Chullin

with an egg which contained a chicken,1 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!2 — 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.3 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? 4 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,5 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’.6 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 egg7 among sixty eggs8 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].9 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.10 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].9 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?11 — R. Hanina answered: It was merely an exaggerated expression.12 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.13 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.14 And it was taught. ‘Cooked’ consequence. 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. 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. 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. 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. it will not become neutralized (Rashi). V. however Tosaf. s.v. kf. but the rest of the sacrifice was consumed by the owners.