[100a] [The sinew is] another category unto itself [of substance, i.e., not food, and thus] subject to a different rule [cf. b. 96a. II.1 C].
A. And so with a piece of carrion, and so with a piece of unclean fish which were cooked with [other] pieces: When one recognizes their [presence], [they must be removed and the rest are forbidden if there is enough] to impart flavor. And if [one does] not [recognize their presence] they are all forbidden. As to the broth, [it is forbidden only if the carrion or unclean fish] imparts a flavor [M. 7:5 D-G]. But it should be nullified by the majority [of the mixture which is permitted].
B. Now we could settle the matter according to the authority who holds the view that we learned [this version of the Mishnah-clause], Anything that [or: whatever] is usually counted. [Since a piece of meat is sometimes counted, it would not be nullified.] But according to the authority who holds the view that we learned [this version of the Mishnah-clause], That which is usually counted, what can you say? [Meat normally is sold by weight, and not by the piece, thus it should be nullified.] (The passage is: Whoever had bunches of fenugreek that are [prohibited under the laws of] diverse kinds in a vineyard — [the bunches] must be burned. [If the bunches] were mixed with other [permitted bunches] — “All must be burned,” the words of R. Meir. And sages say, “They are neutralized in [a ratio of] one [forbidden bunch] to two hundred [permitted bunches]” [M. Orlah 3:6 A-E]. For R. Meir would say, “Whatever normally is enumerated [when being sold] renders [other food mixed with it] sanctified [forbidden, so that all of the food in the mixture must be burned].” But sages say, “Only six foods render [other foods] sanctified.” And R. Aqiba says, “Seven foods render others forbidden.” And these are they [sages' six foods]: (1) nuts from Perekh, (2) pomegranates from Baddan, (3) sealed jars [containing forbidden wine], (4) beet shoots, (5) cabbage stalks and (6) Greek gourds. R. Aqiba says, “Also (7) loaves [of bread] of a householder.” To those [among these items] to which the [restrictions of] orlah are applicable the [restrictions of] orlah [apply]. To that to which the prohibition of diverse kinds in a vineyard is applicable, the prohibition of diverse kinds in a vineyard [applies][M. Orlah 3:7]. B. Zeb. 72a-b adds: And in this connection it has been stated, R. Yohanan said, “The formulation of the matter that we have learned to repeat is, That which is usually enumerated.” And R. Simeon b. Laqish says, “The formulation of the matter that we have learned to repeat is, Whatever is usually enumerated.” Now there is no problem from the perspective of R. Simeon b. Laqish, but from the premise of R. Yohanan as to the correct formulation of the matter, what is there to be said?)
C. A piece [of carrion in a mixture] is subject to a different rule, since it is proper to serve it to guests.
D. And it is necessary to teach [in the Mishnah-passage both the rule for the sinew and the rule for the piece of carrion in a mixture]. For if it had taught the rule for a sinew [I would have reasoned that it is not nullified] because it is another category unto itself. But with regard to a piece [of carrion], it would make sense to maintain that is not the case. And if it had taught the rule for a piece [of carrion I would have reasoned that it is not nullified] because it is proper to serve it to guests. But with regard to a sinew, it would make sense to maintain that is not the case. It is necessary to teach [both cases].
A. Rabbah bar bar Hannah expounded [the Mishnah-passage under discussion here]: “A piece of carrion, and... a piece of unclean fish does not render [the mixture] prohibited until it imparts flavor to the gravy, the froth and the pieces [of meat].”
B. Rab sent up an Amora to contradict him and he expounded: “As soon as [the piece of carrion] imparts flavor to the piece [of valid meat next to it (Rashi)], the piece itself takes on the status of carrion. It in turn renders prohibited all the other pieces [in the pot] because they are of the same classification. [The principle is that items of the same classification do not nullify one another in a mixture. Therefore all the pieces of meat are prohibited on the basis of the presence of that one piece.] [b. 108a, II.1 A].”
C. Said R. Safra to Abayye, “What is the case? In accord with whose view does Rab state the matter? In accord with R. Judah who said that [a mixture of one prohibited item with other permitted] items of the same classification does not nullify [the one item]. Why then specify that it imparted flavor [to the mixture]? Even if it did not impart flavor, it also [would render it prohibited according to that view].”
D. He said to him, “In this case what are we dealing with? Where he went ahead and removed [the piece of carrion from the mixture and all that is left is the flavor].”
E. Raba said, [100b] “You even may maintain that the case is that he did not go ahead and remove it. It is then a case of a [mixture that consists of] a prohibited item with other permitted items of the same classification and with items of a different classification. And [we have a principle that for] any [mixture that consists of] a prohibited item with other permitted items of the same classification and with items of a different classification, you can disregard the [other items of] the same classification [and treat them] as if they are not there. Then the items of the different classification will form a majority [and outnumber the prohibited item] and nullify it.”
Unit I.1 clarifies the rule of M. with a gloss of Samuel and discusses cooked mixtures of foods that are prohibited. I.2 develops the operative criteria raised in the foregoing. I.3-10 supply an appendix that comprises a vast and sustained inquiry into the principles of mixtures of prohibited substances. II.1 aligns the M.-passage with the position of an authority in the related T.-passage. III.1 glosses the M.-passage. IV.1 glosses and analyzes the M.-passage in comparison to a citation from M. Orlah. To conclude, IV.2 sets forth a major operative principle of the prohibition of mixtures.
A. [The prohibition of the sinew of the hip] applies to a clean [beast], but it does not apply to an unclean [beast].
B. R. Judah says, “Also to an unclean one.”
C. Said R. Judah, “And is it not so that the sinew of the hip was prohibited to the children of Jacob, while an unclean beast still was permitted to them?”
D. They said to him, “At Sinai was [the law] stated, but it was written down in its [present] place.”
A. And does R. Judah reason in accord with the view that one prohibition can apply on top of another prohibition? But lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Judah says, “You might infer that when located in the esophagus, the carrion of an unclean bird should impart uncleanness such that the person makes the clothing that he is wearing unclean? Scripture states explicitly, `That which dies of itself or is torn by beasts he shall not eat to defile himself therewith' (Lev. 22:8) — only that which is subject to the prohibition of eating carrion. But this is excluded, since it is not subject to the prohibition of eating carrion but to the prohibition of eating what is unclean.” [The added prohibition cannot apply to what is already prohibited.]
B. And if you wish to maintain that he [Judah] reasons in accord with the view that, The principle of imparting a flavor does not apply to sinews, then it follows that for [eating the sinew of] an unclean beast there is a prohibition for [eating] the sinew, but there is no prohibition for eating the meat [itself because the sinew has no flavor]. [We thus avoid the issue of one prohibition on top of another.]
C. But does R. Judah reason in accord with the view that, The principle of imparting a flavor does not apply to sinews? For lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority: He who eats of the sinew of the hip of an unclean animal — R. Judah declares him liable on two counts, and R. Simeon declares him exempt [on account of eating meat of an unclean animal, since there is no taste in the sinew, and he is not liable on the sinew, because he would be liable on that count only if the meat of the beast were permitted, but not when the meat also is forbidden (b. Pes. 22a, Freedman)].
D. Invariably then he [Judah] reasons in accord with the view that, The principle of imparting flavor does apply to sinews. And he reasons in accord with the view that [both prohibitions] apply to a foetus because the prohibition of the sinew and the prohibition on account of uncleanness simultaneously apply [when the foetus develops sufficiently].
E. But is it possible to say [that Judah holds that the prohibition of the sinew] applies to a foetus? For lo, it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: And it applies to the foetus. R. Judah says, “It does not apply to the foetus; and its fat is permitted” [M. 7:1 D-E]. [You may explain] that this concern applies to a clean [beast]. For the Torah said, “Every [lit.: All that is in an] animal [that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals] you may eat” (Deut. 14:6). But [according to Judah, the prohibition of the sinew] does apply [to the foetus of] an unclean [beast].
F. [Cf. above b. 89b-90a for F-J.] But is it possible to say [that Judah holds that] the two [prohibitions] simultaneously apply [to the foetus when it develops sufficiently]? For lo, it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: On account of what sorts of uncleanness does the Nazir cut his hair [and bring an offering for having become unclean]? (1) On account of a corpse, and (2) on account of an olive's bulk of flesh from a corpse... [M. Nazir 7:2 A-B]?
G. But this poses a difficulty for us. If on account of [coming in contact with] an olive's bulk of flesh from a corpse he cuts his hair, then on account of [coming in contact with] the whole corpse is it not certainly logical [that he should cut his hair]?
H. [Indeed it is logical.] And said R. Yohanan, “It was only necessary to state this matter [in M. Nazir of the whole corpse] on account of the [need to include the] case of an abortion whose limbs were not attached together with its sinews.” [So on this basis we conclude that the animal is considered formed even before the sinews are formed.]
I. It then seems [logical to conclude] that the prohibition of the animal as unclean precedes [the other prohibition]. And even though the prohibition of the animal as unclean precedes [the other], the prohibition of the sinew comes along and applies to it.
J. [But we have a principle that a prohibition cannot apply on top of another prohibition. However here the second prohibition is more inclusive and hence can apply in addition to the first.] For this prohibition [of the sinew] does apply [also] to the descendants of Noah.
K. We may infer this as well from what was taught in the present Mishnah-passage [M. 7:6 C]: Said R. Judah, “And is it not so that the sinew of the hip was prohibited to the children of Jacob, while an unclean beast still was permitted to them?”