Chullin 99b — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

No,

it is nullified in sixty; rather,

in one hundred!

And we raise a difficulty:

But since from the first clause,

which deals with a kind mixed with its own kind, and in which you are stringent in every respect, you say that it is nullified

in one hundred,

even when there is no imparted taste in the beans,

the latter clause,

which deals with a kind mixed with a different kind, its nullification should be

in sixty!

For this is the distinction between a kind mixed with its own kind and a kind mixed with a different kind when there is no imparted taste: whether the nullification is in sixty or in one hundred!?

For the first clause teaches: to be stringent with a kind and its own kind —

How so? Leaven of wheat that fell into dough of wheat,

which is a kind mixed with its own kind,

and it contains enough to leaven,

since this resembles imparting taste, then

whether there is in the permitted substance

in the permitted substance

enough to raise it to one hundred and one, or whether there is not enough to raise it to one hundred and one —

it is forbidden!

And likewise, if

there is not

in the permitted substance

enough to raise it to one hundred and one,

then

whether it contains enough to leaven or whether it does not contain enough to leaven —

it is forbidden!

And this means being stringent with a kind mixed with its own kind: when there are not one hundred and one parts, it is not nullified even when it does not contain enough to leaven. And necessarily, with regard to a kind mixed with a different kind, in which we are lenient, if it does not contain enough to leaven, we do not require one hundred and one.

And is it possible to establish

the first clause and the latter clause as referring to one hundred? Rather, necessarily, the first clause deals with one hundred, and the latter clause deals with sixty, and it follows that in the case of other prohibitions, it is nullified in sixty. [Study Rashi and Tosafot carefully!]

Rather, necessarily, the first clause refers to one hundred parts, and the latter clause refers to sixty parts; this proves that with other prohibited substances, the prohibited substance is nullified in sixty parts. [See Rashi and Tosafot'!]

And we reject this:

No,

you should not infer this from it. Rather,

the first clause

deals with nullification being

in one hundred and one, and the latter clause in one hundred! [And that is, apart from the prohibition.]

(That is, in addition to the prohibited substance.)

And we raise a difficulty: if the first clause refers to one hundred and one of permitted substance, how do we say that if it contains enough to leaven, it forbids even in one hundred and one —

Does it contain enough to leaven in one hundred and one!?

And is it possible that the leavening should have such an effect!?

Rav Dimi was silent

Rav Dimi.

He said to him: Perhaps leaven is different, for its leavening is strong!

He said to him: You have reminded me of a matter that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: Not all measures are equal! For the brine

of a non-kosher fish

its measure is

close to two hundred!

For we learned in the Mishna: The brine of a non-kosher fish is forbidden! And a quarter-log

of the brine

forbids

when it becomes mixed

with two seahs

of permitted brine. [And two seahs are two hundred quarter-logs.]

And we raise this question about it:

But did Rabbi Yehuda not say —

a kind mixed with its own kind is not nullified!?

And we answer:

brine is different

of a non-kosher fish,

for it is merely perspiration!

We learned in the Mishna:

How do we measure it?

Rav Huna said: Like the flesh at the heads of turnips!

For the heads of turnips are sweeter than their tails, and it follows that in order to impart taste to the heads of turnips, a greater measure is required than the measure needed to impart taste to the tails of turnips.

And we say:

The Mishna,

which teaches that a sciatic nerve that imparted taste forbids,

is not in accordance with this tanna!

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: Giddin do not impart taste!

There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Hanina

to ask him a matter of halakha concerning a nerve that had been cooked.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina was sitting at the entrance, [at the doorway of Rabbi Hanina’s gate.]

(at the entrance to Rabbi Ḥanina's gate).

When

the one who had come to ask Rabbi Hanina

he said to him

Rabbi Yehuda —

what did

Rabbi Hanina say to you?

He said to him: He permitted it to him!

He said to him: Go back,

return to Rabbi Hanina,

bring him before him,

and ask him once more what the halakha is concerning a sciatic nerve that imparted taste in a pot.

Rabbi Hanina said,

when that man returned and asked him once more:

Who is this who is causing me distress!? [His reference was to Rabbi Yehuda.]

(He was referring to Rabbi Yehuda.)

Go, say to the one sitting at the entrance: Giddin do not impart taste!

When they came before Rabbi Ami

to ask him about the law of imparted taste in a nerve, he

would send them

he would send them

before Rabbi Yitzhak ben Haluvo, who would rule leniently concerning it, on account of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

but he himself,

Rabbi Ami himself,

did not hold

to permit them; rather, since he permitted it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, Rabbi Ami did not protest against them!

And the halakha is —

giddin do not impart taste.

We learned in the Mishna:

A sciatic nerve that was cooked.

And we raise this question about it:

Let it be nullified by a majority

when he does not recognize the nerve within the mixture?