Commentary for Avodah Zarah 133:9

Rava would have to admit that he holds only like R. Judah. But Abaye could say that all tannaim agree with him. They only disagree in a case where the smell is not likely to go into the bread, either because the bread is cold or the wine is stoppered. Abaye could say that smelling the wine directly through the bung-hole is again a case in which all tannaim would agree that the smell is substantial enough for the act to be prohibited.
I think people should note how two issues are being conflated in this sugya. Abaye and Rava are arguing whether one is allowed to smell prohibited substances. The issue is whether an action is permitted. In contrast, the sources they bring are discussing whether substances are defined by their smell or not. The issue is status of object. These are not exactly the same issue. I believe that what causes the sugya to discuss them simultaneously is the general rule—smell is substantial or not. This is a classic example of how a general rule allows different subjects to be discussed together and for one to effect the other.

The halakhah follows the mishnah—if the prohibited substance imparts a bad taste the mixture is permitted.

According to Shmuel, if the vinegar falls into cold beans it improves the taste. This would make it prohibited. When he heats it up the vinegar now imparts a bad flavor. But since it was good at first, the beans stay prohibited. In other words once the flavor is considered good it cannot switch to be considered bad.

This is the same tradition as above, here attributed to rabbis from Eretz Yisrael.

Rav Dimi restates the same statement from above. It has been abbreviated in the talmudic record because by now it is getting repetitive. He also adds that they used to make a dish of split beans and vinegar on erev Shabbat in Tzippori. Sounds pretty good if you ask me.

If one adds a forbidden substance to a food and the food tastes bad because it lacks salt or has too much salt or lacks or has too much spice the food is still prohibited. This is not a case of “imparts a worsening flavor” because it is not the forbidden food that made the dish taste bad. For the food to be permitted its bad taste must be because of the forbidden food.

This is a more lenient version of Resh Lakish’s statement. If food tastes bad we do not attribute it to too much or too little salt or spice and say that if the food was properly salted or spiced the substance would not have made it taste bad and therefore it should be prohibited. Rather, we say that since the food tastes bad now, it is permitted, no matter why it tastes bad.

If one eats an amount of prohibited substance equivalent to an olive within the time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread (calculations vary between 2 to 9 minutes) one has transgressed the laws of the Torah and theoretically should be punished by lashes. For instance let’s say some ground pork falls into my stew. If I ate enough of the stew such that it would contain an olive’s worth of pork and I did so within the time it would take to eat half a loaf of bread, I am considered as one who ate pork.