(a)Having established that Ze'iri (who adds Se'or to the list of 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur') holds like Rebbi Eliezer, what will he say (with regard to Heter Mitztaref l'Isur) by Chametz on Pesach?
(b)Then why does he make a point of specifically mentioning Se'or?
(a)Having established that Ze'iri (who adds Se'or to the list of 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur') holds like Rebbi Eliezer, he will also have to agree that there is a Lav by Ta'aroves Chametz on Pesach (like we learnt in our Mishnah). Note: Heter Mitztaref l'Isur is a branch of Ta'aroves of less than a k'Zayis Bichedei Achilas Pras.
(b)The reason that Ze'iri mentions 'Se'or' - is to preclude from Abaye, who explains that "Kol" by Se'or comes to be Mechayev for burning half a k'Zayis on its own, as is implied by the Derashah (See last answer on previous Amud).
(a)If a Pesul-Yom touches any part of a Terumah-stew containing Chulin spices, he renders the entire stew, Tamei. What will be the Din in the reverse case, if he touches the spices in a Chulin-stew containing Terumah spices?
(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah ascribes the fact that he is Chayav for subsequently eating it (and that the Terumah is not Batel), to the fact that a Zar receives Malkus for eating a k'Zayis. What does Abaye attempt to prove from here?
(c)What does Rav Dimi answer him?
(d)What is a 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras?
(a)If a Tevul-Yom touched the spices in a Chulin-stew containing Terumah spices - he only renders the location where he touched, Tamei.
(b)Abaye explains Rabah bar bar Chanah's statement (that a Zar receives Malkus for eating a k'Zayis) - to mean that he ate an overall k'Zayis (incorporating Heter and Isur), a proof that 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' applies even to other Isurim too (and is not confined to Nazir).
(c)Rav Dimi answers - that he is Chayav, not because of 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur', but because there was a 'k'Zayis Bichedei Achilas Pras' (for which everyone agrees, he is Chayav).
(d)A 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras' - means that there is at least a k'Zayis for every four k'Beitzim (in which case whenever he eats four k'Beitzim, he has eaten a k'Zayis. In fact, this is also the maximum time period within which one must eat a k'Zayis (i.e. the time it takes to eat four eggs) in order to be Chayav for eating a k'Zayis of any Isur, even when it is not mixed.
(a)What is the source for the Shi'ur of 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras'?
(b)In that case, why do the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer and exempt one from Malkus for eating Kutach ha'Bavli?
(c)Will someone who eats a dishful of Kutach ha'Bavli in one sitting be Chayav?
(a)The source for the Shi'ur of 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras' - is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
(b)The Rabanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer and exempt one from Malkus for eating Kutach ha'Bavli - because Kutach ha'Bavli is a sharp condiment, and one does not tend to eat a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras'.
(c)Even if someone does eat a dish-full of Kutach ha'Bavli in one sitting he will not be Chayav - because this is not the normal way of eating it, and we will apply the principle of 'Batlah Da'ato Etzel Bnei Adam'.
(a)If two mortars full of spice, one of Chulin, the other of Terumah, spill into two pots, one of Chulin and the other, of Terumah, we assume that it was the Terumah that fell into the Terumah, and the Chulin into the Chulin. Why us that?
(b)But how can the Beraisa say that? Having just established that a 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras' is d'Oraisa, how can the Beraisa be lenient by Terumah, which is an Isur d'Oraisa - which even carries with it a punishment of Misah b'Yedei Shamayim?
(c)And how will we explain a similar Beraisa, which issues the same lenient ruling when two Sa'ah of grain, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, fell into two boxes, one of Chulin and one of Terumah?
(a)If two mortars full of spice, one of Chulin, the other of Terumah, spill into two pots, one of Chulin and the other, of Terumah, we assume that the Terumah fell into the Terumah, and the Chulin into the Chulin - because by Isurim d'Rabanan we apply the principle of 'Tolin' (meaning that we presume to the lenient side).
(b)The Beraisa is lenient by Terumah, to rely on Tolin - by the Terumah of spices, which is only mid'Rabanan.
(c)Similarly, the second Beraisa relies on 'Tolin' in the case of two Sa'ah one of Chulin and one of Terumah, which fell into two boxes, one of Chulin and one of Terumah - because it is speaking about Terumah bi'Zeman ha'Zeh, which is d'Rabanan.
(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Ze'iri (on 43b) learn from "Mishras" by Nazir, that 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' by Nazir. The Beraisa learns 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from there. What is the difference between 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' and 'Ta'am k'Ikar'?
(b)How do we reconcile Rebbi Yochanan and Ze'iri with the Beraisa? How can we learn both things from "Mishras"?
(c)Using the Isur of Kil'ayim as an example of Isur, the Chachamim extend 'Ta'am k'Ikar' to all other Isurim from a three point Kal va'Chomer. What are the three points in which Kil'ayim is more stringent than wine to a Nazir?
(d)Which of these three points is not applicable by Orlah?
(a)'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' - is when half a Shi'ur of Heter combines with half a Shi'ur of Isur; whereas 'Ta'am k'Ikar' - is when the taste of the Isur becomes absorbed in the Heter.
(b)The Beraisa, which learns 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from "Mishras", follows the opinion of the Rabanan (of Rebbi Akiva, who do not learn 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' from "Mishras"), whereas Rebbi Yochanan and Ze'iri, follow that of Rebbi Akiva (who does).
(c)A Nazir is not permanently forbidden to drink wine (only for as long as he undertook to be a Nazir), it does not incorporate an Isur Hana'ah and it can become permitted (by releasing the nazarite vow through a Chacham); 'Kil'ayim' is a permanent Isur (once one sows the forbidden seeds, they are forbidden permanently), it is Asur b'Hana'ah and there is no way that the Isur can become permitted).
(d)Orlah is not a permanent Isur, since, after three years, the seeds become permitted.
(a)So we have established Rebbi Yochanan and Ze'iri like Rebbi Akiva who applies 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' by Nazir. Why may it not necessarily be the Rebbi Akiva of the Mishnah in Nazir, who says 'Nazir she'Sharah Pito ba'Yayin, v'Yesh Bo Letzaref Kedei k'Zayis, Chayav'? How might one interpret this other than by 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur'?
(b)If Rebbi Akiva is referring to the wine alone, then why does he give the Shi'ur as a k'Zayis, should he not have said 'a Revi'is'?
(c)How does one measure a k'Zayis by liquid anyway?
(d)The proof that Rebbi Akiva holds of 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' by Nazir lies in a Beraisa. What does he say there with regard to a Nazir who soaked his bread in wine?
(a)When Rebbi Akiva says in Nazir 'Nazir she'Sharah Pito ba'Yayin, v'Yesh Bo Letzaref Kedei k'Zayis, Chayav', who says that this is because of Heter Mitztaref l'Isur? Perhaps it speaks when there is a full k'Zayis of wine, and he is Chayav because of Ta'aroves.
(b)Even though Rebbi Akiva is referring to the wine alone, he nevertheless gives the Shi'ur as a k'Zayis, and not a Revi'is, because that is the Shi'ur of a Nazir, even by a liquid - 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
(c)One measures a k'Zayis by liquid - by filling a receptacle to the brim, and slipping an olive into it. The amount of liquid that is displaced is a k'Zayis.
(d)Rebbi Akiva says in the Beraisa that if a Nazir soaked his bread in wine, and then proceeded to eat a k'Zayis of the bread, he is Chayav.
(a)In the above case of a Nazir who soaked his bread in wine, did the wine spread right across the k'Zayis of bread or only across a part of it, and why must we say that?
(b)What will the Rabanan say?
(c)From where does Rebbi Akiva learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar'?
(d)Why do the Rabanan decline to learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from Basar b'Chalav?
(a)In the previous case, if the Nazir ate half a k'Zayis of bread with wine absorbed in it, together with half a k'Zayis of dry bread, he is Chayav. If the wine had spread across the entire k'Zayis of bread, it would be a case of 'Ta'am k'Ikar', and the Rabanan, who hold 'Ta'am k'Ikar d'Oraisa', would not disagree with Rebbi Akiva.
(b)In the current case, the Rabanan hold that the Nazir is Patur.
(c)Rebbi Akiva learns 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from Basar b'Chalav.
(d)The Rabanan decline to do so - because Basar b'Chalav is a Chidush (and we cannot use a Chidush as an example for other cases).
(a)What is unique about Basar b'Chalav? Is it the fact that the two individual ingredients are permitted, and only become Asur when they are cooked?
(b)Then what is its unique characteristic?
(c)So how can Rebbi Akiva argue with such a powerful Svara? How can he learn other Isurim from Basar b'Chalav?
(d)So what is his source for 'Ta'am k'Ikar'?
(a)It is not the fact that the two individual ingredients are permitted, and only become Asur when they are cooked - that make Basar b'Chalav unique, since Kil'ayim shares the same qualifications.
(b)What is unique about Basar b'Chalav is the fact that one can soak meat and milk together all day, and one will not have transgressed any Isur (either by soaking them or by then eating them) - yet the moment one cooks them together, one transgresses both the Isur of cooking Basar b'Chalav and that of eating it.
(c)Rebbi Akiva does not argue with that. He does not learn Ta'am k'Ikar from Basar b'Chalav, as we originally thought.
(d)He learns it from the Isur of Gi'uley Nochrim (the prohibition of using 'Tereifah' pots that have not been Kashered).
(a)When the Torah prescribed Hag'alah by the vessels captured from Midyan, was it referring to vessels that had been used that day, or even to vessels that had been used prior to that, and what is the difference between them?
(b)Then why do the Rabanan decline to learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from there?
(a)When the Torah prescribed Hag'alah by the vessels captured from Midyan, it was referring to vessels that had been used that day (since that was 'Nosen Ta'am li'Shevach' - the taste which the food absorbed in the walls of the vessels is a pleasant one); whereas the taste that exudes from the walls of the vessel after twenty-four hours is 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam' (unpleasant, and spoils the food into which it is exuded).
(b)The Rabanan hold that even though the taste of less than a day is not repugnant, it is inevitably slightly unpleasant, so it remains a Chidush, and we cannot learn Ta'am k'Ikar from it.