Yevamot 81b (פא:) — the Talmud in English

All of them shall be burned

[as he proceeds to explain the reason why they are not nullified],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages

say:

they shall rise

[the forbidden bundles shall be nullified]

through one part in two hundred and one.

If there were two hundred bundles of permitted produce corresponding to one bundle of forbidden produce. For this is the measure of nullification by a majority in the case of kilayim of the vineyard.

And why did Rabbi Meir say, “All of them shall be burned”?

For Rabbi Meir would say: Any

forbidden substance among substances prohibited for benefit, such as orla or kilayim of the vineyard,

that is customarily counted—

as with these bundles, which are sold by number and not by estimation—is

rendered forbidden

[it prohibits the permitted produce into which it became mixed from being used for benefit], even if there were two hundred parts corresponding to it.

And

whereas

the Sages say: It renders only six things forbidden.

Rabbi Akiva says: Seven

things.

And

these are they:

a.

Perekh nuts,

nuts from the place called “Perekh” [Rashi ].

b.

And Badan pomegranates,

pomegranates from the place called “Badan.”

c.

And sealed barrels

of wine [Meiri].

d.

And stalks of spinach,

a certain type of spinach that is not smooth but is somewhat hairy, and is considered valuable of its kind [Meiri].

e.

And cabbage stalks.

There are types of cabbage that do not grow a stalk together with the leaf, whereas this type has a coarse, thick stalk that grows together with the leaf, and it is the most valuable of its kind.

f.

And Ionian pumpkin,

which is considered valuable of its kind among them [Meiri].

And Rabbi Akiva adds:

g.

Even loaves

of bread

belonging to a householder

that are large.

But loaves made by a baker, which are small, are nullified [Tosafot].

Those that are fit—

among those enumerated—

to

be forbidden with the prohibition of

orla

[such as nuts, pomegranates, and barrels ]— render the mixture forbidden when they are forbidden with the prohibition of orla.

And those items—among those enumerated—

that are fit for the kilayim of the vineyard

[such as spinach, cabbage, and pumpkin, and likewise householder’s loaves according to Rabbi Akiva] render the mixture forbidden when they are forbidden as kilayim of the vineyard.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagreed concerning this Mishna:

Rabbi Yoḥanan held: “That which is customarily counted”—

we learned

that it is not nullified.

And Reish Lakish held: “Anything that is customarily counted”—

we learned

that it is not nullified.

Earlier, the Gemara explained that Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish, “But I learned: A piece among pieces rises.” Rabbi Yoḥanan inferred from this that “that which is customarily counted is what we learned [is not nullified],” and a piece that is not always customarily counted is nullified.

And now the Gemara explains:

What piece

is meant? That is, where did we learn, “A piece among pieces rises”?

As it is taught in a beraita: A piece

[which is generally sold by number, but is sometimes sold by estimation]

of impure sin-offering meat,

which is forbidden to eat even for kohanim,

that became mixed with one hundred pieces of pure sin-offering meat.

And likewise a slice

[which is generally sold by number, but is sometimes sold by estimation]

of impure showbread,

which is forbidden to eat even for kohanim,

that became mixed with one hundred slices of pure showbread.

This one

rises

[is nullified], and the entire mixture is permitted to eat.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not rise,

and the Gemara will explain Rabbi Yehuda’s reason below.

But a piece of pure sin-offering meat

which is permitted to a kohen and is forbidden only to non-kohanim,

that became mixed with one hundred pieces of pure non-sacred meat—

and likewise a slice of pure showbread

which is permitted to a kohen and is forbidden only to non-kohanim,

that became mixed with one hundred slices of pure non-sacred bread—

according to everyone, it does not rise,

since it is possible to sell all of them to a kohen at a small loss, and they are also items that are generally sold by number. Therefore, they are not nullified.

In any event, it teaches in the first clause,

that a piece among pieces

rises.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan proved from this that “that which is customarily counted is what we learned [is not nullified],” and a piece is nullified.

Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said

to reconcile the position of Reish Lakish, who holds that “anything that is customarily counted is what we learned [is not nullified,” and yet this beraita poses a difficulty for him, since a piece is customarily counted and nevertheless is nullified]:

What are we dealing with here?

With a

piece that

has been crushed,

so that it is no longer customarily counted. It is no longer significant and is nullified like other substances.

And we object:

If so, what is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason?

That is: This works well if the beraita is not dealing with a crushed piece, for then Rabbi Yehuda’s reason can be explained as follows: He holds that “anything that is customarily counted” is not nullified, and therefore the piece and the slice are not nullified. But once we have explained that we are dealing with a crushed piece, the difficulty arises: What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason?!