Chullin 98a — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Abaye:

What are we dealing with here? ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

With a chick egg

that contains flesh, and it is forbidden for consumption because of the chick within it, and the flesh of the chick imparts taste; it makes no difference whether it is the egg of a pure chick or the egg of an impure chick, because even the pure chick is forbidden as neveila, since it was not slaughtered.

But

an

impure

egg without a chick

does not

impart taste.

He raised an objection to him:

For we learned in the Tosefta:

Pure eggs that one cooked together with impure eggs,

then,

if there is in them,

in the impure ones,

[enough] to impart taste

in the pure ones—

all of them are forbidden!?

And it is demonstrated that eggs also impart taste.

And we answer:

Here too

it is speaking

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

Since it has a chick,

which is forbidden to eat,

it calls it “impure.”

And we refute this:

But since the latter clause teaches,

in this baraita in the Tosefta:

Eggs that one cooked and a chick was found in one of them—if there is in them [enough] to impart taste, all of them are forbidden! From this it follows that the first clause

is dealing with one in which there is no chick

.

And we answer: The latter clause

explains

the first clause, and this is what it says:

“Pure eggs that one cooked together with impure eggs”—

if there is in them [enough] to impart taste, all of them are forbidden! How so? For example, that one cooked them and a chick was found in one of them!

For this is the impurity, and not because it had been the egg of an impure bird.

And we say:

It is also reasonable

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

For if it enters your mind

that the

first clause

is dealing with

one in which 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

in which there is no chick,

whose taste is merely water,

is forbidden;

an egg

in which there is a chick,

whose chick-flesh imparts taste,

is it necessary

to say that it forbids the other eggs!?

And we reject this:

If it is because of this—

it is not conclusive!

For it can be said:

The tanna taught the latter clause to disclose the meaning of the first clause. You should not say

that the

first clause

is dealing with

one in which there is a chick,

and that is why it is forbidden.

But

if

there is no chick in it,

they are merely water and

permitted;

therefore

the tanna taught the latter clause

with an egg

in which there is a chick; from this it follows that the first clause

is dealing with

one in which there is no chick, and even so it is forbidden.

That half-an-olive-bulk of forbidden fat

fat,

which fell into a cauldron

[a pot]

of meat,

and the fat was cooked together with the meat.

Rav Ashi considered measuring it

—to measure the amount of permitted meat and add to the permitted substance

what the cauldron absorbed,

while he measured the forbidden substance according to what it appeared before us when shriveled, without measuring the forbidden substance absorbed by the cauldron.

The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: Is it so

that only

permitted substance did it absorb

the cauldron, whereas

forbidden substance it did not absorb!?

Rather, necessarily, one must measure both the permitted substance and the forbidden substance according to how they appear before us, since the absorption of the vessel is proportionally equal with regard to the forbidden substance and the permitted substance. Therefore, there is no place to add the absorption of the vessel to the calculation of the measure of nullification.

That half-an-olive-bulk of forbidden fat that fell into a cauldron of meat.

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

since he held that a half-measure does not require nullification like the full measure itself, and nullification in a ratio of one to thirty suffices for it.

Rav Ashi

said to him,

his father:

And is it not so that

I told you: Do not treat rabbinic measures lightly,

but measure them as a Torah measure?

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 Birayim said in the name of one elder—and Rabbi Yaakov was his name: The house of the Nasi said:

An egg

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

in sixty, it is forbidden!

In 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 boundary of permission for it

at sixty-one, but you are not explaining whether the sixty-one include the forbidden egg or whether there must be sixty-one apart from it.

For two of the great men of the generation

were asked this question, and they

did not explain 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 sixty is forbidden; in sixty-one it is permitted. And it was asked of them

whether

it is sixty-one together with it,

that is, it is nullified in sixty permitted [eggs],

or perhaps apart from it,

that is, one must reach nullification in a ratio of one forbidden substance to sixty-one permitted substances,

and they did not resolve it

for themselves,

but

if

the master resolves it explicitly!

For you said that in sixty-one it is permitted, and you did not say that you are uncertain whether the intended ratio is one to sixty or one to sixty-one. If so, those hearing you will understand that the ratio is one to sixty, that the count of sixty-one eggs includes 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

in sixty, and it

is in addition to the sixty—

is forbidden.

And if it became mixed

in sixty-one, and it,

and together there were sixty-two eggs, it is

permitted!

That one who came before Rabban Gamaliel bar Rabbi,

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

He said to him

Rabban Gamaliel bar Rabbi:

Father,

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

did not measure

to forbid in a ratio of one forbidden substance to

forty-seven

permitted substances; 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 shall measure

to permit even with a ratio of one forbidden substance to

forty-five

permitted substances.

This is Rashi’s first explanation. And he wrote that it seemed preferable to him to explain otherwise: Father did not measure to permit even with forty-seven, and shall I be lenient and measure even with forty-five!? According to this wording, there is no need to establish the case with a half-olive-bulk; rather, it may even involve a full olive-bulk.

That one who came before Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi. He said to him: Father did not measure with forty-five, and shall I measure with forty-three!?

[The explanation and the establishment of the case are as above.]

That one who came before Rabbi Hiyya. He said to him: Is there at all thirty

permitted substances against one forbidden substance!?

And we infer and raise an objection:

The reason is that there are not thirty

permitted substances.

But if there are thirty

permitted substances,

do we measure

for permission!? And do we treat the matter so lightly!?

Rabbi Hanina said: Exaggeration

was employed by Rabbi Hiyya, to tell him that even thirty permitted substances are not sufficient against one forbidden substance; but this does not mean that if there were thirty permitted substances he would permit it.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: All prohibitions of the Torah

that one examined and they did not impart taste, or where it is impossible to determine the taste, such as when like species became mixed with like species—the measure of their nullification is

in sixty.

But if one senses the taste, it is never nullified.

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said before him: Rabbi,

and is it so that

you say this?

But

so said Rav Asi that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: All prohibitions of the Torah—

in one hundred!?

And we say:

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

as he explains and proceeds.

For it is written

in the passage of the offerings of the nazirite, that when the days of his naziriteship are completed, he brings, among his other offerings, also 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”!