Is it not due to the fact that the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? This would mean that this principle applies in other areas of Torah law besides naziriteship. Rav Dimi said to him: No; what is the meaning of an olive-bulk in this mishna? It means that there is enough teruma in the mixture so that when one eats from the mixture he will consume an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. In that case one is liable to receive a punishment for eating this olive-bulk, as though he ate the teruma alone.

Abaye asked him: But is eating an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread prohibited by Torah law, and is one flogged for it? Rav Dimi said to him: Yes. Abaye asked in response: If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kutaḥ, a dip that contains bread, on Passover? The Rabbis maintain that one is not punished by Torah law for eating a mixture that contains leaven. Although the Rabbis do not derive from the term “nothing [kol],” that leaven in a mixture is forbidden, they should nevertheless hold one liable for eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Leave aside the case of Babylonian kutaḥ, as there is no possibility that one will consume an olive-bulk of the leaven in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If he eats kutaḥ in its pure, unadulterated form, by swallowing [shareif] it as food, not as a dip, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. It is unusual for a person to eat a pungent dip by itself, and especially so quickly. One receives no punishment for conduct that anomalous. And if he dips [shatar] other food into the kutaḥ and eats it, he will not be found to have consumed an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Due to the pungency of the dip, one typically adds only a small portion of it to his food.

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a baraita: With regard to two spice mortars, one used for teruma spices and one used for non-sacred spices, before which were two pots, one of teruma produce and the other one of non-sacred produce, and the contents of these mortars fell into these pots, but it is unknown which produce fell into which pot, the contents of both pots are permitted; the pot containing the teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the pot containing non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say, with no definitive proof to the contrary, that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma spices fell into the teruma.

Abaye explains his objection: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce? If the teruma spices fell into the pot containing non-sacred produce, one who eats from the mixture will consume an olive-bulk of teruma within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, and he will thereby violate a Torah prohibition. One is not lenient in a case of this kind.

Rav Dimi said to him: Rather, what will you say? That the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? But if so, one can still ask why we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce. After all, it is possible that the second mortar contained slightly less than an olive-bulk of teruma, and the permitted substance combined with it to form the amount of an olive-bulk. Rather, leave aside the case of teruma separated from spices, which is teruma by rabbinic law. By Torah law one is required to separate teruma only from grain, wine, and oil. The Sages are lenient with regard to teruma by rabbinic law.

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a similar baraita: There were two baskets, one filled with teruma and one filled with non-sacred produce, and before them were two containers each containing a se’a of produce, one of non-sacred produce and the one of teruma, and these, the contents of each of the baskets, fell into those, each of the containers before them. Although it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, and it is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, the contents of both of the vessels are nevertheless permitted; the container of teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the container of non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma fell into the teruma.

Abaye explains: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of forbidden food in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say the principle: Because I say the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce? Why are the Sages not concerned that one might eat an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, which is prohibited by Torah law?