חולין 99 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Why then does he not infer the rule from this? — Because the Divine Law has expressly stated with regard to the sin-offering. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy, that is to say, [it shall be] as [the sin-offering] itself. If the latter is ritually unfit to be eaten, the other is also unfit, and if it is permitted, the other is also permitted to be eaten but only under the conditions of stringency as [the sin-offering] itself. But why do you prefer to infer it 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 hundred-fold 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]. Rabina said: The [exclusion] was necessary only in regard to the side of the cut; for generally it is said that the side of the cut is forbidden but here it is permitted. R. Dimi was sitting and reciting this statement [of R. Samuel b. R. Isaac] when Abaye said to him: Are then all forbidden substances of the Torah neutralized only in hundred-fold? Surely we have learnt: With regard to what did they say that every [substance of terumah] which leavens, or flavours, or is mixed with [common food], must be treated with stringency? It is with regard to homogeneous substances. [And with regard to what did they say that every substance of terumah which leavens etc.] must be treated with leniency as well as with stringency? It is with regard to heterogeneous substances. And in the next clause it reads: With regard to heterogeneous substances there is leniency as well as stringency — thus if crushed beans [of terumah] were cooked with lentils [of common food] and they impart a flavour [to the lentils], the whole is forbidden, whether there was so little [of the beans] as to be neutralized in a hundred and one or not. If they do not impart a flavour [to the lentils] they are permitted, whether there was so little [of the beans] as to be neutralized in a hundred and one or not. Now in the case where there was not so little [of the beans] as to be neutralized in a hundred and one, is it not to be assumed [that there was little enough to be neutralized] in sixty? —^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:Sc. from the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice which is also consecrated matter; and the inference would be that even consecrated matter is neutralized in sixty-fold or hundred-fold.
^ᵇnote:Lev. VI, 20. I.e., whatsoever shall have absorbed from the flesh of the sin-offering, however minute, must be treated as the sin-offering itself, for the taste or essence of the sin-offering can never be neutralized.
^ᶜnote:V. Pes., (Sonc. ed.,) p. 212 and notes.
^ᵈnote:That which has absorbed from the sin-offering.
^ᵉnote:V. Zeb. 97b. The sin-offering could be eaten only by the males of the priesthood, within the hangings of the Sanctuary, the same day and the evening following until midnight. With regard to other sacrificial meat less stringent regulations obtained. From this verse, quoted in the text, is derived the rule that a consecrated substance can never be neutralized. Hence an inference from the ram of the Nazirite to the contrary cannot be made.
^ᶠnote:Sc. the rule that consecrated matter can never be neutralized, for the taste thereof is as the substance itself.
^ᵍnote:V. supra p. 550, n. 8.
^ʰnote:V. supra p. 550, n. 1, 2 and 3.
^ⁱnote:V. supra 68b. Whenever a matter is partly permitted and partly forbidden and it is necessary to separate these parts, when they are cut away from each other the surface of the cut on the side of the permitted part which was in contact with the forbidden part must be pared off.
^ʲnote:So that when the shoulder is cut away from the rest of the ram there is no necessity to pare off the surface of the cut.
^ᵏnote:Supra p. 548.
^ˡnote:V. ‘Orlah II, 6, 7.
^ᵐnote:This is the standard quantity for neutralizing terumah in any mixture, derived from Num. XVIII, 29; cf. Sifre on that verse. The rule here is one of stringency for even though there were a hundred and one times as much lentils as the beans of terumah, the mixture is forbidden because of the flavour that is still perceptible.
^ⁿnote:This is a rule of leniency in that the standard of a hundred and one is not insisted upon in the case where the flavour of the terumah substance is not perceptible. This lenient rule applies only to a mixture of heterogeneous substances, but in the case of a mixture of homogeneous substances conditions of stringency always obtain; and in order that a mixture of homogeneous substances be permitted, two conditions are essential, first the absence of any flavour of the terumah substance, and secondly the requisite standard of a hundred and one; v. infra.
^ᵒnote:And in such a case the mixture would be permitted provided that the flavour of the terumah substance was not perceptible. Hence it is evident that the standard of neutralization where the flavour is not perceptible is sixty-fold, contra R. Dimi who quoted R. Samuel b. R. Isaac.

²No, [it could be neutralized] in a hundred. But surely since the first clause deals with neutralization in a hundred the second deals with neutralization in sixty! For it reads in the first [clause as follows]: With regard to homogeneous substances there is always stringency — thus if wheaten leaven [of terumah] fell into wheaten dough [of common food], and there was sufficient of it to leaven the dough, it is forbidden, whether there was so little of the leaven as to be neutralized in a hundred and one or not. If there was not so little of the leaven as to be neutralized in a hundred and one, it is forbidden, whether it could leaven the dough or not. Can it then be said that both the first and second clauses are [alike in that neutralization takes place only] in a hundred? — No, the first clause deals with neutralization in a hundred and one, whereas the second clause deals with neutralization in a hundred. Why is it then, where there were a hundred and one times [the quantity of the forbidden leaven], even though it can still leaven the dough, that it is not neutralized? He [R. Dimi] remained silent. Said [Abaye] to him: Perhaps it is different with leaven for leaven is very sharp! Said [R. Dimi] to him: You have now reminded me of that statement of R. Jose son of R. Hanina, viz., Not all standards are alike, for in the case of brine the standard of neutralization is almost two hundred. For we have learnt: [Where unclean fish was pickled together with clean fish, if in a barrel holding two se'ahs there was the weight of ten zuz Judean measure (which is five sela's Galilean measure)] of unclean fish, the brine thereof is forbidden. R. Judah says. [It is forbidden if there was] a quarter log [of unclean brine] in two se'ahs [clean brine]. But has not R. Judah said that homogeneous substances cannot be neutralized? — It is different with brine for it is only the moisture [of the fish]. HOW DOES ONE MEASURE THIS? R. Huna said: As if it were meat [cooked] with turnip-heads. Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the following Tanna, for it was taught: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka says that nerves cannot impart a flavour. A man once came in before R. Hanina, and R. Judah b. Zebina was sitting at the doorstep [of R. Hanina's house]. When the man came out he [R. Judah] asked him, ‘How did he [R. Hanina] decide’? ‘He permitted it unto me’, he replied. ‘Then go in again to him’, [said R. Judah b. Zebina]. Thereupon [R. Hanina] said: ‘ Who is this that worries me so. Go, tell him who is sitting at the doorstep that nerves cannot impart any flavour’. When a person [with such a case] came to R. Ammi he would always send him to R. Isaac b. Halob who used to rule that it was permitted on the authority of R. Joshua b. Levi, although he [R. Ammi] himself was not of that opinion. The law is: Nerves cannot impart a flavour. IF THE SCIATIC NERVE WAS COOKED WITH OTHER NERVES etc. Why is it not neutralized in the larger quantity [of other nerves]? —^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ

^ᵖnote:So that in the case of a mixture of heterogeneous substances and in the absence of any flavour from the forbidden substance the standard of neutralization of a hundred (instead of a hundred and one) would be adopted as sufficient.
^ᵠnote:Since it has been clearly laid down that a mixture of homogeneous substances is always to be treated with stringency, which is not the case with heterogeneous substances, and since in the case of a homogeneous mixture, in the absence of a perceptible flavour, a standard of a hundred would be adopted as sufficient to render the mixture permitted, it follows that with regard to a mixture of heterogeneous substances even this standard would not be required, but a standard of sixty-fold would be regarded as sufficient.
^ʳnote:This is identical with the expression ‘and it imparts a flavour in the dough’.
^ˢnote:If, however, there was not sufficient of the leaven to serve for the dough, and there was the standard of a hundred and one, the mixture would be permitted even though it consisted of homogeneous substances. It is assumed, for the present, that by ‘the standard of a hundred and one’ is meant a hundred parts of the permitted substance to one part of the forbidden substance.
^ᵗnote:This cannot be, for neutralization in connection with heterogeneous substance is of a lenient character and presumably a standard of sixty-fold would be sufficient.
^ᵘnote:In other words the assumption that ‘the standard of a hundred and one’ meant a hundred parts of one to one part of the other was erroneous, for by ‘the standard of a hundred and one’ is meant a hundred and one parts of the permitted substance to one part of the other.
^ᵛnote:V. supra p. 55 2, n. 4.
^ʷnote:Surely the flavour of the leaven would not be perceptible if there were a hundred and one times as much dough as leaven.
^ˣnote:The standard of neutralization varies according to the nature of the forbidden substance.
^ʸnote:V. Ter. X, 8. Ten zuz is one part in nine hundred and sixty of two se'ahs (one se'ah is twenty-four logs; one log is two litras; one litra is one hundred zuz).
^ᶻnote:I.e., a proportion of one in one hundred and ninety-two. (One se'ah is six kabs, and one kab is four logs). If, however, the proportion of the substances was less than this (e.g., if the forbidden substance was one in two hundred), the mixture would be permitted, even though the substances are of like kind.
^ᵃᵃnote:As it is forbidden only by Rabbinic injunction R. Judah allows neutralization with regard to it.
^ᵃᵇnote:Or ‘turnip roots’ (Tosaf.). V. supra p. 540, n. 1.
^ᵃᶜnote:And if cooked with meat it need only be removed and the meat is permitted, for the nerve is as dry as wood and cannot impart a flavour. According to our Mishnah even though the nerve has been removed the meat would be forbidden because of the flavour of the nerve.
^ᵃᵈnote:With the case where the sciatic nerve was cooked together with meat.
^ᵃᵉnote:In the case where the sciatic nerve was not recognizable.