Chullin 99b (צט:) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

No,

it is not nullified in sixty; rather,

in one hundred!

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to the beginning,

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

in one hundred,

even when the grits do not impart flavor;

the latter clause,

which deals with a mixture of one species with another species, should require nullification

in sixty!

For this is the distinction between a mixture of one species with its own kind and a mixture of one species with another species when there is no imparted flavor: whether nullification is in sixty or in one hundred!?

As it teaches in the first clause: To be stringent with one species and its own kind—

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

which is a mixture of one species with its own kind,

and it contains enough to leaven,

which is comparable to imparting flavor—therefore,

whether it contains

in the permitted mixture

enough to raise the mixture to one hundred and one, or whether it does not contain enough to raise it to one hundred and one—

it is forbidden!

And likewise, if

it does not contain

in the permitted mixture

enough to raise the mixture to one hundred and one,

then

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

it is forbidden!

That is, this is stringency with regard to a mixture of one species with its own kind: when it does not contain one hundred and one, it is not nullified even when it does not contain enough to leaven. Necessarily, then, with regard to a mixture of one species with another species, in which we are lenient, if it does not contain enough to leaven, one hundred and one is not required.

But is it possible to establish

both the first clause and the latter clause as referring to one hundred?

Rather, necessarily, the first clause refers to one hundred, and the latter clause refers to sixty, and it follows that with regard to other prohibitions, the prohibited substance is nullified in sixty. [Examine Rashi and Tosafot carefully!]

And we reject this:

No,

you cannot infer that from it. Rather,

the first clause

deals with nullification

in one hundred and one, and the latter clause with one hundred!

[That is, apart from the prohibited substance.]

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

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

Is it conceivable that the leavening should exert an influence to such an extent!?

Rav Dimi was silent.

Rav Dimi

said to him: Perhaps leaven is different, because its leavening power is potent!

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

of a non-kosher fish

has a measure

close to two hundred!

As we learned in a Mishna: The brine of a non-kosher fish is forbidden! And a quarter-revi'it

of the brine

prohibits

when it becomes mixed

with two se'a

of permitted brine. [And two se'a are two hundred revi'iyot.]

And we examine this:

But didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say—

a mixture of one species with its own kind is not nullified!?

And we answer:

Brine

of a non-kosher fish

is different, as it is merely an exudation!

We learned in the Mishna:

How do we determine the measure?

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

The heads of turnips are sweeter than their ends, and consequently, in order to impart flavor to the heads of turnips, a greater measure is required than the measure needed for flavor in the ends of turnips.

And we say:

The Mishna,

which teaches that a sciatic nerve that imparted flavor renders the mixture forbidden,

is not in accordance with this tanna!

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor!

There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥanina

to ask him a halakhic question concerning a sciatic nerve that had been cooked.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina was sitting at the entrance,

[at the entrance to Rabbi Ḥanina’s gate].

When

the man who had come to ask Rabbi Ḥanina

emerged,

Rabbi Yehuda

said to him: What did

Rabbi Ḥanina

say to you?

He said to him: He permitted it to me!

He said to him: Go back,

bring him in before him,

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

Rabbi Ḥanina said,

when that man returned and asked him a second time:

Who is this troubling me!?

[He was referring to Rabbi Yehuda.]

Go, say to the one sitting at the entrance: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor!

When they came before Rabbi Ami

to ask him about the law of imparted flavor in a sciatic nerve, he would

send them

to

Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥalov, who ruled leniently in this matter, in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

But he,

Rabbi Ami himself,

did not hold

that they should be deemed permitted; rather, since Rabbi Yitzḥak permitted it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, Rabbi Ami did not protest against them!

And the halakha is:

Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor.

We learned in the Mishna:

A sciatic nerve that was cooked.

And we examine this:

Let it be nullified by the majority

when the sciatic nerve cannot be identified within the mixture?