Chullin 98b — the Talmud in English

And it was taught: “when it is cooked” - ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

“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, hold that

he cooks it together with the ram

the foreleg, for a verse does not depart from its plain meaning; rather, this is how they disagree:

One,

the first tanna,

holds: he cuts it

the foreleg, from the ram,

and afterward cooks it

in the same pot, together with it. And the verse teaches us that he must cook the foreleg when it is whole and not when it is cut into pieces.

And the other,

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

holds: he cooks it

the foreleg while it is still attached to the ram,

and afterward cuts it

and detaches it from the body of the ram.

And if you wish, say: everyone

holds -

he cuts it

from the ram,

and afterward cooks it. However, the one,

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

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

the first tanna,

holds: 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’s words

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 they cook the foreleg, which is forbidden to non-kohanim, together with the permitted meat, is it possible to prove from it concerning the law of imparting flavor.

And now we explain the dispute of the amoraim: how did they derive it from the cooked foreleg?

The one who says: in sixty, holds -

the meat and bone

of the foreleg

together with the meat and bones

of the ram

we estimate, and it comes out,

according to what the Sages have ascertained,

in sixty!

And it is proven from here that at a measure of sixty there is no imparting of flavor, for in this manner the Merciful One permitted it.

But the one who says: in one hundred, holds -

the meat

of the foreleg

together with the meat

of the ram

we estimate,

because a bone does not emit flavor,

and it comes out

that the ratio of the meat of the foreleg to the meat of the ram is

one hundred!

And we raise the matter:

And do we derive from it

the cooked foreleg of the nazir’s ram?

And it was taught: This is,

the nazir’s ram in whose meat the flavor of the foreleg was absorbed,

a permission that comes from the category of prohibition!

For the Torah permitted it specifically here, although with ordinary prohibitions it is forbidden.

And we infer:

“This is” -

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

that we do not derive from the cooked foreleg?

Abaye said: It was necessary

to say “This is”

only according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a species in its own species is not nullified

at all, even in one thousand,

it teaches us that here,

in the cooked foreleg,

it is nullified

despite the fact that it is a species in its own species. And therefore it says “This is,” for only here is a species in its own species nullified, but not elsewhere.

And now we challenge Rabbi Yehuda:

And let us derive from it

for elsewhere, that a species in its own species is nullified!?

And we answer:

The Merciful One revealed: “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 small amount of blood of the goat,

are together,

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

and they are not nullified!

For although the small amount of the goat’s blood is mixed with the abundant blood of the bull, it is still called “the blood of the goat.” And from here we derive that a species in its own species is not nullified.

And we raise the matter:

And what have you seen that you derive from that one

that the blood of the goat, being a species in its own species, is not nullified,

let us derive from this one

that the cooked foreleg, being a species in its own species, is nullified!?

And we answer: A permission that nullifies a prohibition

is a novelty. And we do not derive from a novelty

for elsewhere.

And we challenge:

If so,

that it is a novelty, and for that reason Rabbi Yehuda does not derive from it the law of nullification of a species in its own species, then

to

the law of nullification in a majority, which is only in

one hundred and sixty -

also let us not derive

from it!?

And we answer:

Are we deriving leniently

from it, that the prohibition should be nullified in a majority of sixty or in a majority of one hundred? But we are

deriving stringently

from the cooked foreleg, that it should not be nullified until there is a measure of sixty or one hundred of the permitted substance. And a stringency we properly derive from it. For the matter follows by kal va-chomer: If with the nazir’s ram, in which the Torah innovated the leniency of nullification in a majority, the nullification is only at one to sixty or one to one hundred, in a place where the Torah did not innovate, is it not all the more so that it will not be nullified in a majority until there are sixty or one hundred in it?

And this is so: If we had not learned the law of nullification of flavor from the cooked foreleg, but had compared it to the law of nullification in a majority of an actual prohibition, then

by Torah law

one

is nullified in a majority,

and only with flavor do we act stringently, that it should not be nullified except in sixty or one hundred; therefore we properly derive this stringency from the cooked foreleg.

Rava said: It was necessary

for this “permission that comes from the category of prohibition”

only

to teach us

the

matter of

“flavor is like substance,” for with sacrificial meat

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

forbidden

like the actual substance itself, whereas with non-sacred food the flavor is nullified in a majority, so that even though the flavor of the prohibition is discernible in the mixture, the mixture is not forbidden by Torah law, but only rabbinically.

Therefore,

it teaches us that here,

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

it is permitted

to eat the meat, because the flavor was mixed in sixty or one hundred. And we derive from the cooked foreleg, despite the fact that it is sacrificial meat and the prohibition of its flavor is from the Torah, concerning non-sacred food, to be stringent and forbid the flavor of the prohibition until it becomes mixed in sixty or one hundred, despite the fact that the flavor of a prohibition in non-sacred food is forbidden only rabbinically.

And we derive from the cooked foreleg, despite the fact that it is sacrificial meat and that the prohibition resulting from its taste is by Torah law, a law concerning non-sacred food: as a stringency, the taste of the forbidden item remains prohibited until it is mixed with sixty or one hundred times as much permitted food, even though in non-sacred food the forbidden taste is prohibited only by rabbinic law.