Explanation: He does not require Tziruf, for he holds that one is lashed for any amount.

Question: According to R. Shimon, why do we need "Mishras"? It is not needed for Tziruf;

Suggestion: He needs it for Ta'am k'Ikar.

Rejection He can learn from Gi'ulei Nochrim, for according to R. Shimon it is not a Chidush!

He said in Avodah Zarah (67b) that the Torah forbids only a Kli that is a Ben Yomo [absorbed Isur in the last 24 hours].

Answer #1: Perhaps also he holds that [even within 24 hours] it is impossible that the taste was not blunted a little, and even so the Torah forbids;

This is properly called a Chidush, for the Torah distinguished between a big blunting and a small blunting.

Answer #2: He properly needs it for Tziruf. He said that one is lashed for any amount, i.e. when the Isur is intact, but when it is mixed, there is no Havah Amina to forbid (in a majority of Heter, without a Drashah ("Mishras") to forbid. Surely R. Shimon agrees that elsewhere, Bitul applies to Min b'Mino, and Min b'Eino Mino when it does not give taste! Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 68a DH v'Idach) brings like this from R. Yakar.)

Support: Similarly, Abaye said [regarding] the Beraisa "I would know only..." that after the verse teaches part, i.e. [one is liable for Haktarah of Se'or of] half a k'Zayis, he requires a verse for a mixture.

Explanation: This is according to Mishnah Rishonah (34b).

Implied question: It says below that he does not discuss matters about which Tana'im argue!

Answer: That is regarding white (i.e. not red) liquids. He does discuss red liquids about which Tana'im argue!

Explanation: They obligated 40 Sa'im even for [Tevilah of] needles and forks. A person always requires 40 Sa'im.

Limitation (Tosfos' Rebbi): In any case, they were not Mevatel a Revi'is for a Mayan (spring). One can immerse needles in a Mayan Kol she'Hu (any size, even if it is very small);

Source - (Toras Kohanim): A Mikveh of 40 Sa'im [is always Tahor]. A Mayan Kol she'Hu [is always Tahor].

Inference: Since it teaches a Mikveh of 40 Sa'im, you are forced to say that this is after they abolished [a Mikveh of a Revi'is for Kelim]. If it were before, also a Mikveh of a Revi'is is Tahor!

Rather, it is after Bitul, and it teaches a Mayan Kol she'Hu!

Suggestion: Perhaps it is before Bitul, and it teaches about a person, for a Mikveh for person requires 40 Sa'im!

Rejection: If so (it discusses a person), also a Mayan Kol she'Hu is not Metaher a person, for we require water in which his entire body is covered!

Support: It says in Chagigah (22a) that land is porous, yet [it is not considered connected to its source, i.e. a big river, so] we require 40 Sa'im;

Inference: A Mayan requires 40 Sa'im, at least for people.

Implied question: If they were not Mevatel a Revi'is for a Mayan (it is still Metaher Kelim), why didn't [R. Elazar] teach this?

Answer: We can say that less than a Revi'is suffices for a Mayan.

Explanation #1: The same applies to drinking, like Mishnah Acharonah, and like R. Akiva below;

Mishnah Rishonah said until he drinks a Revi'is. I.e. and the same applies to eating; [he is liable for] a Revi'is.

Explanation #1 (cont.): [Mishnah Acharonah holds that the Shi'ur for] drinking is a k'Zayis. How do we measure this? We bring an Aguri olive and submerge it in a cup full of wine. The wine that spills out, if he drinks as much as this, this is a k'Zayis.

How do we measure eating a Revi'is? An amount like he ate of grapes, we put it in a cup full of wine. If a Revi'is of wine that spills out, he ate a Revi'is.

Question #1 (R. Tam): The Tana never teaches Mishnah Acharonah before Mishnah Rishonah!

Question #2: Initially he discussed a k'Zayis, like Mishnah Acharonah like R. Akiva, and interrupts with Mishnah Rishonah, and returns to say "this is R. Akiva's opinion", which is like Mishnah Acharonah!

Question #3: According to this, he should have taught in Mishnah Rishonah "until he eats a Revi'is", since they argue [also] about eating. The wording of our Mishnah connotes that they do not argue about eating!

Question #4: Just like the Gemara needs to give a reason for R. Akiva's words, i.e. the Gemara brings a verse that equates drinking to eating, it should have given a reason for Mishnah Rishonah, why it equates eating to drinking!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Our Mishnah, which taught in the Reisha, "until he eats a k'Zayis of grapes", is according to everyone. All agree that the Shi'ur of eating is a k'Zayis;

They argue only about drinking. Mishnah Rishonah holds that [he is exempt] until he drinks a Revi'is, like the Shi'ur of every drinking [of Isur];

Even though the Shi'ur of eating is a k'Zayis, like it says in Pesachim (32b), even so, we learn drinking from eating. For drinking, we require a Revi'is.

Citation of Gemara: R. Akiva holds that since it is written "va'Anavim Lachim vi'Yveshim Lo Yochel", just like the Shi'ur of eating is a k'Zayis, also all Isurim are a k'Zayis.

Explanation: He expounds the Vov in "va'Anavim". Also all Isurim of Nazir, the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis, i.e. the Shi'ur of drinking, which is written above "v'Chol Mishras Yayin Lo Yishteh";

Now, the Vov in "va'Anavim" adds to what was written above. Just like the Shi'ur of grapes is a k'Zayis, also the Shi'ur of drinking, which is written above, is a k'Zayis.

Observation: According to Explanation #1 (above), the text of the Gemara says "the first Tana compares all Isurim of Nazir to drinking." The Tana taught until he drinks a Revi'is";

R. Akiva compares all Isurim of Nazir to eating. I.e. he learns drinking from eating, like I explained.

Citation of Gemara: From here you learn to all Isurei Nazir. (This is unlike our text, which says "to all Isurim in the Torah.")

Citation of Gemara: New wine and grapes.

Explanation: Even though their taste is the same (new wine is grape juice), since they are two names (Isurim), he is lashed twice.

Question: We already know this because the Torah explicitly wrote new wine and grapes as two separate Lavim! The Targum of "mi'Yayin v'Shechar Yazir" is "me'Chamar Chadas v'Atik" (new and old wine), and grapes are written [explicitly]!

Answer: If we learned only from "[mi'Yayin v'Shechar] Yazir", one might have thought that new wine is within 40 days but after three days, that it already lost the taste of grapes;

However, truly new wine (grape juice within three days), he is liable only once (if he drank it and ate grapes. The general rule, i.e. whenever there are two names...) teaches that this is not so.

Question: The Tana should count also Shechar (old wine, that intoxicates) and vinegar!

Answer: This is not a Shiyur (remnant), for he did not leave over from the same species. However, the others that the Tana counts, he should count all the lashes for them.

Explanation: He [omitted teaching that] he is lashed also for Bal Yachel.

[We reject that] this is not a Shiyur. The Tana taught only things that do not apply to Isurim other than Nazir. Bal Yachel applies also to other Nedarim.

Question: Should we say so to challenge Abaye?! (He can say that the Tana did not restrict himself like this, and it is a proper Shiyur!)

Answer: We say so, so we will not challenge Rava, "what else did [the Tana] omit in addition to this Shiyur, that he omitted Bal Yachel. This is why the Gemara said so.

Support: The Ri explained like this in Bava Kama (15a) regarding Chetzi Kofer is not a Shiyur.

Explanation: This is a question. According to the opinion that Lo Yachel is not a Shiyur, why did he omit Bein ha'Beinayim? (Gilyon ha'Shas - no one needs to hold like this. Tosfos said that Rava could say so if we would challenge him. If Bein ha'Beinayim is a Shiyur, Rava can say that also Lo Yachel is a Shiyur! If so, this is not a question.)

Question: This is fine for R. Tam, who explained (35a) Bein ha'Beinayim are small grapes. He taught them regarding eating, like it taught "and he ate grapes." This connotes whether they are big or small;

He omitted the Lav of small grapes. He did not count them. Therefore, it is a proper question.

However, according to the second Perush there, that Bein ha'Beinayim is the grape itself (what is between the peel and the pit), the Tana did not omit anything. He taught that he is lashed five times, i.e. because "grapes" is one Lav!

Answer: Also according to that Perush, he omitted its Lav (of Bein ha'Beinayim). The Chiyuv Lav of grapes is when he eats them whole, the way people [normally] eat grapes;

However, if one gathers the food in between [the peel and the pit], which is not normal to eat this way, this is a different Lav of Bein ha'Beinayim. The Tana omitted it.

Implied question: The words of the Tana connote also if he deviated and ate the middle through gathering. "One who eats grapes" connotes every way, even through gathering!

Answer: Even so, he omitted this Lav (of Bein ha'Beinayim). If not, he should say that he is lashed six times!