Chullin 239:1
מאי לאו משום שומר
Even if it had not set it should also [be included with the meat], for Resh Lakish has said that the juice of vegetables is to be included [with the vegetable] to make up the date's bulk with regard to the Day of Atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eating of a date's bulk on the Day of Atonement is the minimum quantity to render one liable. Here the juice of the vegetable is regarded as part of the foodstuff and is reckoned together with it to make up this quantity. If it were not regarded as part of the foodstuff but as a liquid it could not be reckoned together with it; cf. Yoma 73b.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
לא משום יד
- There it is a question of satisfying one's hunger and anything [though not strictly a foodstuff] would satisfy it; here, however, it is a question of what can be included [with a foodstuff] and, therefore, if it [the meat juice] had set it can be included, but if it had not set it cannot be included.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a liquid and a foodstuff cannot be reckoned together to make up the minimum quantity so as to convey food uncleanness, for the standard with each is different. vphe');"><sup>4</sup></span>
והיכא איתמר דרבי אילעא
We have learnt elsewhere: If a man clotted blood and ate it, or if he melted [forbidden] fat and gulped it down, he is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 21a, but not in a MISHNAH:');"><sup>6</sup></span>
המלאי שבשבלין מטמאין ומיטמאין ואין מצטרפין
Scripture uses the term 'eating' in connection with it, and this is not eating? - Resh Lakish said: The verse says: Soul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 25: The soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people; in connection with forbidden fat. apb');"><sup>7</sup></span>
מלאי למאי חזיא
to include one who drinks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word , 'soul', is also used to express desire, pleasure (cf. Gen. XXIII, 8 Deut. XXIII, 25) , so that even when a person drinks fat his 'soul' enjoys it and he is therefore liable.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
במלאי שבין המלאין:
and gulped it down, if it was leavened, he is liable to the penalty of kareth, and if it was unleavened, he has not thereby fulfilled his obligation on the Passover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 35a.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
התם משום יתובי דעתא הוא בכל דהו מיתבא דעתיה
Whereupon we put the questions is not the expression 'eating' written in connection with it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 15: And every soul ha eateth that which dieth of itself.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
הוא עצמו יטמא טומאת אוכלין
For if the Divine Law had stated it only with regard to the fat, one could not have inferred the same with regard to leavened bread, for (in the case of the former) there was never a moment when it was permitted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidden fat in an animal has always been forbidden from the birth of the animal, whereas leavened bread is forbidden only during Passover, but before the festival, it was permitted.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
אלא אמר רב פפא
nor could one have inferred the same with regard to the carcass [of a clean bird], for the former is punishable by kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. forbidden fat, but there is not the penalty of kareth for eating nebelah.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
תבלין
And had the Divine Law stated it only with regard to leavened bread, one could not have inferred the same with regard to the fat, for the former does not admit of any exception;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the fat in certain cases is permitted, v. infra.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
הקפה את הדם ואכלו או שהמחה את החלב וגמעו חייב
And had the Divine Law stated it only with regard to the carcass [of a clean bird], one could not have inferred the same with regard to the others, for the former conveys uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., is itself a source of uncleanness, whereas forbidden fat and leavened bread have no uncleanness in themselves.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
אלא המחה את החלב וגמעו אכילה כתיבא ביה והא לאו אכילה היא
Had not the Divine Law stated it with regard to the carcass [of a clean bird] but this latter was to be inferred from the others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. fat and leavened bread.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, כ) נפש לרבות את השותה
And had not the Divine Law stated it with regard to leavened bread but this latter was to be inferred from the others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. fat and the carcass of a clean bird.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
המחהו וגמעו אם חמץ הוא ענוש כרת אם מצה היא אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח
And had not the Divine Law stated it with regard to the forbidden fat but this latter was to be inferred from the others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. leavened bread and the carcass of a clean bird.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
בשלמא אם מצה היא אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח (דברים טז, ג) לחם עוני אמר רחמנא והאי לאו לחם עוני הוא אלא אם חמץ הוא ענוש כרת אכילה כתיבא ביה
[such inference could be refuted thus]: It is so with the other cases since they admit of no exceptions; will you, then, say the same of the forbidden fat which admits of an exception? - What is this [exception]?
אמר קרא (שמות יב, טז) נפש לרבות את השותה
But a carcass [of a bird], too, is permitted to the Most High, namely, a bird whose head has been nipped off!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ordinarily this method of killing the bird would render it nebelah, nevertheless it is acceptable as a sacrifice; hence the law of nebelah admits of an exception, like the fat.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
המחהו באור טמא בחמה טהור והוינן בה אכילה כתיב ביה
But a carcass, namely, the sin-offering of a bird whose head has been nipped off, is also permitted to priests!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priests may eat the flesh of this bird sacrifice, hence there is an exception to the law of nebelah even in respect of the eating thereof.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
אמר ריש לקיש
- In truth, [the exception is that] the fat of a wild animal [is permitted] to a common man, and as for your difficulty from the case of the priests, [it must be remembered that] the priests enjoy this privilege from the table of the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only to the Most High that nebelah is permitted, even though priests may enjoy it as guests of the Divine table; there is no case, however, of nebelah being permitted to a common man as of law.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, כה) נפש לרבות את השותה
Wherefore is the following teaching necessary: '[It is written,] The unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 31: These are the unclean unto you among all that creep. The definite article before 'unclean' is obviously superfluous, and it therefore serves to indicate that the extracts and juices from creeping things are included within the prohibition. V. supra 112b.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
בחמה איסרוחי מסרח
Surely it could have been inferred from the above cases?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we have learnt above in respect of three cases (viz., the forbidden fat, leavened bread and the carcass of a clean bird) that a solution of the forbidden substance and also the extracts and juices therefrom are forbidden; and all cases could be inferred from these.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
נבלה לא אתי מיניה שכן ענוש כרת
I would have said: 'It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred', and as there [a minimum of] an olive's bulk is essential, so here a minimum of an olive's bulk is essential.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the law, is established that the eating of a lentil's bulk of a creeping thing renders one liable.');"><sup>33</sup></span>