חולין 99:2 — Soncino English Talmud

No, [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]? —^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote: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.
^ᵇnote: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.
^ᶜnote:This is identical with the expression ‘and it imparts a flavour in the dough’.
^ᵈnote: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.
^ᵉnote: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.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote:V. supra p. 55 2, n. 4.
^ʰnote:Surely the flavour of the leaven would not be perceptible if there were a hundred and one times as much dough as leaven.
^ⁱnote:The standard of neutralization varies according to the nature of the forbidden substance.
^ʲnote: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).
^ᵏnote: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.
^ˡnote:As it is forbidden only by Rabbinic injunction R. Judah allows neutralization with regard to it.
^ᵐnote:Or ‘turnip roots’ (Tosaf.). V. supra p. 540, n. 1.
^ⁿnote: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.
^ᵒnote:With the case where the sciatic nerve was cooked together with meat.
^ᵖnote:In the case where the sciatic nerve was not recognizable.