Chullin

implies that it must be whole.1 R. Simeon b. Yohai says. ‘Cooked’ implies that it must have been cooked together with the ram. Now in fact both2 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,3 and the other holds that it must first be cooked and then cut away.4 Alternatively, I can say, all agree that it must first be cut away and then cooked, but [they differ in this]: one5 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].6 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.7 But can one derive the standard from the above? Surely it has been taught: This8 is a case of a substance being permitted even though it has absorbed a forbidden substance.9 Now what does ‘this’ exclude? Presumably it excludes every other substance which has absorbed any matter forbidden by the Torah?10 — 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.11 But why does he not infer the rule from here?12 — Because the Divine Law has expressly stated: And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat,13 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?14 Because that is an anomaly,15 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?16 — 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].17 Raba answered: [The exclusion]18 was necessary with reference to the rule that the taste19 [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 20 it is permitted.21 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. According to Tosaf. this is the opinion of the first Tanna. 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. 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. fold cannot be derived from here. the principle of neutralization with regard to heterogeneous substances. substances can neutralize each other? 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. homogeneous substances can neutralize each other. Bez. 4b. Rabbis. V. supra p. 549, n. 5. ‘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. mixture. (Rashi, but see Tosaf. ad loc.).