Chullin

and yet [in other cases] the Rabbis ruled that the test is sixty [to one]. Therefore we say, where substances of different kinds, each kind being permitted by itself, were mixed together, the test is whether or not one imparts a flavour to the other;1 and if one of the substances was forbidden2 then we rely upon the opinion of a gentile cook. Where substances of like kind were mixed together, in which case it is impossible to discern whether one imparts a flavour to the other; or where substances of different kinds, one of which was forbidden, were mixed together, and no [gentile] cook is available, then the test is sixty [to one].3 In the house of the Exilarch, sides of meat were once salted with the sciatic nerve in them. Rabina declared them to be forbidden, whilst R. Aha son of R. Ashi4 declared them to be permitted. When this case was put to Mar son of R. Ashi he said: My father declared them to be permitted. Then said R. Aha son of R. [Ashi] to Rabina: What is the reason for your view? Is it not Samuel's dictum that whatsoever is salted is counted as hot5 and whatsoever is preserved is counted as cooked?6 But [remember,] did not Samuel say. This ruling [of our Mishnah] applies only to the case where they were cooked together, but if they were roasted together one may then cut away [the meat] and eat it until one reaches the nerve? And should you say that the term counted as hot’ means hot as when cooked, surely [this cannot be, for] since he said: ‘whatsoever is preserved is counted as cooked’, it follows that [in the first clause ‘counted as hot’ means] hot as when roasted!7 This is indeed a difficulty. R. Hanina said: When measuring8 one should measure the broth, the sediments, the pieces, and the pot.9 Some say: The actual thickness of the] pot must be taken into account;10 but others say: Only that which is absorbed in the pot is to be taken into account. 11 R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan. As regards all things prohibited by the Torah12 one should measure them as though they were onions or leeks.13 R. Abba said to Abaye: Why not measure as though they were pepper or spices, in which case the flavour would not become neutralized even in a thousand-fold? — He replied: The Rabbis have estimated that among forbidden substances there is none that can impart a stronger flavour than onions or leeks. R. Nahman said: The [sciatic] nerve [is neutralized] in sixty-fold, but the nerve itself is not to be included to make up this number.14 The udder is neutralized in sixty-fold, but the udder itself is to be included.15 An egg16 is neutralized in sixty-fold, but the egg itself is not to be included. R. Isaac the son of R. Mesharsheya said: But the udder itself is forbidden,17 and if it fell into another pot it renders [the contents] forbidden. R. Ashi said: When we were at R. Kahana's the question was put before us: When measuring, should one measure [the prohibited substance] itself or only the essence which exuded from it?18 — It is obvious, surely, that one should measure the substance itself, for if only the essence which exuded from it, [the question arises,] How do we know [how much it is]? — But if so, if it19 subsequently fell into another, pot it should not render [the contents] forbidden?20 — Since R. Isaac the son of R. Mesharsheya had said that the udder itself was forbidden, the Rabbis declared it to be as a piece of nebelah.21 ‘An egg is neutralized in sixty-fold, but the egg itself is not to be included [to make up this number’]. R. Idi b. Abin said to Abaye. Can it be said that it imparts a flavour?22 but people usually say: ‘As the mere water of eggs’! — He replied: We are dealing here his opinion as to whether the terumah does impart a flavour in the common food, in which case the mixture is forbidden to all save priests, or does not, in which case the mixture is permitted to all. but when mixed are forbidden to all, e.g., milk food mixed with meat. as large as the bulk of the forbidden substance. Rabina and R. Ashi. roasted (or cooked? v. infra) together. cooked together. view cannot be upheld. make up the required sixty-fold. cooked. felt in the rest of the stew of the pot, the contents of the pot would be prohibited on account of the forbidden substance, which evidently imparts its flavour so that it can be felt. This method was resorted to before the standard of sixty-fold was fixed. be forbidden unless there was in the pot sixty times as much as the milk of the udder. (The quantity of milk in the udder is regarded as equal to the volume of the udder). Now the udder can also be included to make up this sixty-fold since it is not the udder that is forbidden but only the milk contained in it. In other words, there must be in the pot fifty-nine times the quantity of the udder; v. infra 109a. permitted, the udder itself is forbidden, for the meat in the pot imparted its flavour into it. essence that exuded from it. subsequently fell into another pot of meat which did not contain the sixty-fold. According to Tosaf. this question deals specifically with the case of the udder mentioned above. in the first pot, consequently it cannot render forbidden any other foodstuff. forbidden; accordingly the forbidden substance is always regarded as a piece of nebelah which renders forbidden the contents of any and every pot into which it fell.