Chullin 195
בביצת אפרוח אבל טמאה לא
with an egg which contained a chicken,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exudation from the egg is of no consequence, it is as mere water, but that of the chicken within the egg is of consequence.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אם יש בהן בנותן טעם כולן אסורות
[It was taught:] If clean eggs were cooked with unclean eggs and the latter can impart a flavour in the others, they are all forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. Terum. IX.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
והא מדקתני סיפא
If eggs were cooked together and in one of them was found a chicken, and this one can impart its flavour into the others, all are forbidden', it follows that the first clause deals with eggs which do not contain chickens! The one clause is merely explanatory of the other thus: 'If clean eggs were cooked with unclean eggs and the latter can impart a flavour in the others, all are forbidden; as for instance, if they were cooked together and in one of them was found a chicken'.
פירושי קא מפרש ביצים טהורות ששלקן עם ביצים טמאות אם יש בהן בנותן טעם כולן אסורות כיצד כגון ששלקן ונמצא אפרוח באחת מהן
For if you assume that the first clause deals with eggs that have no chickens in them, seeing that the exudation of eggs that have no chickens in them can render forbidden, is it necessary to teach this in the case where they had chickens in them? - This is not a conclusive argument.
ה"נ מסתברא דאי ס"ד
It may be that the second clause was stated to make clear the first: lest you might think that the first clause deals with eggs that have chickens in them, leaving us to infer that if they had no chickens in them all the eggs would be permitted, he therefore adds the second clause which deals with eggs that have chickens in them, which shows that the first clause speaks of eggs that have no chickens in them, and even so render the others forbidden.
אי משום הא לא איריא תנא סיפא לגלויי רישא שלא תאמר
R'Ashi intended to include in the measuring [all the meat] that was absorbed in the [sides of the] pot, whereupon the Rabbis said to R'Ashi: Has it absorbed only that which is permitted and not that which is forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it is to be assumed that the meat in the pot has been diminished by the absorption in the pot, then the bulk of fat has likewise been diminished. In fact one should not take into consideration the absorption of the pot at all, and the measuring must take into account only the visible contents of the pot.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ההוא כזיתא תרבא דנפל בדיקולא דבשרא סבר רב אסי לשעוריה במאי דבלע דיקולא
Mar the son of R'Ashi intended to measure it by the standard of thirty-fold,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there was not the minimum legal quantity (i.e., an olive's bulk, v. Yoma 73b) of forbidden fat, he was inclined not to insist on the sixty-fold standard, but was prepared to permit the meat in the pot even though it was only thirty times as much as the fat.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אטו דהיתרא בלע דאיסורא לא בלע
Moreover, R'Johanan has declared that half the legal quantity [of a forbidden matter] is forbidden by the law of the Torah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sixty-fold standard must be adhered to even though there was only half an olive's bulk of the forbidden substance, for, according to R. Johanan, even this quantity is forbidden by the Torah, v. Yoma 73b. The minimum legal quantity of an olive's bulk is necessary only to render the offender liable to stripes.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ההוא פלגא דזיתא דתרבא דנפל בדיקולא דבשרא סבר מר בר רב אשי לשעוריה בתלתין פלגי דזיתא
R'Shaman B'Abba said in the name of R'Idi B'Idi B'Gershom who said it in the name of Levi B'Perata who said it in the name of R'Nahum who said it in the name of R'Biraim who said it in the name of a certain old man whose name was R'Jacob, as follows: Those of the Nasi's house said: A forbidden egg<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an egg in which a chicken had developed. So throughout this passage.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ביצה בס' אסורה בס' ואחת מותרת
they were unable to give a definite answer; and you seem to be so certain of it! It was stated: R'Helbo said in the name of R'Huna: With regard to a [forbidden] egg [cooked with permitted ones], if there were sixty besides this one they are forbidden, but if there were sixty-one besides this one they are permitted.
אמר רבי זירא לרב שמן בר אבא
A certain man once came before R'Gamaliel the son of Rabbi [with his case].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., a half-olive's bulk of a forbidden substance was cooked with permitted food.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
רבי יעקב בר אידי ורבי שמואל בר נחמני תרוייהו משמיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמרי
Then I might just as well be satisfied with forty-five-fold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in this and in the following cases the amount of forbidden substance was less than the minimum legal quantity, the standard of sixty-fold is not rigidly adhered to but smaller standards e.g., of forty-seven-fold, forty-five-fold and forty-three-fold would suffice to render the mixture permitted. According to another interpretation in Rashi the reverse decision is arrived at thus: 'My father did not adopt a standard of forty-seven-fold, shall I then permit by the standard of forty-five-fold'? The case, accordingly, was of an entire olive's bulk that was cooked with permitted food.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ביצה בס' והיא אסורה בס' ואחת והיא מותרת
Said [R'Hiyya]: But there is not here thirty-fold The reason then [why he declared it forbidden] was because there was not thirty-fold, but if there was thirty-fold could we then adopt this standard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ההוא דאתא לקמיה דר"ג בר רבי א"ל
- R'Hanina answered: It was merely an exaggerated expression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What he meant to say was that there was no question of neutralization in this case for there was not even thirty-fold!');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אבא לא שיער בארבעים ושבע ואני אשער בארבעים וחמש
R'Hiyya B'Abba said in the name of R'Joshua B'Levi who said it in the name of Bar Kappara: All prohibited substances of the Torah are [neutralized] in sixty-fold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided the taste of the forbidden substance can no longer be felt in the mixture, for so long as the taste can be felt it will not become kf neutralized (Rashi) . V. however Tosaf. s.v. .');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כלום יש שלשים
Now both derived their views from 'the cooked shoulder', as it is written: And the priest shall take the cooked shoulder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 19. The shoulder of the ram of the Nazirite's sacrifice was given to the priests to be eaten by priests only, but the rest of the sacrifice was consumed by the owners.');"><sup>14</sup></span>