חולין 98 — Soncino English Talmud

¹with an egg which contained a chicken, but not with an egg of an unclean bird. He raised an objection against him. [It was taught:] If clean eggs were cooked with unclean eggs and the latter can impart a flavour in the others, they are all forbidden! — Here, too, we must suppose that they contained in them chickens. Why then are they called ‘unclean’? — Since they contain chickens they are called ‘unclean’. But surely since the following clause [deals with eggs containing chickens, for it reads]. ‘If eggs were cooked together and in one of them was found a chicken, and this one can impart its flavour into the others, all are forbidden’, it follows that the first clause deals with eggs which do not contain chickens! — The one clause is merely explanatory of the other thus: ‘If clean eggs were cooked with unclean eggs and the latter can impart a flavour in the others, all are forbidden; as for instance, if they were cooked together and in one of them was found a chicken’. This indeed stands to reason. For if you assume that the first clause deals with eggs that have no chickens in them, seeing that the exudation of eggs that have no chickens in them can render forbidden, is it necessary to teach this in the case where they had chickens in them? — This is not a conclusive argument. It may be that the second clause was stated to make clear the first: lest you might think that the first clause deals with eggs that have chickens in them, leaving us to infer that if they had no chickens in them all the eggs would be permitted, he therefore adds the second clause which deals with eggs that have chickens in them, which shows that the first clause speaks of eggs that have no chickens in them, and even so render the others forbidden. An olive's bulk of [forbidden] fat once fell into a pot of meat. R. Ashi intended to include in the measuring [all the meat] that was absorbed in the [sides of the] pot, whereupon the Rabbis said to R. Ashi: Has it absorbed only that which is permitted and not that which is forbidden? A half an olive's bulk of [forbidden] fat once fell into a pot of meat. Mar the son of R. Ashi intended to measure it by the standard of thirty-fold, whereupon his father said to him, ‘Have I not told you not to treat lightly the standard measures [even in matters which are forbidden only] by Rabbinic ruling? Moreover, R. Johanan has declared that half the legal quantity [of a forbidden matter] is forbidden by the law of the Torah’. R. Shaman b. Abba said in the name of R. Idi b. Idi b. Gershom who said it in the name of Levi b. Perata who said it in the name of R. Nahum who said it in the name of R. Biraim who said it in the name of a certain old man whose name was R. Jacob, as follows: Those of the Nasi's house said: A forbidden egg among sixty eggs renders them all forbidden, a forbidden egg among sixty-one eggs renders them all permitted. Thereupon R. Zera said to R. Shaman b. Abba: Look, you are stating a definite point at which they are permitted, whereas the two greatest men of the day did not give a definite ruling on this matter. For R. Jacob b. Idi and R. Samuel b. Nahmani both reported in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that a forbidden egg among sixty eggs rendered them all forbidden, and a forbidden egg among sixty-one eggs rendered them all permitted. And when the question was put to them: Does ‘sixty-one’ include it [the forbidden egg] or exclude it? they were unable to give a definite answer; and you seem to be so certain of it! It was stated: R. Helbo said in the name of R. Huna: With regard to a [forbidden] egg [cooked with permitted ones], if there were sixty besides this one they are forbidden, but if there were sixty-one besides this one they are permitted. A certain man once came before R. Gamaliel the son of Rabbi [with his case]. Said [R. Gamaliel]: Did not my father [permit such a case] by the standard of forty-seven-fold? Then I might just as well be satisfied with forty-five-fold. A certain man once came before R. Simeon the son of Rabbi [with his case]. I said [R. Simeon]: Did not my father [permit such a case] by the standard of forty-five-fold? Then I might just as well be satisfied with forty-three-fold. A certain man once came before R. Hiyya [with his case]. Said [R. Hiyya]: But there is not here thirty-fold! The reason then [why he declared it forbidden] was because there was not thirty-fold, but if there was thirty-fold could we then adopt this standard? — R. Hanina answered: It was merely an exaggerated expression. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who said it in the name of Bar Kappara: All prohibited substances of the Torah are [neutralized] in sixty-fold. Thereupon R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said to him: Master, do you say so? But R. Assi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who said it in the name of Bar Kappara. All prohibited substances of the Torah are [neutralized] in a hundred-fold. Now both derived their views from ‘the cooked shoulder’, as it is written: And the priest shall take the cooked shoulder. And it was taught. ‘Cooked’^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ

^ᵃnote:The exudation from the egg is of no consequence, it is as mere water, but that of the chicken within the egg is of consequence.
^ᵇnote:Tosaf. Terum. IX.
^ᶜnote:Which was cooking on the fire.
^ᵈnote:For if it is to be assumed that the meat in the pot has been diminished by the absorption in the pot, then the bulk of fat has likewise been diminished. In fact one should not take into consideration the absorption of the pot at all, and the measuring must take into account only the visible contents of the pot.
^ᵉnote:Since there was not the minimum legal quantity (i.e., an olive's bulk, v. Yoma 73b) of forbidden fat, he was inclined not to insist on the sixty-fold standard, but was prepared to permit the meat in the pot even though it was only thirty times as much as the fat.
^ᶠnote:The sixty-fold standard must be adhered to even though there was only half an olive's bulk of the forbidden substance, for, according to R. Johanan, even this quantity is forbidden by the Torah, v. Yoma 73b. The minimum legal quantity of an olive's bulk is necessary only to render the offender liable to stripes.
^ᵍnote:I.e., an egg in which a chicken had developed. So throughout this passage.
^ʰnote:All the other eggs being, of course, permitted ones.
^ⁱnote:Viz., a half-olive's bulk of a forbidden substance was cooked with permitted food.
^ʲnote:Since in this and in the following cases the amount of forbidden substance was less than the minimum legal quantity, the standard of sixty-fold is not rigidly adhered to but smaller standards e.g., of forty-seven-fold, forty-five-fold and forty-three-fold would suffice to render the mixture permitted. According to another interpretation in Rashi the reverse decision is arrived at thus: ‘My father did not adopt a standard of forty-seven-fold, shall I then permit by the standard of forty-five-fold’? The case, accordingly, was of an entire olive's bulk that was cooked with permitted food.
^ᵏnote:Surely not.
^ˡnote:What he meant to say was that there was no question of neutralization in this case for there was not even thirty-fold!
^ᵐnote:Provided the taste of the forbidden substance can no longer be felt in the mixture, for so long as the taste can be felt it will not become neutralized (Rashi). V. however Tosaf. s.v. kf.
^ⁿnote:Num. VI, 19. The shoulder of the ram of the Nazirite's sacrifice was given to the priests to be eaten by priests only, but the rest of the sacrifice was consumed by the owners.

²implies that it must be whole. R. Simeon b. Yohai says. ‘Cooked’ implies that it must have been cooked together with the ram. Now in fact both agree that it must be cooked with the ram, but [they differ in the following]: one holds that it must first be cut away and then cooked, and the other holds that it must first be cooked and then cut away. Alternatively, I can say, all agree that it must first be cut away and then cooked, but [they differ in this]: one holds that it must be cooked together with the ram [in the same pot], and the other holds that it must be cooked in a separate pot. Now according to the first version from either view and according to the second version from the view of R. Simeon b. Yohai [can the required standard be derived]. He who holds the sixty-fold standard maintains that the flesh and bone [of the shoulder] must be measured against the flesh and bone [of the ram], and the latter is sixty times as much as the former. But he who holds the hundred-fold standard maintains that only the flesh [of the shoulder] must be measured against the flesh [of the ram] and the latter is a hundred times as much as the former. But can one derive the standard from the above? Surely it has been taught: This is a case of a substance being permitted even though it has absorbed a forbidden substance. Now what does ‘this’ exclude? Presumably it excludes every other substance which has absorbed any matter forbidden by the Torah? — Abaye answered, [The exclusion] was necessary only according to R. Judah who maintains that [in all other cases] homogeneous substances cannot neutralize each other; hence we are taught that here they do neutralize each other. But why does he not infer the rule from here? — Because the Divine Law has expressly stated: And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat, which shows that though they are both [mixed up] together one does not neutralize the other. But why do you prefer to infer [the rule of non-neutralization of homogeneous substances] from this [verse] rather than from the other? Because that is an anomaly, and one cannot draw any inferences from an anomaly. If so, how may we infer [the rule of neutralization] in hundredfold or in sixty-fold from it? — Forsooth, do we infer leniency from it? We infer a restriction, for according to the rule of the Torah a substance is neutralized in a bare majority [of other substances]. Raba answered: [The exclusion] was necessary with reference to the rule that the taste [of a forbidden substance] is [treated] as the substance itself. Now as this [sc. the taste] is forbidden in the case of consecrated matter, we are therefore taught that here it is permitted.21^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵒnote:The inference from the word ‘cooked’ is obscure (Rashi).
^ᵖnote:The first Tanna and R. Simeon b. Yohai.
^ᵠnote:The first Tanna maintains that the shoulder must be cut away from the ram and then cooked in the same pot as the ram. And the term ‘whole’ implies that the shoulder must in no wise be cut up in pieces. So Rashi; according to Tosaf. s.v. rn, this is the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai.
^ʳnote:R. Simeon b. Yohai maintains that the shoulder must be cut away only after the whole ram has been cooked. According to Tosaf. this is the opinion of the first Tanna.
^ˢnote:R. Simeon b. Yohai.
^ᵗnote:Either the sixty-fold or hundred-fold standard. It must be observed that in the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice resort must be had to the principle of neutralization and it must be assumed that the essence and flavour of the shoulder, which is forbidden to all but priests, is nullified by the rest of the flesh of the ram, for otherwise the Nazirite, an Israelite, would not be allowed to partake of the flesh of the ram since it must be cooked together with the shoulder according to both views in the first version, or according to the view of R. Simeon b. Yohai in the second version.
^ᵘnote:For the shoulder consists in the greater part of bone and has but little flesh on it, and the Rabbis have estimated that if taken bulk for bulk the ram would be only sixty times as much as the shoulder, but if only the proportion of the flesh is considered it will be found that the ram is one hundred times as much as the flesh of the shoulder.
^ᵛnote:Sc. the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice.
^ʷnote:I.e., the forbidden shoulder.
^ˣnote:I.e., that neutralization does not take place. So that the principle of neutralization either in sixty-fold or in a hundred, fold cannot be derived from here.
^ʸnote:Even though the shoulder and the rest of the ram are homogeneous substances. One can however derive from here the principle of neutralization with regard to heterogeneous substances.
^ᶻnote:Why does not R. Judah infer from the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice that in all cases homogeneous substances can neutralize each other?
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. XVI, 18. The blood of the goat, although mixed with the blood of the bullock and though considerably less in quantity than the blood of the bullock, nevertheless retains its identity and is not neutralized by the latter, obviously because they are homogeneous substances and cannot neutralize each other.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., from the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice. The inference from this case would be that even homogeneous substances can neutralize each other.
^ᵃᶜnote:In that the Torah allows at the outset the neutralization of a forbidden substance, contrary to all Rabbinic dicta. V. Bez. 4b.
^ᵃᵈnote:In respect of heterogeneous substances according to R. Judah, or in respect of all substances according to the Rabbis. V. supra p. 549, n. 5.
^ᵃᵉnote:But for the inference from the ram of the Nazirite, we should have acted in accordance with the Biblical principle, ‘Decide the issue according to the majority’, based on Ex. XXIII, 2. One may infer conditions of stringency (namely, that there must be sixty times or a hundred times the quantity of the prohibited substance) even from an anomaly.
^ᵃᶠnote:In the statement ‘This is a case of a substance etc.’.
^ᵃᵍnote:Even though the taste is barely perceptible and is certainly less than one sixtieth or one hundredth part of the entire mixture. (Rashi, but see Tosaf. ad loc.).
^ᵃʰnote:Sc. in the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice.
^ᵃⁱnote:Likewise with regard to unconsecrated matter the taste is neutralized either in sixty-fold or in hundred-fold.