Chullin

Why then does he not infer the rule from this?1 — Because the Divine Law has expressly stated with regard to the sin-offering. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy,2 that is to say, [it shall be] as [the sin-offering] itself.3 If the latter is ritually unfit to be eaten, the other4 is also unfit, and if it is permitted, the other4 is also permitted to be eaten but only under the conditions of stringency as [the sin-offering] itself.5 But why do you prefer to infer it6 from this [verse] rather than from the other?7 — 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]. 8 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 forbidden9 but here it is permitted.10 R. Dimi was sitting and reciting this statement [of R. Samuel b. R. Isaac]11 when Abaye said to him: Are then all forbidden substances of the Torah neutralized only in hundred-fold? Surely we have learnt:12 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.13 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.14 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?15 — that even consecrated matter is neutralized in sixty-fold or hundred-fold. as the sin-offering itself, for the taste or essence of the sin-offering can never be neutralized. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.