Parallel
חולין 108:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
All cakes are forbidden but the cakes of Boethius are permitted! — Surely Mar son of R. Ashi has explained that his girdle proves his special case. MISHNAH. IF A DROP OF MILK FELL ON A PIECE OF FLESH AND IT IMPARTED A FLAVOUR INTO THAT PIECE, IT IS FORBIDDEN. IF THE POT WAS STIRRED, THEN IT IS FORBIDDEN ONLY IF [THE DROP OF MILK] IMPARTED A FLAVOUR INTO [ALL THAT WAS IN] THE POT. GEMARA. Abaye said: In all cases wherever the flavour [of a forbidden substance is perceptible] but not the substance it self, [the mixture is forbidden] by the law of the Torah. For should you say that it is forbidden by Rabbinic law only, and the reason why we may not draw any conclusions from the case of ‘flesh in milk’ is that it is an anomaly. then by reason of that anomaly [the mixture of flesh and milk should be forbidden] even though the one does not impart a flavour in the other! — Said Raba to him: The Torah has expressed this prohibition by the term ‘cooking’. Rab said: As soon as it [the drop of milk] imparted a flavour to the piece of flesh, that piece becomes forbidden like nebelah, and it in turn renders all the other pieces forbidden, for they are of like kind. Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said to Rabina: Let us consider: Rab in this statement of his evidently follows the view of R. Judah, who holds that homogeneous substances can never neutralize each other; but must we say that he disagrees with Raba? For Raba said: R. Judah is of the opinion that where one kind is mixed with a like kind and also with a different kind, you disregard the like kind as if it were not there, and if the different kind is more [than the forbidden substance] it will neutralize it! — He replied. Had it fallen into thin broth this would have been the case, but here we must suppose that it fell into thick broth. Then what is his view? If he holds that when the forbidden essence can be considered extracted it becomes permitted. why should the piece of flesh be deemed as nebelah? One must say that he holds that even when it is considered extracted it is still forbidden. And indeed it was so reported: Rab, R. Hanina and R. Johanan hold that even when it can be considered extracted it is still forbidden; Samuel, R. Simeon b. Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Lakish hold that when it is considered extracted it becomes permitted. Is Rab then of the opinion that even when it can be considered extracted it is still forbidden? But it has been reported: If an olive's bulk of flesh fell into a pot of milk, the flesh, says Rab, is forbidden but the milk is permitted. Now if you maintain that [Rab holds] even when it is considered extracted it is still forbidden.
—