Related for Yevamot 162:7
אי הכי מאי טעמא דר' יהודה
What [is the Baraitha about the] piece?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned by R. Johanan. Cf. supra p. 551. n. 5. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — It was taught: A piece of a levitically unclean sin-offering that was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean sin-offerings and, similarly, a piece of levitically unclean shewbread<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXV, 30. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> that was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean shewbread is neutralized.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The entire mixture is regarded as clean sin-offering meat and clean shewbread respectively. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> R. Judah said: It is not neutralized.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is discussed infra. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> If, however, a piece of a levitically clean sin offering was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean and unconsecrated meat, and similarly if a piece of levitically clean shewbread was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean unconsecrated bread, all agree that neutralization cannot take place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neutralization would have removed a Pentateuchal prohibition (that of eating consecrated food by a non-priest) from the piece of the sin-offering or from that of the shewbread. As, however, the entire mixture, which consists of pieces that are sometimes sold by number, may be eaten even without recourse to neutralization by a priest to whom it could be sold, though this might have to be done at a reduced cost, the law of neutralization, which is applied even in such circumstances whenever the prohibition is Rabbinical. as in the case of the cake of figs (supra). is not applied here where it is Pentateuchal. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Now in the first clause, at any rate, it was stated that it 'is neutralized'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though these objects are sometimes sold in units. This obviously proves that the reading was, as R. Johanan stated. 'That which one is wont to count. How, then, could Resh Lakish maintain that the reading was 'Whatsoever one is wont to count? ');"><sup>23</sup></span> — R. Hiyya son of R. Huna replied: In [the case where it was] crushed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is no longer sold in units but in bulk. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is no longer sold in units but in bulk. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> what is R. Judah's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he in such a case object to neutralization? ');"><sup>25</sup></span>