Chullin 98b (צח:) — the Talmud in English

And it was taught in a beraita: “When it is cooked” -

“When it is cooked” means only “whole”!

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: “When it is cooked” means only -

that it was cooked together with the ram!

And we explain the beraita:

Everyone,

both the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, holds that

he cooks it together with the ram

the foreleg, since a verse never departs from its plain meaning. Rather, they disagree as follows:

One Master,

the first tanna,

holds that he cuts it

the foreleg, away from the ram,

and then cooks it

in the same pot, together with it. And the verse teaches us that the foreleg must be cooked while whole, and not after it has been cut into pieces.

And the other Master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

holds that he cooks it

the foreleg while it is still attached to the ram,

and then cuts it

and detaches it from the body of the ram.

And if you wish, say

that everyone

holds that he cuts it

from the ram,

and then cooks it. However, one Master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

holds that he cooks it together with the ram. And the other Master,

the first tanna,

holds that he cooks it in a different pot.

Therefore,

according to the first formulation,

everyone holds that he cooks the foreleg together with the ram,

according to everyone

it is possible to derive from the cooked foreleg the law of imparting flavor.

But

according to the latter formulation,

only

according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

who holds that the foreleg, which is forbidden to non-kohanim, is cooked together with the permitted meat, can one prove from it the law of imparting flavor.

And now we explain how the amoraim derived the law from the cooked foreleg:

The one who says that the measure is one in sixty holds -

the meat and bone

of the foreleg

are measured together with the meat and bones

of the ram,

and it turns out to be

according to what the Sages determined,

one in sixty!

And it proves from here that at a ratio of one in sixty there is no imparting of flavor, for this is how the Torah permitted it.

But the one who says that the measure is one in one hundred holds -

the meat

of the foreleg

is measured together with the meat

of the ram,

because they are measured

on the basis that the bone does not release flavor,

and it turns out to be

the ratio of the meat of the foreleg to the meat of the ram

one in one hundred!

And we raise an objection:

And do we derive from it

the case of the cooked foreleg of the nazirite’s ram?

And it was taught in a beraita: “This is

the nazirite’s ram into whose meat the flavor of the foreleg has been absorbed,

a permitted item resulting from a forbidden one!”

For the Torah permitted it specifically here, even though in ordinary cases involving prohibitions it is forbidden.

And we infer:

“This is” -

to exclude what? Is it not to exclude all prohibitions in the Torah,

for we do not derive them from the cooked foreleg?

Abaye said: It was necessary

to state “This is”

only according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one species mixed with another of the same species is not nullified

at all, even in a mixture of one part in one thousand.

It teaches us that here,

in the case of the cooked foreleg,

it is nullified

even though it is a species mixed with the same species. And that is why it says “This is”: only here is one species mixed with the same species nullified, but not elsewhere.

And now we challenge Rabbi Yehuda:

And let us derive from it

for other cases that one species mixed with the same species is nullified!?

And we answer:

The Merciful One explicitly states: “And he shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat,

and he shall place it on the horns of the altar.” And Rabbi Yehuda holds that

both of them,

the abundant blood of the bull and the smaller quantity of blood of the goat,

are together,

for he mixes them together in a single vessel and places some of the mixed blood on the horns of the altar,

and they are not nullified!

Although the smaller quantity of the goat’s blood is mixed with the larger quantity of the bull’s blood, it is still called “the blood of the goat.” And from here we derive that one species mixed with the same species is not nullified.

And we raise an objection:

What have you seen that led you to derive from that

that the blood of the goat, a species mixed with the same species, is not nullified,

rather, let us derive from this

the case of the cooked foreleg, that one species mixed with the same species is nullified!?

And we answer: A permitted item that nullifies a forbidden item

is an innovation. And we do not derive ordinary cases from an innovation

.

And we challenge:

If so,

since it is an innovation, and that is why Rabbi Yehuda does not derive from it the law of nullification of one species mixed with the same species, then

the

law of nullification in a majority, which applies only at a ratio of

one in one hundred or one in sixty -

should also not be derived

from it!?

And we answer:

Are we deriving a leniency from it,

that the forbidden substance should be nullified in a majority of sixty or a majority of one hundred? After all, we are

deriving a stringency

from the cooked foreleg: that it should not be nullified until there is a quantity of permitted substance equal to sixty or one hundred times its measure. And a stringency may properly be derived from it. For the matter follows by means of a kal va-chomer: If, in the case of the nazirite’s ram, concerning which the Torah introduced the leniency of nullification in a majority, the nullification takes place only at a ratio of one to sixty or one to one hundred, then in a case where the Torah did not introduce this leniency, is it not all the more so that the forbidden substance will not be nullified in a majority until there are sixty or one hundred parts of permitted substance?

In other words, if we had not derived the law of nullification of flavor from the cooked foreleg, but had instead compared it to the law of nullification of actual forbidden substance, then

by Torah law

one part

is nullified in a majority,

and only with regard to flavor are we stringent that it is nullified only at a ratio of sixty or one hundred. Therefore, we properly derive this stringency from the cooked foreleg.

Rava said: It was necessary

to state that this is “a permitted item resulting from a forbidden one”

only

to teach us

the

matter of

“flavor as substance”; in sacrificial meat,

we hold that the flavor of a prohibition that became mixed with permitted food is

forbidden

like the substance itself, whereas with non-sacred food the flavor is nullified in a majority. Although the flavor of the prohibition is perceptible in the mixture, the mixture is not forbidden by Torah law, but only by rabbinic decree.

Therefore,

it teaches us that here,

in the case of the cooked foreleg that was cooked together with the meat of the ram of the peace-offering,

it is permitted

to eat the meat, because the flavor became mixed in a ratio of sixty or one hundred.

And we derive from the cooked foreleg, despite the fact that it is sacrificial meat and that the prohibition of its flavor is by Torah law, the law governing non-sacred food: to be stringent and forbid the flavor of the prohibited substance until it becomes mixed in a ratio of sixty or one hundred, even though the flavor of a prohibition in non-sacred food is forbidden only by rabbinic decree.