Nazir 36b - 37a - Heter Mitztaref li'isur and Ta'am K'ikar

The gemara and Tosafos try to juggle the concept of heter mitztaref l'issur (hml) and Kezayis b'kdei achilas pras (kbap), together with the more familiar concept of ta'am k'ikar (tk). Simply speaking, the concept of kbap and hml are ways of making a shiur for chiyuv malkus, whereas tk is a method of creating issur but would not transform the heter into issur to create a shiur for malkus. According to this approach, we always have to first deal with whether bitul takes place. Only when there is rov issur or ta'am k'ikar so that bitul is not taking place, can we begin to discuss whether there is a shiur for malkus based on hml or kbap (as tosafos explains 36b d.h. shetai). But by min b'mino where there is no ta'am or where there is rov heter, since there will be bitul, there is no room to even begin a discussion about hml and kbap.

But unfortunately it is not so simple.

In the discussion of the gemara whether the chiyuv malkus is created through hml which means that the half kezayis of heter actually combines with the issur to create a shiur for malkus, or whether we need a kbap in order to have a full shiur of issur for malkus, the gemara never mentions tk. Tosafos (d.h. u'kezayis) actually asks why do we not mention it and explains that at this point we are assuming that tk also requires a shiur of ta'am just as we require a shiur of issur, and therefore wouldn't help to create a chiyuv malkus. However, the Mekor Chayim (ba'al nesivos hamishpat in 442) explains that all the cases in the gemara are cases in which ta'am k'ikar is irrelevant. TK would apply when the flavor of the issur is absorbed in the heter, but in these cases the flavor of the issur never becomes absorbed in the heter. The chavos da'as (same authoer in y.d. 98:1) also explains this to be the peshat in the case of kupos which is flour of issur mixing with flour of heter (lach b'lach, min b'sheino mino), where the taste of issur remains in its place and is never absorbed ino the heter [this is against tosafos nazir 36b d.h. shetai, who says that we are speaking about min b'mino, because tosafos assumes that every case of min b'sheino mino of lach b'lach will give ta'am and therefore invoke ta'am k'ikar]. With this he answers tosafos question as to why we don't mention in nazir 36 the concept of tk at all. The rationale is that we are speaking about shom and shemen in the mekapeh which also do not put flavor in the mekapeh. Therefore the entire discussion of the gemara ignores tk, and discusses only hml and kbap. Based on this we see that hml and kbap are not just methods of building off tk and creating a shiur kezayis, rather they are independent methods of creating issur to begin with even when tk doesn't apply at all.