Chullin 99a (צט.) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection to this:

And let us derive it from it,

from the flesh of the ram’s foreleg, which does not become prohibited [even though, according to Torah law, the principle that taste is equivalent to substance applies to kodashim, and taste is therefore prohibited by Torah law], to permit the taste of other prohibited kodashim, such as notar and piggul, when they impart taste into a mixture of sixty or one hundred parts.

And we answer:

The Torah explicitly stated with regard to a sin-offering: “Whatever touches its flesh”

[that is, any flesh of a sacred offering that absorbs the taste of the sin-offering by touching it],

“shall become sanctified,” \-

to become

according to the laws governing its consumption

like it!

If

the sin-offering

was invalid—

it becomes invalid

as does the animal that absorbed some of the sin-offering.

And if

the sin-offering

was valid—

the animal that absorbed some of the sin-offering may be eaten

like the more stringent one,

like it,

the sin-offering. That is, if the absorption occurred in the flesh of a peace-offering, it may not be eaten by non-kohanim, and it must be eaten within one day and one night, according to the laws governing the consumption of a sin-offering! And from here we derive that in kodashim, taste is equivalent to substance.

And we question this:

What makes you see that we should derive it from that one,

the sin-offering, which teaches that in kodashim taste is equivalent to substance and is not nullified by a majority?

Let us derive it from this one,

the cooked foreleg, which teaches that taste in kodashim is nullified by a majority of sixty or one hundred?

And we answer:

It is a novel element

introduced with regard to the cooked foreleg, since initially the foreleg is cooked together with the ram, and the prohibition is nullified by the majority. Such a practice may not be performed with other prohibitions, for one may not initially nullify a prohibition through a majority; rather, one permits a mixture only when the prohibition accidentally fell into a majority of permitted food.

And we do not derive laws from a novel element!

And we question this:

If so, with regard to one hundred and sixty,

which you derive from the cooked foreleg in order to be stringent with non-sacred food,

we should not derive it either,

since the cooked foreleg is a novel element?

And we answer:

Is it that we are deriving a leniency

from the cooked foreleg? Certainly

we are deriving a stringency! For by Torah law,

with regard to non-sacred food, one

is nullified by a majority,

whereas we are stringent and require that it not be nullified until there are sixty or one hundred parts.

Ravina said: It was necessary

to state that which we said, “This is a permitted substance that derives from a prohibited substance,” with regard to the cooked foreleg

only with regard to the place of the cut,

where the foreleg is severed from the flesh of the ram.

For when one says ‘the place of the cut’ without qualification,

in every case of a prohibition and a permitted substance that are attached to one another, when the prohibited substance is severed from the permitted one [for example, when the fetus extends its foreleg outside the womb, rendering it prohibited, and they cut off the foreleg; or, for example, a partially detached limb that is severed],

it is prohibited

at the place of the cut itself,

and

if

here,

the place where the foreleg is severed from the ram—

it is permitted!

Rav Dimi sat and recited this teaching

of Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak, that nullification by a majority is in one hundred parts and not in sixty.

Abaye said to him: And

is it so that

all prohibitions stated in the Torah

are nullified by a majority

of one hundred!?

But didn’t we learn: Why

[i.e., in what respect]

did they say: Anyone who leavens

with teruma [that is, anyone who leavens a batch of non-sacred dough with teruma leaven,

and

likewise one who

spices

a pot of non-sacred food with teruma spices,

and

likewise one who

mixes

non-sacred food and teruma together—did they rule in these cases

stringently?

When the mixture was

of the same type and its own type!

And likewise, in some cases they ruled

leniently

and in some cases

stringently—

in a mixture of

one type and another type.

And it teaches in the latter clause:

To rule leniently and stringently

as we said, and likewise

one type and another type—

how so?

Legumes

of teruma

that were cooked with lentils

of non-sacred produce—

if they contain

in the teruma legumes

enough to impart taste

to the lentils, then

whether they contain

in the lentils

enough to raise

the teruma legumes

to one hundred and one, or whether they do not contain enough to raise them to one hundred and one—

it is prohibited!

Thus, we have learned that in both cases one rules stringently!

And if

they do not contain enough to impart taste,

then

whether they contain enough to raise them to one hundred and one, or whether they do not contain enough to raise them to one hundred and one—

it is permitted!

Thus, we have learned that in both cases one rules leniently!

For when a measure is required for nullification, that is when the prohibition imparts taste; but when it does not impart taste, we do not require one hundred parts of permitted food in order to nullify it. [

And the fact that with regard to teruma we require one part to one hundred in order to nullify it applies when the teruma itself is mixed with the permitted food, but not when only the taste of the teruma is present in the mixture].

And Abaye now proves: The tanna said in our Mishna that when it does not impart taste, even “when they do not contain enough to raise them to one hundred and one,” it is nullified.

Rather, by what

measure is it nullified?

Is it not—

by sixty!