshil, if it has the taste of wine, it is forbidden.

Explanation: Since he said 'that I will taste', it is forbidden even via a mixture. Since it has the taste of wine, he tastes it in it.

Mishnah: 'Konam are these grapes or olives, that I will taste them', he is forbidden them, and what comes from them.

Explanation: The Gemara explains if the Isur is due to 'these' or due to 'that I will taste.'

Explanation: Surely, it was obvious to Rami bar Chama that one of them suffices;

However, he was unsure if "Elu" is precise, and not she'Ani To'em, which does not help at all, or if she'Ani To'em is precise, and Elu does not help at all.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] countered "if you think that Elu is precise, why did it teach [also] she'Ani To'em?

Implied question: It could have said also "if she'Ani To'em is precise, why did it teach [also] Elu?"!

Answer: It said the first, and likewise it could have said the other.

Explanation (cont.): We answer that the Chidush is, even though he said she'Ani To'em, he is forbidden only if he said Elu. If not, he is not forbidden.

Inference: We infer also that if she'Eini To'em is precise, the Chidush is that even though he said Elu, he is forbidden only if he said she'Eini To'em. If not, he is not forbidden.

Note: Our text of the Ran in this Sugya usually says she'Ani, but sometimes says she'Eini. It seems that he equates these.

Question: Our Mishnah (57a) taught oppositely! If one said "Konam Peros Elu Alai", he is forbidden Chilufeihem and Giduleihem. If he said she'Ani Ochel or she'Ani To'em, he is permitted Chilufeihem and Giduleihem.

Inference: "Elu" is better (forbids more) than she'Ani To'em!

Answer: ["Elu"] is better only regarding Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, which are included in "Elu";

Since he specified them, he made them like Hekdesh, like we will explain below (57a DH Masnisin) with Hash-m's help;

Therefore, it is proper that Chilufeihem and Giduleihem are forbidden, just like they are forbidden regarding Hekdesh.

However, when he said she'Ani Ochel or she'Ani To'em, this does not connote that Chilufeihem and Giduleihem are forbidden;

Just the contrary! He excluded them, for when he eats Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, he does not taste them (the original Peros) at all!

Explanation: If what comes from them is more forbidden, it is a bigger Chidush to teach that what comes from them is forbidden, even though the form of the Peros that he forbade to himself, it changed...

[This is a bigger Chidush] than Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, in which [the form] is still intact.

We [reject and] reverse this. Just the contrary, it is better to teach Chilufeihem - even though they did not come from the body of the Isur, they are [forbidden] like Giduleihem;

All the more so, what comes out of them, which came from the body of the Isur itself [is forbidden]!

Implied question: He could have resolved our question from the Beraisa, which taught above if he said "this meat is Alai", he is forbidden its gravy and Kipah!

Answer: He wanted to resolve it from a Mishnah.

Gemara: 'I will not eat'... but what comes from them is forbidden!

Explanation: If what comes from them were permitted, surely regarding 'I will not eat' or 'I will not taste', this would be a bigger Chidush to permit what comes from them than to permit Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, like I wrote above (DH v'Ika).

And he answers him, indeed [this is true]! However, since the Reisha did not discuss what comes from them, because the Isur of Chilufeihem is a bigger Chidush, also the Seifa does not discuss what comes from them.

Gemara: Come and learn! R. Yehudah said...

Conclusion: We have no question about 'these'; it is precise. Our Mishnah teaches so!

Gemara: We ask about 'I will not eat' or 'I will not taste.' Is this precise?

Explanation: [If it is precise,] our Mishnah taught this or this (either he uses one of these expressions, or says 'these').

Or, it is not precise. Our Mishnah teaches that even if he said 'I will not taste', if he said 'these', yes (he is forbidden what comes from them). If not, no.

We come to resolve it from what was taught (51b, if one said 'Dag Dagah that I will taste) 'and he is permitted chopped fish and brine.' This shows that 'that I will taste' is not precise.

Gemara: Rava said, it already left the fish before the vow.

Explanation: Really, 'that I will taste' is precise. If it left afterwards, indeed, it is forbidden. The Mishnah permits when it already left them before his vow.

Opinion #1: When he said Elu, it is clear to us that this is precise, and he is forbidden what comes from them;

When he said she'Eini To'em, we are unsure, and it was not resolved. Since it was not resolved, this connotes that we are stringent.

Opinion #2: Some say that the reason he is forbidden what comes from them is because since he was so precise, this connotes that he intended for everything that comes from them.