Chullin 196

Chapter 196

א אין בשלה אלא שלימה

1 implies that it must be whole.1

ב ר' שמעון בן יוחאי אומר

2 R'Simeon B'Yohai says.'

ג אין בשלה אלא שנתבשלה עם האיל

3 Cooked' implies that it must have been cooked together with the ram.

ד דכולי עלמא

4 Now in fact both2

ה בהדי איל מבשל לה מר סבר

5 agree that it must be cooked with the ram, but [they differ in the following]: one holds that it must first be cut away and then cooked,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna maintains that the shoulder must be cut away from the ram and then cooked in the same pot as the ram. And the term 'whole' rn implies that the shoulder must in no wise be cut up in pieces. So Rashi; according to Tosaf. s.v. , this is the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai.');">3

ו מחתך לה והדר מבשל לה ומר סבר

6 and the other holds that it must first b cooked and then cut away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Yohai maintains that the shoulder must be cut away only after the whole ram has been cooked. According to Tosaf. this is the opinion of the first Tanna.');">4

ז מבשל לה והדר מחתך לה

7 Alternatively, I can say, all agree that it must first be cut away and then cooked but [they differ in this]: one5

ח ואי בעית אימא דכ"ע מחתך לה והדר מבשל לה

8 holds that it must be cooked together with the ram [in the same pot], and the other holds that it must be cooked in a separate pot.

ט מיהו מר סבר

9 Now according to the first version from either view and according to the second version from the view of R'Simeon B'Yohai [can the required standard be derived].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either the sixty-fold or hundred-fold standard. It must be observed that in the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice resort must be had to the principle of neutralization and it must be assumed that the essence and flavour of the shoulder, which is forbidden to all but priests, is nullified by the rest of the flesh of the ram, for otherwise the Nazirite, an Israelite, would not be allowed to partake of the flesh of the ram since it must be cooked together with the shoulder according to both views in the first version, or according to the view of R. Simeon b. Yohai in the second version.');">6

י בהדי איל מבשל לה ומר סבר

10 He who holds the sixty-fold standard maintains that the flesh and bone [of the shoulder] must be measured against the flesh and bone [of the ram], and the latter is sixty times as much as the former.

יא בקדרה אחרת מבשל לה

11 But he who holds the hundred-fold standard maintains that only the flesh [of the shoulder] must be measured against the flesh [of the ram] and the latter is a hundred times as much as the former.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the shoulder consists in the greater part of bone and has but little flesh on it, and the Rabbis have estimated that if taken bulk for bulk the ram would be only sixty times as much as the shoulder, but if only the proportion of the flesh is considered it will be found that the ram is one hundred times as much as the flesh of the shoulder.');">7

יב ללישנא קמא אליבא דדברי הכל ללישנא בתרא אליבא דרבי שמעון בן יוחאי

12 But can one derive the standard from the above?

יג מאן דאמר בששים סבר

13 Surely it has been taught: This8

יד בשר ועצמות בהדי בשר ועצמות משערינן והוה ליה בששים

14 is a case of a substance being permitted even though it has absorbed a forbidden substance.9

טו מאן דאמר במאה סבר

15 Now what does 'this' exclude?

טז בשר בהדי בשר משערינן והוה ליה במאה

16 Presumably it excludes every other substance which has absorbed any matter forbidden by the Torah?10

יז ומי ילפינן מינה

17 - Abaye answered, [The exclusion] was necessary only according to R'Judah who maintains that [in all other cases] homogeneous substances cannot neutralize each other; hence we are taught that here they do neutralize each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the shoulder and the rest of the ram are homogeneous substances. One can however derive from here the principle of neutralization with regard to heterogeneous substances.');">11

יח והתניא

18 But why does he not infer the rule from here?12

יט זהו היתר הבא מכלל איסור זהו למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי כל איסורין שבתורה

19 - Because the Divine Law has expressly stated: And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 18. The blood of the goat, although mixed with the blood of the bullock and though considerably less in quantity than the blood of the bullock, nevertheless retains its identity and is not neutralized by the latter, obviously because they are homogeneous substances and cannot neutralize each other.');">13

כ אמר אביי

20 which shows that though they are both [mixed up] together one does not neutralize the other.

כא לא נצרכא אלא לרבי יהודה דאמר

21 But why do you prefer to infer [the rule of non-neutralization of homogeneous substances] from this [verse] rather than from the other?14

כב מין במינו לא בטיל קמ"ל

22 Because that is an anomaly,15

כג דהכא בטיל

23 and one cannot draw any inferences from an anomaly.

כד וליגמר מיניה

24 If so, how may we infer [the rule of neutralization] in hundredfold or in sixty-fold from it?16

כה גלי רחמנא (ויקרא טז, יח) ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר תרוייהו בהדי הדדי נינהו ולא בטלי

25 - Forsooth, do we infer leniency from it?

כו ומאי חזית דגמרי' מהאיך ליגמר מהאי

26 We infer a restriction, for according to the rule of the Torah a substance is neutralized in a bare majority [of other substances].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But for the inference from the ram of the Nazirite, we should have acted in accordance with the Biblical principle, 'Decide the issue according to the majority', based on Ex. XXIII, 2. One may infer conditions of stringency (namely, that there must be sixty times or a hundred times the quantity of the prohibited substance) even from an anomaly.');">17

כז חדוש הוא ומחדוש לא גמרינן

27 Raba answered: [The exclusion]18

כח אי הכי למאה וס' נמי לא ליגמר

28 was necessary with reference to the rule that the taste<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the taste is barely perceptible and is certainly less than one sixtieth or one hundredth part of the entire mixture. (Rashi, but see Tosaf. ad loc.) .');">19

כט אטו אנן לקולא גמרינן לחומרא גמרינן דמדאורייתא ברובא בטיל

29 [of a forbidden substance] is [treated] as the substance itself.

ל רבא אמר

30 Now as this [sc. the taste] is forbidden in the case of consecrated matter, we are therefore taught that here20

לא לא נצרכא אלא לטעם כעיקר דבקדשים אסור קא משמע לן דהכא שרי

31 it is permitted.21

Previous Chapter Next Chapter