Chullin 98a (צח.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Abaye:

What are we dealing with here?

With a chick egg

that contains flesh, and it is forbidden to eat because of the chick inside it, and the flesh of the chick imparts flavor. It makes no difference whether it is the egg of a chick of a pure species or the egg of a chick of an impure species, since even the pure chick is forbidden as a neveila, as it was not slaughtered.

But

an

impure

egg without a chick

does not

impart flavor.

He raised an objection:

We learned in the Tosefta:

If pure eggs were cooked together with impure eggs,

then

if there is in them,

in the impure eggs,

sufficient to impart flavor

in the pure eggs—

all of them are forbidden!?

And it is thereby demonstrated that eggs too impart flavor.

And we answer:

Here too

it is speaking

of a chick egg; and why does it call it “impure”? —

Since it contains a chick,

which is forbidden to eat,

it calls it “impure.”

And we challenge this:

But from the fact that the latter clause states,

in this beraita in the Tosefta:

“If eggs were cooked and a chick was found in one of them, if there is in them sufficient to impart flavor, all of them are forbidden,” it follows that the first clause

is dealing with a case where there is no chick

in them!

And we answer: The latter clause

is explaining

the first clause, and this is what it is saying:

“If pure eggs were cooked together with impure eggs”—

“If there is in them sufficient to impart flavor, all of them are forbidden.” In what case is this said? For example, if they were cooked and a chick was found in one of them!

For this is what constitutes the impurity, and not the fact that it was the egg of an impure bird.

And we say:

Here too, it is reasonable

that the latter clause is explaining the first clause, which is dealing with the egg of a pure bird that contains a chick.

For if it should enter your mind

that

the first clause

is dealing with a case

where there is no chick,

but its prohibition is because it is the egg of an impure bird, why was it necessary to write the latter clause? For

now,

an egg

that contains no chick,

whose flavor is merely water,

is forbidden;

an egg

that contains a chick,

whose flesh imparts flavor,

need it

be stated that it renders the other eggs forbidden!?

And we reject this:

If that is the reason—

it is not conclusive!

For it can be said:

The tanna stated the latter clause to clarify the first clause, so that you should not say

that

the first clause

is dealing with a case

where there is a chick

and that is why it is forbidden.

But

if

there is no chick,

they are merely water and

permitted.

Therefore,

the tanna stated the latter clause

with regard to an egg

that contains a chick, thereby implying that the first clause

is dealing with a case

where there is no chick, and nevertheless it is forbidden.

A certain olive-bulk of forbidden fat

—forbidden fat—

fell into a cooking pot

(kettle)

of meat,

and the fat was cooked together with the meat.

Rav Ashi considered measuring it

—measuring the quantity of permitted meat and adding to the permitted substance—

according to what the pot absorbed,

while he measured the forbidden substance according to the amount that was before us in its shrunken state, without measuring the amount of forbidden substance absorbed by the pot.

The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: Is it so

that only something

permitted did the pot absorb,

whereas something

forbidden it did not absorb!?

Rather, necessarily, both the permitted and the forbidden substances must be measured according to how they appear before us, since the absorption of the vessel is proportionately equal with regard to the forbidden and the permitted substances. Therefore, the absorption of the vessel cannot be added to the calculation of the measure required for nullification.

A certain half olive-bulk of forbidden fat fell into a pot of meat.

Mar bar Rav Ashi considered measuring it as thirty half-olive-bulks,

as he held that a half-measure does not require nullification in the same proportion as a full measure, and nullification in a ratio of one to thirty is sufficient for it.

Rav Ashi

said to him,

his father:

“Is it that

I did not tell you not to treat the measures established by the Rabbis lightly,

but rather to measure them according to the measure required by Torah law?”

And furthermore, did Rabbi Yohanan not say: A half-measure—

is forbidden by Torah law!?

Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rav Idi bar Idi bar Gershom said that Levi bar Parta said that Rabbi Nahum said that Rabbi Biryam said in the name of one elder, whose name was Rabbi Yaakov: The house of the Nasi said:

An egg

of forbidden substance that became mixed with permitted eggs, if the mixture was

in a ratio of sixty, is forbidden!

In a ratio of sixty-one—

it is permitted! Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: See

what you are doing, so that you do not err and cause those who rely upon you to stumble,

for you are setting a limit of permissibility at sixty-one

without clarifying whether the sixty-one include the forbidden egg or whether there must be sixty-one besides it.

For the two great men of the generation

were asked this question, and

they did not clarify the matter.

And who are the two great men of the generation?

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani

—who

both said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: An egg in a ratio of sixty is forbidden; in a ratio of sixty-one it is permitted. And it was asked of them

whether

“sixty-one” includes it,

meaning that it is nullified in sixty permitted eggs,

or perhaps besides it,

meaning that nullification requires a ratio of one forbidden egg to sixty-one permitted eggs;

and they did not resolve it

for themselves.

But

if

the Master resolves it explicitly!

For you said that in a ratio of sixty-one it is permitted, without saying that you were uncertain whether the intended ratio is one to sixty or one to sixty-one. Consequently, those who hear you will understand that the ratio is one to sixty, with the total of sixty-one eggs including the forbidden egg together with sixty permitted eggs.

It was stated: Rabbi Helbo said that Rav Huna said: An egg

of forbidden substance that became mixed

with sixty, and it

is additional to the sixty—

is forbidden.

And if it became mixed

with sixty-one, and it,

making a total of sixty-two eggs,

is permitted!

A certain person came before Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi,

holding a half olive-bulk of forbidden substance mixed in a ratio of more than one to sixty.

Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi said to him:

“My father,

that is, Rabbi, had a case like this come before him, and he

did not measure

it as forbidden in a ratio of one part forbidden

to forty-seven

parts permitted. Learn from this that with a half olive-bulk one may be lenient, and a ratio of one to sixty is not necessary.

And I will measure

it as permitted even in a ratio of one part forbidden

to forty-five

parts permitted.”

This is Rashi’s first explanation. He wrote that it seemed preferable to him to explain it differently: “My father did not measure it as permitted even in a ratio of forty-seven, and shall I be lenient and measure it even in a ratio of forty-five!?” According to this interpretation, there is no need to establish the case as involving a half olive-bulk; it can even involve a full olive-bulk.

A certain person came before Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi. He said to him: “My father did not measure it as permitted in a ratio of forty-five, and shall I measure it as permitted in a ratio of forty-three!?”

The explanation and the contextual interpretation are as above.

A certain person came before Rabbi Hiyya. He said to him: “Are there even thirty

permitted parts corresponding to one forbidden part”!?

And we infer and wonder:

The reason is that there are not thirty

permitted parts.

But if there are thirty

permitted parts,

do we measure

it as permitted!? Are we really so lenient!?

Rabbi Hanina said: Rabbi Hiyya employed exaggeration

in order to tell him that even thirty permitted parts would not suffice against one forbidden part; this does not mean that if there were thirty permitted parts, he would permit it.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: With regard to all forbidden substances in the Torah,

when they were examined and did not impart flavor, or when it is impossible to determine their flavor, such as when like substances became mixed with one another, the measure of their nullification is

sixty.

But if their flavor is discernible, they are never nullified.

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said before him: Rabbi,

is it so that

you say this?

But

this is what Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: With regard to all forbidden substances in the Torah—

in a ratio of one hundred!?

And we say:

Both of them learned it only from “the cooked foreleg,”

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

As it is written

in the passage concerning the offerings of the nazirite, that when the days of his naziriteship are completed, he brings, among his other offerings, a ram as a peace-offering.

The law of this ram is that it is eaten by its owners, like every peace-offering, except for the foreleg of the ram, which is waved and given as a gift to a koen, and may not be eaten by non-koanim.

Yet a novel element is stated in this passage: The foreleg of the ram, which is forbidden for non-koanim to eat, is separated from the body of the animal after the ram has been cooked. It follows that the forbidden foreleg was cooked together with the flesh of the ram, which is permitted to non-koanim.

And this is the wording of the verse:

“And the koen shall take the cooked foreleg

from the ram ... and the koen shall wave them ... it is sacred to the koen”!