B. He said to him, “In that case [of the mixture] what are we dealing with? [98a] With an egg containing an embryo. But the egg of an unclean bird [that does not contain an embryo] does not [give forth flavor into a mixture in accord with the saying].”
C. They raised an objection: [As regards] clean eggs that one boiled with unclean eggs — if [the unclean eggs] are of sufficient quantity to impart flavor [to the clean eggs, those eggs are] prohibited [T. Ter. 9:5 D-E]. Here too it means an egg containing a fledgling. But why does it call it “unclean”? When it has a fledgling in it, they call it “unclean.”
D. But lo, consider that since the latter text of the passage teaches: [As regards] eggs that one boiled and [later] found a fledgling in one of them — if it is of sufficient quantity to impart flavor [to all the eggs, they are] prohibited [T. Ter 9:5 G-H]. — we may derive from this that the former text of the passage deals with a circumstance where there is no fledgling in it.
E. [We may respond that the latter text] comes to explain [the details of the former text as follows]: [As regards] clean eggs that one boiled with unclean eggs — if [the unclean eggs] are of sufficient quantity to impart flavor [to the clean eggs, those eggs are] prohibited [T. Ter. 9:5 D-E]. What is the circumstance? The case in question may be where one boiled [eggs together] and [later] found a fledgling in one of them... [T. Ter 9:5 G-H].
F. This approach makes more sense. For if you concluded that in the former text of the passage there is no fledgling [in one of the eggs and the eggs] are prohibited, [then in the latter text] where there is a fledgling in one of the eggs, do I need [to state that they are prohibited]? But if you reason in this manner, why specify [both rules]? [Rather] the latter text was taught to spell out the former. For you should not say that [it is prohibited] by the former text since there is a fledgling [in one of the eggs], but where there is no fledgling [in one of the eggs] it is permitted [to eat the others that are cooked with them]. It taught us in the latter text that there is a fledgling [in one of the eggs]. We may derive from that that the former text [speaks of a case where] there is no fledgling [in one of the eggs]. And even so they prohibited [the others].
I.7
A. There was an olive's bulk of fat that fell into a caldron of meat. R. Assi [var.: Ashi] reasoned that they evaluate [the quantity of mixture] including whatever was absorbed into the cauldron. Said our rabbis to R. Ashi, “Is it the case that it absorbed permitted [matter] but it did not absorb prohibited [matter]?” [We take into account what is visible in the mixture and not what is absorbed in the sides of the pot (Rashi).]
B. There was half an olive's bulk of fat that fell into a caldron of meat. Mar bar R. Ashi reasoned to evaluate [the mixture and declare the prohibited fat nullified] in thirty half-egg bulks of meat [i.e., half the normal amount needed to nullify the prohibited substance]. Said to him his father, “Have I not told you, `Do not devalue the standardized measures of our rabbis'? And furthermore, lo, said R. Yohanan, `Half a measure is prohibited by the Torah [as if it were a whole measure when it comes to evaluating a mixture].'”
C. Said R. Shaman bar Abba, said R. Idi bar Idi bar Gershom, said Levi bar Parta, said R. Nahum, said R. Biryim in the name of one elder, and R. Jacob was his name, that the house of the Patriarch said, “A [prohibited] egg — in [a mixture of] sixty [times its bulk] is prohibited. In [a mixture of] sixty-one [times its bulk] it is permitted.”
D. Said R. Zira to R. Shaman bar Abba, “See here! Why do you set this boundary to permit [the mixture]? For behold, two of the great authorities of our generation did not specify [the quantity for permitting the egg in] this matter.
E. “R. Jacob bar Idi and R. Samuel bar Nahmani, the two of them in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi said, `A [prohibited] egg — in [a mixture of] sixty [times its bulk of permitted matter] is prohibited. In [a mixture of] sixty-one [times its bulk] it is permitted.'
F. “And they posed a question to them: sixty-one [times the bulk of the egg] including [the prohibited egg] itself [in the total] or sixty-one excluding [the prohibited egg] itself [from the total]? And they did not answer the question. And the master [i.e., Shaman bar Abba] now presumes to answer the question!”
G. It was stated: Said R. Huna, “[Concerning a prohibited] egg [in a mixture] — in sixty-one [times the bulk of the egg] including [the prohibited egg] itself [in the total], it is prohibited. In sixty-one excluding [the prohibited egg] itself [from the total], it is permitted.”
I.8
A. A person came before Rabban Gamaliel bar Rabbi [to inquire regarding quantities needed to nullify a prohibited substance in a mixture]. He said to him, “My father did not evaluate that a mixture [containing a prohibited substance along] with forty-seven [times the bulk of permitted substance was prohibited]. Will I evaluate that a mixture [containing a prohibited substance along] with forty-five [times the bulk nullifies it]?”
B. A person came before Rabban Simeon bar Rabbi [to inquire regarding quantities needed to nullify a prohibited substance in a mixture]. He said to him, “My father did not evaluate that a mixture [containing a prohibited substance along] with forty-five [times the bulk is prohibited]. Will I evaluate that a mixture of forty-three [times the bulk nullifies it]?”
C. A person came before R. Hiyya [to inquire regarding quantities needed to nullify a prohibited substance in a mixture]. He said to him, “There is no issue here. Is there thirty [times the bulk of the prohibited substance]?” The basis for his ruling is that there was not thirty [times the bulk]. [The implication is that] lo, where there is thirty [times the bulk] they evaluate [that it is permitted]. [No, not so.] Said R. Hanina, “He exaggerated [to make a point. It was not meant to set a legal precedent.]”
I.9
A. Said R. Hiyya bar Abba, said R. Joshua b. Levi, in the name of Bar Qappara, “All of the prohibited substances of the Torah [are nullified in a mixture of permitted substance] sixty [times its bulk].” [Rashi: where the flavor of the prohibited substance is not present.]
B. Said before him R. Samuel bar R. Yitzhak, “Rabbi, are you sure you want to say that? This was said by R. Assi, said R. Joshua b. Levi in the name of Bar Qappara, `All of the prohibited substances of the Torah [are nullified in a mixture of permitted substance] one hundred [times its bulk].'”
C. And both of them [Hiyya and Assi] learned this only from the verse that deals with the boiled shoulder [of the Nazirite's offering]. As it is written, “And the priest shall take the shoulder of the ram, when it is boiled, [and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazirite, after he has shaven the hair of his consecration]” (Num. 6:19).
D. And it was taught on Tannaite authority: “Boiled” — [98b] The language “Boiled” means [it is valid] only when it is whole [by itself and not in a mixture]. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “`Boiled' means [it is valid] only when it was boiled together with the rest of the ram.”
E. Everyone agrees that he boils it together with the rest of the ram. One master reasons in accord with the view that he first cuts it up and then boils it. And one master reasons in accord with the view that he first boils it and then cuts it up. [Rashi and Tosafot dispute which master holds which view.]
F. And if you prefer another possibility: Everyone agrees that he first cuts it up and then boils it. But one master reasons in accord with the view that he boils [the shoulder] along with the rest of the ram. And one master [reasons in accord with the view that] he boils [the shoulder] in another pot.
G. According to the former reading [E] in accord with everyone [they boil the shoulder with the rest of the ram]. And according to the latter reading [F] in accord with the view of R. Simeon bar Yohai [they boil the shoulder with the rest of the ram]. [We derive the rule for nullifying prohibited matter in a mixture from this case, since the Israelites partake of the ram and the shoulder boiled with it is a substance prohibited to everyone but the priest.]
H. The authority who says [one] in sixty [is nullified, i.e., Hiyya] reasons that we evaluate the flesh and the bones of [the shoulder] against the flesh and bones of [the rest of the ram]. And the proportion is [one] in sixty. And the authority who says [one] in one hundred [is nullified, i.e., Assi] reasons that we evaluate the flesh [of the shoulder] against the flesh [of the rest of the ram]. And the proportion is [one] in one hundred.
I. But do we derive [the rule for nullifying prohibited matter in a mixture] from this source? But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: This is a case where [the Torah] permitted a substance that came out of a prohibited mixture. [Even though the shoulder is prohibited and the rest of the mixture should be prohibited because it absorbed substance from the shoulder, the Torah permitted the mixture (Rashi).]
J. [The language of the Tannaite explanation,] “This is a case where...” — what does it exclude [from consideration]? Does it not exclude all of the prohibited substances of the Torah [except for the shoulder]?
K. Said Abayye, “It was only necessary to state this [explanation at I] in accord with the view of R. Judah who said [a mixture of prohibited substance of one] kind together with [permitted substance of] its kind, [the prohibited substance] cannot be nullified. It [i.e., the verse] comes to make the novel point here it is nullified [even though the shoulder and ram are of the same kind].”
L. So why not let us derive [the rule in general about mixtures of permitted and prohibited substances of the same kind] from this instance? The Torah declared, “[Then he shall go out to the altar which is before the Lord and make atonement for it,] and shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat, [and put it on the horns of the altar round about]” (Lev. 16:18). The [blood of the] two of them [i.e., the bull and goat] is mixed together and they are not nullified. [Even though there is more blood of the bull, the verse still speaks specifically of the blood of the goat. This implies that substances of the same kind in a mixture are not nullified.]
M. And why do you see fit to derive [the rule that they are not nullified] from that source [regarding the blood]? You should derive it [that they are nullified] from that source [regarding the shoulder of the Nazirite's offering].
N. [The case of the shoulder of the Nazirite's offering] is an atypical case [of mixtures because they intentionally cook the shoulder together with the ram and it is permitted anyway]. And [we have a principle that] from an atypical case [we do not derive any generalizations].
O. If so then [with regard to establishing the proportion of prohibited to permitted substances needed in the mixture], whether sixty or one hundred [to one, as at A-C above], this too you should not derive [from the atypical case of the shoulder].
P. [This is not a valid objection.] Is it the case that we derive a lenient rule from this instance? We derive a strict rule [i.e., that we need a proportion of sixty or one hundred to one to nullify the prohibited substance from the instance of the mixture of the shoulder and the rest of the ram]. For based on the authority of the Torah [in general, aside from this inference, a prohibited substance in a mixture] is nullified by a majority [of permitted substance]. [Rashi: in accord with Exod. 23:2 we follow the majority.]
Q. Raba said, “It was only necessary to state this [explanation at I] on account of the rule that we deem the taste to have the status of the source itself. In regard to Holy Things [we do hold that the taste in a mixture of a prohibited substance in general] is prohibited [as if the substance itself were present]. It [i.e., the verse] comes to make the novel point here [in this case of the shoulder] it is permitted.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.