חולין 100 — parallel

100:1

It is different with the case of a separate entity. AND SO IT IS WITH A PIECE OF NEBELAH etc. Why is it not neutralized in the larger quantity [of the other substances in the mixture]? Now this is well according to him who says that the expression ‘whatsoever one is wont to count’ was used; but according to him who says that the expression ‘[only] that which one is wont to count’ was used, what shall we say? — It is different with a whole piece since it is suitable to be offered to guests. Now both cases were necessary to be stated [in the Mishnah]. For if we were taught only the case of the [sciatic] nerve, [we should have said that it is not neutralized] because it is a specific entity, but this is not so with the case of a piece [of meat]; and if we were taught the case of a piece [of meat we should have said that it is not neutralized] because it is a piece suitable to be offered to guests, but this is not so with the case of the [sciatic] nerve. Therefore both cases were necessary [to be stated]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in a public lecture: A piece of nebelah or a piece of an unclean fish will not render forbidden [the mixture in which it is] until it imparts a flavour to the broth, in the sediments and in the pieces [of the stew]. Rab thereupon appointed an Amora who stated as follows: As soon as it [the piece of nebelah] imparted its flavour to one piece that piece itself is rendered [forbidden] like nebelah, and it in turn renders all the other pieces forbidden for they are of like kind. R. Safra said to Abaye. Consider, Rab's ruling agrees, does it not, with the opinion of R. Judah who maintained that homogeneous substances cannot neutralize each other [in a mixture]? Why then [does he declare], ‘As soon as it imparted its flavour’? Surely even if it did not impart any flavour to it it would also [render the entire contents of the pot forbidden]? — He replied: We are dealing here with the case where he straightway removed it. Raba replied,

—

100:2

You may even say that he did not remove it at once, but this is a case of one kind being mixed with a like kind and also with a different kind, and wherever one kind is mixed with a like and also with a different kind you must disregard the like kind as if it were not present, and if the different kind is more [than the forbidden substance] it will neutralize it. MISHNAH. IT APPLIES TO CLEAN ANIMALS BUT NOT TO UNCLEAN. R. JUDAH SAYS, EVEN TO UNCLEAN ANIMALS. R. JUDAH ARGUED, WAS NOT THE SCIATIC NERVE PROHIBITED FROM THE TIME OF THE SONS OF JACOB, AND AT THAT TIME UNCLEAN ANIMALS WERE STILL PERMITTED TO THEM? THEY REPLIED, THIS LAW WAS ORDAINED AT SINAI BUT WAS WRITTEN IN ITS PROPER PLACE. GEMARA. Is R. Judah of the opinion that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition? Surely it has been taught: R. Judah says: I might have thought that the carcass of an unclean bird whilst in the gullet should render clothes unclean, the verse therefore reads: That which dieth of itself or is not of beasts he shall not eat to defile himself therewith, that is to say, this applies only to that [carcass] which bears the prohibition of eating nebelah but not to that which does not bear the prohibition of eating nebelah but the prohibition of eating what is unclean! Should you, however, say that he [R. Judah] is of the opinion that nerves do not impart a flavour, so that in the case [where one ate the nerve] of an unclean animal there is only the prohibition of the nerve but not the prohibition of [eating] what is unclean; but are we right in assuming that R. Judah is of the opinion that nerves do not impart a flavour? Behold it has been taught: If a person ate the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal, R. Judah declares that he has incurred guilt twice; but R. Simeon holds that he has not incurred guilt at all? — In truth he [R. Judah] is of the opinion that nerves do impart a flavour, but he also holds that it [sc. the prohibition of the sciatic nerve] applies to a foetus too, so that the prohibition of the nerve and the prohibition on account of uncleanness come into force simultaneously. But how can you assume [that R. Judah holds] it applies to a foetus? Behold we have learnt: It also applies to a foetus; but R. Judah says: It does not apply to a foetus. And its fat is permitted! — That is so only with regard to a clean animal concerning which the Divine Law declares: Everything . . . in the beast ye may eat, but with regard to an unclean animal the prohibition of the nerve applies. But again how can you assume that both [prohibitions] come into force simultaneously? Behold we have learnt: By reason of uncleanness contracted from the following sources the Nazirite must shave [his head]: a corpse, an olive's bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse, [etc.] And the question was asked: If he must shave [his head] on account of an olive's bulk of a corpse, then surely he must shave [his head] on account of an entire corpse! But R. Johanan answered that it was only necessary [to mention the corpse itself] for the case of an abortion whose limbs were not yet knit together by nerves. Hence we see that the prohibition of uncleanness comes first! — Notwithstanding the fact that the prohibition of uncleanness comes first the prohibition of the nerve can indeed be superimposed, because this latter prohibition is binding even upon the sons of Noah. And this is precisely implied [in the teaching of the Mishnah]: R. JUDAH ARGUED, WAS NOT THE SCIATIC NERVE PROHIBITED FROM THE TIME OF THE SONS OF JACOB, AND AT THAT TIME UNCLEAN ANIMALS WERE STILL PERMITTED TO THEM? The [above] text [stated]: ‘If a person ate the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal, R. Judah declares that he has incurred guilt twice;

—