R. [99a] So why not let us derive [the rule in general about taste in mixtures of permitted and prohibited substances] from this instance? The Torah declared regarding the sin-offering, “[Every male among the descendants of Aaron shall eat of it, as their perpetual due throughout your generations, from the Lord's offerings by fire;] anything that touches them shall become holy” (Lev. 6:18). [This implies that what touches it or what absorbs the taste] has the same status as the sacrifice itself. For if [the sacrifice] is invalid, [the mixture that absorbed from it] is invalid. And if [the sacrifice] is valid, [the mixture] is valid [to be eaten in accord with] the strict rules that pertain to it.
S. And why do you see fit to derive [the rule that the taste of a Holy Thing in a mixture is not nullified] from that source [regarding the sin-offering]? You should derive it [that it is nullified] from that source [regarding the shoulder of the Nazirite's offering].
T. [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].
U. 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].
V. [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.]
W. Rabina said, “It was only necessary to state this [explanation at I so as to render permitted] the place of the incision [when the shoulder is cut from the animal]. For it is said that the place of the incision in general is prohibited. But here it is permitted.”
I.10
A. R. Dimi was sitting in session and stated this teaching (of I.9 B above: All of the prohibited substances of the Torah [are nullified in a mixture of permitted substance] one hundred [times its bulk]).
B. Said to him Abayye, “And is it so that all of the prohibited substances of the Torah [are nullified in a mixture of permitted substance] one hundred [times its bulk]? For lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: And [with reference] to what did they say, `Whatever leavens, spices or is mixed [etc.,]' yields a strict ruling [in that the mixture is forbidden even if it contains sufficient permitted produce to neutralize the forbidden]? [They said it with reference to the case of] one kind [of produce] mixed with [produce of its] same kind. [And with reference to what did they say, `Whatever leavens, etc.,'] yields [both] a lenient and a strict ruling? [They said it with reference to the case of] one kind [mixed] with a different kind [M. Orlah 2:6 A-D].
C. And the latter text of the Mishnah-passage teaches: To yield both a lenient and a strict ruling [in the case of] one kind [of produce mixed with produce of] a different kind [M. 2:6 C-D]. How so? For example, pounded beans [which are heave-offering] which were cooked with lentils [which are common produce], and there are [enough] of them [the pounded beans] to give a flavor [to the lentils], whether there is [little enough heave-offering] to be neutralized in one hundred and one, or whether there is not [so little heave-offering as is] neutralized in one hundred and one — it is forbidden [=strict ruling]. [If] there is not [enough] of them to impart flavor [to the lentils], whether there is [so little heave-offering as is] neutralized in a hundred and one, or whether there is not [little enough heave-offering] to be neutralized in a hundred and one — [the mixture] is permitted [as common food; =lenient ruling] [M. Orlah 2:7].
D. There is not [little enough heave-offering] to be neutralized in a hundred and one, but is it not the case that there is [little enough heave-offering to be neutralized] in sixty? [Therefore we see that the proportion where it did not impart taste is sixty to one.]
E. [99b] No. [It could be one in] one hundred. But lo, since the former text of the Mishnah-passage [2:6 E-L] refers to [a proportion of] one hundred [to one], the latter text of the Mishnah-passage [2:7] must refer to [a proportion of] sixty [to one].
F. For it was taught on Tannaite authority in the former text of the Mishnah-passage: The law yields a strict ruling in the case of like mixed with like. How so? Leaven of wheat [in the status of heave-offering] which fell into wheat dough [which is common produce], and there is enough of it [the leaven] to leaven [the dough], whether there is [a quantity of heave-offering which is] neutralized in one hundred and one [parts of common produce], or whether there is not [so little heave-offering as is] neutralized in one hundred and one — it is forbidden [=strict ruling]. [If] there is not [so little heave-offering as is] neutralized in one hundred and one [parts of common produce], whether there is enough of it to leaven [the dough], or whether there is not enough of it to leaven [the dough] — it is forbidden [=strict ruling] [M. Orlah 2:6 E-L].
G. Could the former text of the Mishnah-passage and the latter text of the Mishnah-passage refer to [a proportion of] one hundred [to one]? No, it must be that the former text of the Mishnah-passage refers to [a proportion of] one hundred and one [to one]. And the latter text of the Mishnah-passage refers to [a proportion of] one hundred [to one].
H. [Now Abayye said to Dimi], “But if you have enough of it to leaven in one hundred and one [parts of common produce] why is it not nullified?” [Dimi] was silent. He [Abayye] said to him, “Perhaps leaven has a different status [as to the law of mixtures]. For its leavening power intensifies it.” He [Dimi] said to him, “You reminded me of the matter that R. Yosé b. R. Hanina said, “All the measures are not the same. For lo, fish-brine — its measure [for nullification in a mixture because of its intensity] is close to two hundred to one.”
I. As it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: [As regards] unclean fish... the brine is forbidden [unclean]. R. Judah says, “[It is forbidden if there is] a quarter [-log, i.e., fifty zuz, of unclean fish] in two seahs” [M. Ter. 10:8 A, F] [i.e., a proportion of one hundred ninety-two to one].
K. But lo did not R. Judah say that [a mixture of prohibited substance of one] kind together with [permitted substance of] its kind, [the prohibited substance] cannot be nullified? Brine has a different status [in regard to the rule for nullification]. It is considered to be mere moisture [from the fish, not of its essence].
II.1
A. How do they estimate the matter? Like meat [cooked] with turnips [M. 7:4 B-C]. Said R. Huna, “Like meat [cooked] with turnip-heads [or: -roots].”
B. The Mishnah-passage does not accord with the view of this Tannaite authority, as it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Ishmael the son of R. Yohanan ben Beroqah says, “The principle of imparting a flavor does not apply to sinews” [T. 7:6 E].
C. A person came before R. Hanina [for a ruling on this subject]. R. Judah bar Zebina was sitting at the gate. When [the person] came out he [Judah] said to him, “What did he say to you?” He said to him, “He permitted it to me.” He [Judah] said to him, “Go back before him [and ask again to make certain].” He [Hanina] said, “Who is this one who is pestering me? Go and tell the one who is sitting at the gate, The principle of imparting a flavor does not apply to sinews.”
D. When they came before R. Ammi [for a ruling on this subject] he would send them before R. Yitzhak b. Halob who would instruct that it was permitted in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi. But he [Ammi] himself did not reason in accord with this view.
E. And the law accords with the view that: The principle of imparting a flavor does not apply to sinews.
III.1
A. The sinew of the hip that was cooked with [other] sinews, and one recognizes it — [it must be removed, and the remainder is prohibited if there is enough] to impart a flavor. And if [one does] not [recognize the presence of the sinew of the hip], all of them are prohibited [for any one might be the sciatic nerve]. As to the broth, [it is prohibited if] it imparts a flavor [M. 7:5 A-C]. But it should be nullified by the majority [of the mixture which is permitted].
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.