Nazir

He [Abaye] raised objection against [R. Dimi's ruling from the following passage]. [It has been taught:] If two [spice] mortars, one containing terumah and the other hullin stood near two pots, one containing terumah and the other hullin, and [the contents of] the first pair fell into the other pair,  both [dishes] may be eaten,  for we assume that hullin fell into hullin and terumah into terumah. Now if it is a fact that the consumption of an olive's bulk within the time taken to eat a peras is [prohibited by] the Torah, why do we make this assumption?  — But if, [granting your view, replied R. Dimi] permitted and forbidden foods combine, how again could the assumption be justified?  The fact is that no argument can be based on the terumah of spices, [for its sanctity is the result] of a rabbinic enactment. He [Abaye] raised a [further] objection. [It has been taught:] If two baskets, one containing terumah and the other hullin stood near two vessels,  one of terumah and the other of hullin and the former pair were tipped into the latter, both are permitted, for we assume that hullin fell into hullin and terumah into terumah.  Now if it is a fact that an olive's bulk consumed within the time taken to eat a peras is [prohibited by] the Torah, how can we make such an assumption?