Chullin 100a (ק.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

a creature

is different!

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, a piece of neveila

that was cooked together with other pieces: If one recognizes it, the prohibition is determined by imparting flavor; but if not, all of them are prohibited!

By Torah law, any prohibited substance that becomes mixed with a majority of permitted substances is nullified by the majority. However, the Sages were stringent to prohibit a “significant item” that became mixed with a majority, so that it is not nullified.

The Sages and Rabbi Meir disagree, in the Mishna in tractate Orla, concerning what constitutes a “significant item” that is not nullified by a majority. According to the Sages, there are six especially significant items that are never nullified. According to Rabbi Meir, an item that people customarily count as separate units, each unit individually, is considered a significant item.

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagree in explaining the words of Rabbi Meir.

According to Rabbi Yohanan, only an item so significant that everyone sells it by number, and there are no people who sell it by estimation, is called a “significant item” that is not nullified by a majority. But if there are people who do not consider it so significant and are willing to sell it by estimation, without counting each individual unit separately, it is not called a “significant item”; rather, it is nullified by a majority.

And this is how Rabbi Meir stated it, according to Rabbi Yohanan: “That which is customarily counted”—meaning, that whose manner, among all people, is to be sold only by number—is what is called a “significant item.”

But Reish Lakish maintains that it is sufficient that there are people who sell the item by number in order for it to be considered significant, even though there are other people who sell it by estimation.

And this is how Rabbi Meir stated it, according to Reish Lakish: “Anything that is customarily counted”—meaning, any item that some people count is significant, even though not everyone counts it.

The dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Meir was taught in tractate Orla with regard to bundles of fenugreek, which were prohibited for benefit because of mixed species in a vineyard and became mixed with permitted bundles.

According to the Sages, the prohibited pieces of fenugreek are nullified by a majority of one to two hundred [as is the law with regard to mixed species in a vineyard, for which this is the measure of nullification], because bundles of fenugreek are not included among the six especially significant items. But Rabbi Meir maintains that they are not nullified by a majority, since people customarily count them.

And now we consider the words of the Mishna, which state that a piece of neveila is not nullified by a majority.

Why are all the pieces with which the piece of neveila became mixed prohibited?

Let

the piece of neveila

be nullified by the majority

of the permitted pieces!?

And if you would say that a piece of neveila is called a significant item and is comparable to the prohibited bundle of fenugreek that became mixed with permitted bundles and is not nullified according to Rabbi Meir because of its significance—for people customarily count bundles of fenugreek—so too here, there are people who customarily count pieces of meat.

But

this works only according to the one who says [Reish Lakish]

that we learned: “Anything that is customarily counted,”

“We learned: ‘Anything that is customarily counted’”

in Rabbi Meir’s statement, meaning that there are people who count them. The same would apply here, to pieces of meat: There are people who customarily count pieces of meat individually when they invite guests, counting the pieces of meat according to the number of guests. Therefore, this piece of meat, being neveila, is significant and is not nullified by a majority.

But according to the one who says [Rabbi Yohanan]

that we learned: “That which is customarily counted,”

“We learned: ‘That which is customarily counted’”

in Rabbi Meir’s statement, meaning that only items designated for counting, which everyone customarily counts [such as spices], are not nullified by a majority, whereas items that are sometimes assessed rather than counted are nullified by a majority,

what can be said?

For pieces of meat are sometimes assessed rather than counted!?

And we answer:

A piece

of meat is different, as it has another form of significance,

since it is fit to be served to the guests,

and by virtue of such significance it is not nullified by a majority.

And it is necessary

for the Mishna to teach that the sciatic nerve is not nullified by a majority, and likewise that a piece of neveila is not nullified by a majority.

For had it taught only the sciatic nerve

alone, I would have said that this is because

it is a “creature,”

and by virtue of the significance of a creature it is not nullified;

but as for a piece, perhaps not

significant, and it should be nullified.

And had it taught a piece,

I would have said that its significance is

since it is fit to be served to the guests, but as for the sciatic nerve

I would have said

perhaps not

significant, and it should be nullified. Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach both cases.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana interpreted: A piece of neveila or of a non-kosher fish

that is recognizable in the mixture

does not prohibit

the dish through what it releases

until it imparts [i.e., until it has the capacity to impart]

flavor to the broth, the thick portion, and the pieces

flavor into the gravy, the sediment, and the pieces

in the pot.

Rav appointed an amora over him,

meaning that Rav appointed a speaker to stand before him and expound and announce to the masses that the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, but rather:

Once it has imparted

the piece of neveila

flavor into a piece

of permitted meat adjacent to it, that

piece itself

of permitted food, into which the flavor of neveila was absorbed,

becomes

as though it itself were

neveila, and it prohibits

the permitted piece containing the flavor of neveila

all the pieces—

because they are of its kind,

that is, of the same kind as the permitted piece. And it was initially understood that the reason for this ruling is that a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind is not nullified, even if there were enough permitted pieces to nullify both the piece of neveila and the piece that absorbed flavor from it.

And this case concerns, for example, a permitted piece that was always adjacent to the piece of neveila, or a permitted piece that was cooked together with it first, before there were sixty times its volume in the pot opposite the piece of neveila, and only afterward were the other permitted pieces added to the pot.

Rav Safra said to Rav: Since Rav

says that the permitted piece itself becomes neveila and prohibits the other pieces by virtue of the law that “a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind is not nullified,”

in accordance with whom did he state his teaching?—

In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A substance mixed with another substance of its own kind is not nullified.

And if so,

why specifically

did Rav state in his words

when it imparted

the piece of neveila

flavor

into the permitted piece, that the piece itself becomes prohibited like neveila and prohibits the other permitted pieces? After all,

even when it did not impart

the piece of neveila

flavor

into the permitted piece,

also

the piece of neveila that became mixed with the pieces of permitted meat would not be nullified! For the piece of neveila itself is also considered to be of the same kind as the permitted pieces, since they are all pieces of meat. If so, it itself should prohibit all the pieces by virtue of the law that “a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind is not nullified”!?

He said to him,

Abaye said to Rav Safra:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case in which it was removed first

the prohibited piece, and likewise the gravy was removed from the pot before the permitted pieces were put into it. Only the permitted piece containing the prohibited flavor remained in the pot, and Rav teaches us that it once again prohibits the other pieces through what it releases, as though it itself were neveila.

That is to say, even if it itself is recognizable and can be removed, all the pieces in the pot nevertheless remain prohibited by virtue of what it releases, as though it itself were neveila. And he teaches us that a piece that absorbed prohibited flavor itself becomes neveila, and thereby prohibits the other pieces through what it releases!