C. [97a] [This is not a valid objection.] Fat is different because it permeates [all the meat]. But is it prohibited [to roast a kid with its] fat? For lo, said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, “An incident occurred in the presence of R. Yohanan in the synagogue at Ma`on. There was a kid that was roasted with its own fat. And they went and asked R. Yohanan [concerning its status as to the law]. And he said, `One may peel trim off meat and eat it until he reaches its fat.'”
D. This one [was an exceptional case because] it was lean [and therefore did not permeate the meat. Therefore no proof can be adduced from this incident.]
E. R. Huna bar Judah said, “That was a kidney [roasted] in its own fat. And [R. Yohanan] permitted it.”
F. Rabin bar R. Ada said, “There was a stickleback [Cashdan, a small fish that may not be eaten that was] cooked in a pot of stew [with meat]. And they went and asked R. Yohanan [concerning its status]. And he said to give it to a gentile chef [to taste it to see if the flavor of the fish is present in the stew].”
G. Said Raba, “At first I had a problem with this that was taught on Tannaite authority: [As regards] a pot in which one cooked meat — he should not [thereafter] cook in it dairy. (Text here omits: [If he cooked in it] dairy, he should not [thereafter] cook in it meat.) [Text here adds:] But if one cooked [food in any of these prohibited ways] — lo, this [i.e., what has been cooked second] is prohibited if [the food that was cooked first] imparted to it flavor. [If he cooked in it] heave-offering, he should not [thereafter] cook in it unconsecrated produce. But if one cooked [food in any of these prohibited ways] — lo, this [i.e., what has been cooked second] is prohibited if [the food that was cooked first] imparted to it flavor [T. Ter. 8:16].
H. “It makes perfect sense that regarding [a mixture of] heave-offering one may give it to a priest to taste it. But who can taste [a mixture of] meat and milk? And we said regarding this that one may give it to a [gentile] chef to taste it. Now [I know that] it was concerning this that R. Yohanan said that we rely on a gentile chef [to taste it].” [For G-H, cf. b. 111b, IV.2 E-F.]
A. Said Raba, “Our rabbis have said [that one operative criterion to determine whether a component of a mixture imparts its status to the whole is by] its taste. And our rabbis have said [that another operative procedure to determine whether a component of the mixture imparts its status to the whole is by giving it to taste to] a [gentile] chef. [97b] And our rabbis have said [that a third operative criterion to determine whether a component of a mixture imparts its status to the whole is to see if, in the mixture, it constitutes more than one part] in sixty.
B. “Where you have some permitted thing mixed with some permitted thing not of its own kind, [then the operative criterion for determining the status of the mixture is which component of the mixture imparts to the whole] its taste.
C. “[Where you have some] prohibited [thing mixed with some prohibited thing not of its own kind, then the operative procedure for determining the status of the mixture is to give it to a gentile] chef [to taste see which components of the mixture impart to the whole its taste]. [Cf. b. Zeb. 79a.]
D. “And where you have one kind mixed with its own kind, where you cannot employ taste [as a criterion], and also in the case where you have some prohibited thing mixed with something not of its own kind, where there is no available [gentile] chef [to taste it, then the operative procedure for determining the status of the prohibited substance in the mixture is to see if, in the mixture, it constitutes more than one part] in sixty.”
A. These sides of beef that the Exilarch salted with the sinews of the hip in them — Rabina prohibited them; R. Aha bar R. Ashi [var.: R. Aha the son of Rab, Cashdan: probably R. Aha b. Raba] permitted them. They went and posed the issue to Mar bar R. Ashi. He said to them, “My father permitted them [in such a case].”
B. Said R. Aha bar Rab to Rabina, “What is your opinion on this matter? For said Samuel, `[With regard to the rules of mixtures of foods] salting is equivalent to scalding and pickling is equivalent to boiling.'” [Cf. b. 111a, IV.1 C.]
C. But lo, said Samuel [I.1 A above], “They taught the matter only if [the sinew] was cooked (ntbšl) in it [i.e., the thigh]. But if it was roasted in it, one may trim off meat and eat it until he reaches the sinew.”
D. And if you wish to maintain that what does `equivalent to scalding' that was stated [in B] mean? It means `equivalent to the scalding of cooking.' But since it states, `and pickling is equivalent to boiling (mbšl - same root as cooked)' we may derive [from that the conclusion that the former clause means] `equivalent to the scalding of roasting' [and permitted in accord with Samuel's statement at C contrary to Rabina's ruling at A]. [Var.: we may indeed derive this conclusion.] This is a valid challenge [to the view of Rabina].
A. When evaluating [the quantities in a mixture of a prohibited substance with a permitted substance of the same kind] they include in the evaluation the gravy, the froth, the pieces and the pot. Some say: the [bulk of the] pot itself. And some say: what was absorbed [of the foods] by the pot.
B. Said R. Abbahu, said R. Yohanan, “[With regard to] all of the prohibited substances of the Torah, they may evaluate a mixture [to see if they impart flavor to it by substituting in an equivalent mixture for the prohibited substance] onions or leeks [and tasting that mixture].”
C. Said R. Abba to Abayye, “Why not evaluate [the equivalent mixture using] pepper or spices [whose flavors] even in the quantity of one in a thousand are not rendered null?”
D. He said to him, “The sages evaluated [mixtures and found] that prohibited substances do not impart flavor [to a mixture with intensity greater than] onions and leeks [would impart in the same mixture].”
E. Said R. Nahman, “A sinew is [nullified] in [a mixture equivalent to] sixty [times its quantity]. And you do not count the sinew itself in the quantity. [The milk in] an udder is [nullified] in [a mixture equivalent to] sixty [times its quantity]. And you do count the udder itself in the quantity. An egg [of an unclean bird] is [nullified] in [a mixture equivalent to] sixty [times its quantity]. And you do not count the egg itself in the quantity.”
F. Said R. Yitzhak the son of R. Mesharshayya, “And the udder itself [in the mixture] is prohibited, and if it fell into another stew-pot, it renders [the stew] prohibited.”
A. Said R. Ashi, “When we were at the house of R. Kahana he posed a question to us: Do you evaluate the [quantity prohibited substance] itself, or do you evaluate the [quantity of the substance that] came forth from it [into the mixture]?”
B. Obviously, you evaluate the substance itself. For if [you evaluated] what came forth from it, how would you know [how much came forth]?
C. But on this basis [we should infer] that if [that the prohibited item was removed from the original mixture and] fell into another stew-pot it should not render prohibited that [second mixture because all that could come forth from it was nullified in the first mixture].
D. [This is not the case.] Since, said R. Yitzhak the son of R. Mesharshayya, “And the udder itself [in the mixture] is prohibited [and if it fell into another stew-pot, it renders the stew prohibited]” — [this means that] our rabbis equated the piece [of prohibited substance] itself to a piece of carrion-meat. [And even though the piece had given forth of its essence into the first mixture, it renders the second mixture prohibited as if it were carrion-meat.]
A. “An egg [of an unclean bird] is [nullified] in [a mixture equivalent to] sixty [times its quantity]. And you do not count the egg itself in the quantity” [I.4 E above]. Said R. Idi bar Abin to Abayye, “Does this mean that it imparts flavor [in a mixture]? But lo, people say [to make the point that an item has no flavor], `It is like the ordinary water of eggs.'”