Halachah (Opinion #1): Rashi in Chulin (Daf 109. DH 've'Su') Paskens 'Miyn be'Miyno be'Mashehu' like Rebbi Yehudah.

Proof #1: Who says in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin 109.) 'Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil'.

Proof #2: And also Rebbi says there that 'Rebbi Yehudah's words appear correct'.

Proof #3: He brings an aditional proof from the Machlokes Abaye and Rava in the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 66.) regarding 'vinegar of wine and vinegar of beer', and 'a dough of wheat and a dough of barley'' - where Rav says 'Mashhu' and Abaye, 'be'Nosein Ta'am' - because one of them goes after 'the name (what it is called)', and the other, after 'the taste'.

Conclusion: So we see, that both Abaye and Rava hold 'Miyn be'Miyno be'Mashehu'.

Proof #4: Moreover (he explains), Rava in our Sugya holds 'Miyn be'Miyno be'Mashehu'.

Halachah (Opinion #2): Rabeinu Tam however, refutes all of Rashi's proofs, maintaining that the Halachah is neither like Rebbi Yehudah nor like Rav.

Refutation #1: Because in the case in the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah regarding the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava, it may well be that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish concede that wine and beer of Tevel and Yayin Nesech are Asur be'Mashehu.

Refutation #2: And as for our Sugya, even if we have the text 'be'Mashehu like Rav', it could be that the Gemara Paskens like Rav, not for the same reason - but because whereas Rav holds 'be'Miyno be'Mashehu' by all Isurin in the Torah, Rava only says it by Chametz on Pesach, due to the Chumra of Pesach.

Support for Opinion #2: And also Rav Yehuda'i Ga'on Paskens that it is on Pesach exclusively that Rava holds like Rav ...

Support for Opinion #2 (cont.): Because they asked him whether by all Isurin in the Torah, we say Mashehu like Rav or be'Nosein Ta'am like Rebbi Yochanan?

Support for Opinion #2 (cont.): To which he replied - 'Since Rava ruled 'be'Miyno be'Mashehu' specifically with regard to Chametz in its time, it is clear that his ruling is confined to Chametz on Pesach, but that regarding other Isurin, the Halachah is Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

New Text: Furthermore, said Rabeinu Tam, we must erase 'be'Mashehu ke'Rav from our text. The B'hag too, does not seem to have it in his text. And Rava holds like Rebbi Yochanan even with regard to Chametz.

Implied Question: And the reason that he did not Pasken specifically like Rebbi Yochanan ...

Answer: Is because we would then have thought that he Paskens like him only 'bi'Zemano, but not she'Lo bi'Zemano.

Proof #1: Rabeinu Tam actually proves this text, in that in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin, Daf 97: & 98.) Rava rules that 'Miyn be'Miyno be'Shishim' ...

Proof (cont.): When he says 'The Rabbanan said that one goes after taste.However by Miyn be'Miyno', where one cannot go by taste, and 'Miyn she'Lo be'Miyno' where there is no Nochri baker, we go by Shishim.

Rejected Refutation: Nor can one refute this proof by establishing the case with regard to fresh wine and grapes, which share the same taste, and the reason for Shishim is because Rava goes after the name, in which case it is not considered Miyno.

Rejection: Because if that is the case, why does the Gemara refer to it as 'Miyn be'Miyno'?

Proof #2: The Gemara in ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos 23.) Rava answers that Rebbi Yehudah holds Miyn be'Miyno and something else ... ', implying that he doesn't hold like that.

Proof #3: And in Perek ha'Ta'aroves (Zevachim 79. And 79:) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov holds 'Miyn be'Miyno Bateil'.

Proof #4: Also the S'tam Gemara in Maseches Beitzah (Daf 38: and 39.) states that 'They were fully justified in laughing at him, since, granted wheat in wheat is not Bateil according to Rebbi Yehudah, but according to the Rabbanan, it is!'

Conclusion: So we see that this is the Halachah.

Rashi Contradicts Himself: Rashi himself Paskens in Avodah-Zarah (Daf 67.), in connection with the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava, that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan who holds 'be'Nosein Ta'am'.

Support for Rabeinu Tam: Also the B'hag from Aspamya rules that a piece in pieces is Asur be'Nosein Ta'am.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara there forbids Yayin Nesech be'Mashehu?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam establishes that in connection with where one actually poured it out before Avodah-Zarah pertaining to the Mishnah there, which requires two things; Davar she'be'Minyan and Isurei Hana'ah. But S'tm Yeinam which is Mutar be'Hana'ah (See Gilyon ha'Shas), is Bateil be'Shishim.

More Support for Rabeinu Tam: In the T'shuvos ha'Ge'onim that Rabeinu Yosef Tuv Ileim wrote Rabeinu Tam found 'Yayin Nesech some of which was poured out before Avodah-Zarahis Asur be'Hana'ah, and is not Bateil even in a thousand, as we learned 'The following are Asur, and their Isur is an Isur Hana'ah even by Kolshehu ...Yayin Nesech ...

More Support for Rabeinu Tam (concl.): Implying that other Isurim, incorporating S'tam Yeinam, with the exception of Tevel and Yayin Nesech, are subject to the Shi'ur of Nosein Ta'am, both be'Miyno and she'Lo be'Miyno'.

Reservation: Regarding Chametz on Pesach, Rabeinu Tam declined to issue a ruling, even though the She'iltos of R. Acha'i also maintains that Rava holds 'Nosein Ta'am' even by Chametz (See also Tosfos Chulin 97. DH 'Amar Rava').

Explanation #1: In the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 68: & 69.) regarding the case of the mouse that fell into some beer - the Gemara is uncertain as to whether Rav holds 'Nosein Ta'am li'Fegam Asur', or whether he holds 'Mutar', and the mouse actually improves the taste of the beer.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Even assuming he holds there 'Mutar', he is nevertheless justified in ruling here that the pots should be broken, since Nosein Ta'am li'Fegam is only permitted Bedi'eved, but is Asur Lechatchilah, since we decree a vessel that is not a bas Yoma because of that is.

Explanation #2: Moreover, there it is permitted because it spoils the taste as it is 'be'Ein (still in existence), whereas here the taste only becomes spoilt because it remained in the walls of the vessel.

Question: The Ri asks that even if we hold that the Chametz in the pot is considered a Mashehu, that is because one does not tend to use a lot at a time ...

Question (cont.): Nevertheless, we have learned in the Mishnah (in T'rumos 5:9) that 'Ein Mevatlin Isur Lechatchilah', even if it is an Isur de'Rabbanan...

Question (cont.): Because if one could, then what would be the point of the Takanah forbidding up to sixty, seeing as all one would need to do to circumvent it would be to add a bit of Heter, so that it (the Isur) becomes Bateil.

Implied Answer: Nor is it comparable to the Gemara in Beitzah (4:) which permits adding a little designated wood, in a case where some wood falls from a date-palm into an oven on Yom-Tov, and to burn them.

Refutation: since there the Isur Muktzah has no source in the Torah, where regarding something that has, will not be permitted.

Answer #1: Rav Yosef therefore explains it is due to the fact that there are two points in its favor that one is permitted to render it Bateil here - 1. That it is Nosein Ta'am li'Fegam, and 2. That it is s Mashhu she'Lo be'Miyno.

Clarification: According to his explanation, one is forced to say that the Gemara's question 'Veli'aved she'Lo be'Miynan, based on the presuming that Rav holds 'Nosein Ta'am li'Fegam Mutar'.

Answer #2: Whereas the Ri explains that since the pots are made of earthenware, if one were to declare them Asur, there would be no way of rectifying them, it is considered Bedi'eved.

Implied Question: And even though regarding a pot that is not a bas Yoma we forbid it, even though it too, cannot be rectified ...

Answer: That is because it absorbed a lot of Chametz ...

Conclusion: Unlike here, where there is only a Mashenu, seeing as it is she'Lo be'Miyno, one is permitted to render it Bateil and is considered Bedi'eved.

Implied Question: Earlier (See 29.) the Gemara did not decree she'Lo be'Miyno on account of Miyno ...

Answer: Since it is not common for Chametz to get mixed in, whereas here, to permit cooking in them, there is good reason to decree.

Implied Question: That what we say in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (Daf 76:) that 'Bread that one baked in an oven together with a roast may not be eraten together with a milk dish, but with salt one may' ...

Answer: That is because the Isur there is based on smell, and the Isur is therefore less stringent.

Question: So what if he does (eat it with a milk dish), seeing as it 'Nosein Ta'am bar Nosein Ta'am' ...

Precedent: As the Gemara says in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin 111: and 112.) 'Fish that come up on a dish may be eaten with a milk dish'?

Answer: The Gemara there also forbids a radish that one cut with a (meaty) knife to be eaten together with a milk dish.

Answer (cont.): And Rashi explains there 'because of their sharpness', since radishes tend to absorb more than hot fish that come on a dish.

Inferred Halachah: According to that, fish that are cooked in a (meaty) pot may not be eaten together with a milk dish, since cooking causes them to absorb excessively.

Precedent: And likewise in our Sugya, they absorb more via the oven.

Question: Whilst Rashi's other explanation there - that the radish is forbidden because sometimes there is fat stuck to the knife, which is not discernable, with result that the knife contains the taste of real meat ...

Question (cont.): Poses a Kashya why here, since the oven has been wiped clean or has been heated up another time, why is it Asur to eat it with a milk dish?

Answer: It is difficult to wipe away fat on earthenware properly.

Question: We learned in the Tosefta of Avodah-Zarah that 'a knife, a spit-rod and a grill need to be heated on the fire (Libun)'?

Proof: And in the first Perek of Chulin too (Daf 8: & 9.) the Gemara establishes the case there where one heated the knife on the fire fromwhich we can infer that it requires Libun.

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam replies with a Yerushalmi, which establishes it by long knives with which one roasts meat, similar to a spit-rod. And likewise the case in Chulin.

Answer #2: Furthermore one can draw a distinction between a knife which absorbed Heter (such as Chametz) and one which absorbed Isur ...

Proof: Like Rav ashi does in Maseches Avodah-Zarah (Daf 76.).

Implied Question: And Rav Ashi himself only requires Libun in our Sugya ...

Answer: Because he is Machmir on himself.

Question: Why not attribute it to the fact that they exude liquid (as the Gemara will say shortly) -and that speaks after Hag'alah, because before Hag'alah, other vessels exude liquid, too?

Answer: Really it is speaking before Hag'alah, only as Rashi explains in Avodah-Zarah (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) they exude from the outside, a sure sign that they absorbs more (than other vessels).

Question: But its defect can be removed through a furnace ...

Proof #1: As we find in Zevachim, in Perek Dam Chatas (Daf 96.), where the Gemara asks why earthenware pots in the Beis-ha'Mikdash must be broken? Why they cannot simply be returned to a furnace?

Proof #1 (cont.): And the Gemara answers that there were no furnaces in yerushalayim!, implying that if there were, then they would become permitted once more?

Proof #2: Similarly above the Gemara said 'But not a pot, in case one has pity on the pot!' implying that if not for that, an earthenware pot would become permitted by heating it on the inside?

Proof #2 (cont.): Indeed, the Gemara there concludes that if one fills it with burning coals, it is permitted?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that this cannot be described as 'removing the defect', because one heats it in fire, it becomes a new vessel ...

Proof: Since that is the way of earthenware vessels- when they are initially manufactured, they are placed in a furnace to be heated.

Question: How can one bring a proof from the fact that the Torah writes that it must be broken? Perhaps it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv ...

Precedent: Seeing as even if one hangs it in the airspace of an oven, Rami bar Chama asks there whether or not, the Torah is particular with regard to cooking without absorbing?

Answer: Since by copper vessels washing out and purging (in boiling water) is effective, even where it has been cooked and has absorbed, it must be that when the Torah is particular by earthenware vessels where it has been cooked and has not absorbed, it is because it makes it like cooked and absorbed.

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam, one can ask why an earthenware oven that becomes Tamei must be broken into three parts, seeing as heating is considered like new, why not simply heat it up?

Answer: The Rashba explains that it is specifically a pot, which one does not tend to heat up (in fire), that becomes like new when one places it in a furnace.

Answer (concl.): But not an oven, which one constantly heats from the inside, and which can therefore not be considered like a new vessel, and requires breaking (See Maharsha).