Nazir

Abaye asked [R. Dimi]: What ground is there for assuming that the purpose of the phrase 'soaked in'  is to indicate that what is permitted and what is forbidden combine,  for may not its purpose be to indicate that the taste is equivalent to the substance itself?  (Is not this curious? First Abaye is perplexed by R. Dimi's statement  and points out all the above contradictions, and then he suggests that perhaps, after all, the flavour is equivalent to the substance!  — After [R. Dimi] had answered him,  he went on to suggest that perhaps its purpose is to indicate that the taste is equivalent to the substance itself.)  For it has been taught: The phrase 'soaked in' makes the taste equivalent to the substance itself, so that if [the nazirite] soaked grapes in water and this acquired the taste of wine, there would be a penalty [for drinking it].  From this case, an inference may be drawn applicable to all prohibitions of the Torah. For seeing that in the case of the nazirite where the prohibition is not permanent,  where he is not forbidden to derive any benefit [from wine],  and where he may even have the prohibition removed,  the taste was declared to be equivalent to the substance, then in the case of mixed seeds in the vineyard  where the prohibition is permanent, where it is forbidden to derive any benefit from them, and where there is no way in which the prohibition can be removed it surely follows that the flavour is to be equivalent to the substance itself. The same argument applies to Orlah  which has two [of these properties].  — [R. Dimi] replied:  The above represents the view of the Rabbis, whereas R. Abbahu, in making his statement [on behalf of R. Johanan],  was following the opinion of R. Akiba. To what [statement of] R. Akiba [does this refer]? Shall I say that it is the [dictum of] R. Akiba to be found here [in our Mishnah] where we learn: R. AKIBA SAID THAT THERE IS A PENALTY EVEN IF HE SOAKS HIS BREAD IN WINE AND ENOUGH [IS ABSORBED] TO COMBINE INTO AN OLIVE'S BULK;  But whence [do you know that the olive's bulk includes the bread eaten]?  May it not mean that the wine alone must be an olive's bulk! And should you object that the statement would then be obvious?  [To this we may reply] that its object is to indicate dissent from the opinion of the first Tanna  [that there is no penalty] Unless he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine! It must therefore be the [statement of] R. Akiba to be found in the following Baraitha where it is taught: R: Akiba said that a nazirite who soaks his bread in wine and eats an olive's bulk of the bread and wine is liable [to the penalty]. R. Aha, the son of R. Iwia, asked R. Ashi: Whence will R. Akiba, who interprets the phrase 'whatever is soaked in' as implying that permitted and forbidden foods combine, derive the rule that the taste is equivalent to the substance itself?  — He can derive it from [the prohibition of] meat and milk [seethed together],  for there is no more than the mere taste in that case  and yet it is forbidden, whence we may infer that the same is true here.  The Rabbis do not allow this inference to be made from meat and milk because it is an anomalous [prohibition]. What constitutes its anomaly? Shall I say it is the fact that each constituent is permitted separately, while the combination is forbidden? Surely also in the case of mixed [seeds]  each constituent is permitted separately and the combination is forbidden!  — It is, therefore, the fact that If soaked in milk all day long, [the meat] remains permitted, and yet on seething it becomes forbidden. Must not R. Akiba, too, agree that [the seething together of] meat and milk is an anomalous [prohibition]?  — It must therefore be