Yevamot 163

רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר מין במינו לא בטיל

— R. Judah follows his own view; for he stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 79a, Men. 22b. ');">¹</span> The law of neutralization takes no effect in homogeneous objects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a kind in its kind does not cease to exist'. ');">²</span> [Had the piece] not been crushed, however, what [would have been the law]? Assumingly that it could not be neutralized! Why. then, was it taught. 'If, however, a piece of a levitically clean sin-offering was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean and unconsecrated meat&nbsp;… neutralization cannot take place'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus drawing a distinction between a mixture of consecrated and unconsecrated meat. ');">³</span>

אבל לא נימוח מאי לא תעלה אדתני אבל חתיכה של חטאת טהורה שנתערבה במאה חתיכות של חולין טהורות לא תעלה ניפלוג וניתני בדידה בד"א בשנימוחה אבל לא נימוחה לא תעלה

Let the distinction be drawn in [the case of consecrated meat] itself, thus: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That neutralization takes place. ');">⁴</span> applies only where it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The piece of the sin-offering. ');">⁵</span> was crushed; but when it was not crushed it may not be neutralized! — He preferred [to speak of] a mixture of clean with clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To indicate that even in such a case, where the law of neutralization might have been expected to apply (cf. Ter. V. 3-4). the mixture remains forbidden. ');">⁶</span>

טהורות בטהורות עדיף ליה

According to Resh Lakish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who explained the Baraitha under discussion to refer to a crushed piece. ');">⁷</span> wherein lies the difference between the first clause and the final clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In either case the piece is Pentateuchally forbidden. As neutralization takes place in the case of the first clause owing to the insignificant value of the piece. neutralization should also take place, for the same reason, in the case of the final clause! According to R. Johanan, the reason for the difference between the two clauses has been explained supra p. 553, n. 6. ');">⁸</span> — R. Shisha the son of R. Idi replied: The first clause deals with uncleanness that was due to liquids,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the crushed mixture was contained, for instance. in a vessel that had been in contact with unclean liquids. ');">⁹</span>

ולר"ל מאי שנא רישא ומ"ש סיפא א"ר שישא בריה דרב אידי רישא בטומאת משקין דרבנן סיפא דאורייתא

which is only Rabbinical,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pentateuchally no unclean liquid can impart uncleanness to a vessel. ');">¹⁰</span> while the final clause [deals with a prohibition]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consumption of consecrated food by a non-priest. ');">¹¹</span> which is Pentateuchal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Food Pentateuchally forbidden, if mixed with other food of the same kind, cannot be neutralized, according to this opinion. even if it is sold in bulk. ');">¹²</span>

אבל טומאת שרץ מאי לא תעלה

What, however, [would be the law in the case of] uncleanness through a reptile?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pentateuchal uncleanness. ');">¹³</span> Assumingly that no neutralization is permitted! Why, then, did he state in the final clause, 'If, however, a piece of levitically clean sin-offering was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean and unconsecrated meat&nbsp;… neutralization cannot take place'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 2. ');">¹⁴</span> Let the distinction rather be drawn in [respect of consecrated meat] itself, thus: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That neutralization takes place. ');">¹⁵</span>

אדתני סיפא אבל חתיכה של חטאת טהורה שנתערבה במאה חתיכות של חולין טהורות לא תעלה ניפלוג וליתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים בטומאת משקין אבל בטומאת שרץ לא טהורה בטהורות עדיף ליה

applies only to uncleanness due to liquids, but when it is due to a reptile it may not be neutralized! — He preferred [to speak] of a mixture of clean with clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 554, n. 5. ');">¹⁶</span> Rabbah replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the objection raised against Resh Lakish. ');">¹⁷</span> The first clause [deals with] a prohibition under a negative precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of eating consecrated meat which is unclean. V. Lev. VII, 19. ');">¹⁸</span>

רבה אמר רישא איסור לאו סיפא איסור כרת

while the final clause [deals with] one that involves the penalty of <i>kareth</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were the crushed mixture which contained a piece of consecrated meat to be regarded as neutralized and treated like unconsecrated meat, it might be eaten by an unclean person who would thus incur the penalty of kareth for eating consecrated meat during his uncleanness. Cf. Lev. VII, 20. ');">¹⁹</span> But surely was it not Rabbah who stated that in all Pentateuchal prohibitions there is no difference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of preventive measures enacted by the Rabbis. ');">²⁰</span> between a prohibition that is due to a negative precept and one that involves <i>kareth</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 219a, where, however, the reading is 'Raba'. ');">²¹</span>

והא רבה הוא דאמר כל בדאורייתא לא שנא איסור לאו ולא שנא איסור כרת קשיא

— This is a difficulty. R. Ashi replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the objection raised against Resh Lakish. ');">¹⁷</span> [The law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disallowing neutralization. ');">²²</span>

רב אשי אמר סיפא משום דהוי ליה דבר שיש לו מתירין וכל דבר שיש לו מתירין אפילו באלף לא בטיל

in the] final clause is due to the fact that [the consecrated food] is an object which may be made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the consumer is, for instance, a priest. ');">²³</span> permissible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though no neutralization were to take place. ');">²⁴</span> and any object which [in certain circumstances] becomes permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though no neutralization were to take place. ');">²⁴</span>

והא דרב אשי בדותא היא למאן אי לכהן מישרא שרי אי לישראל לעולם אסור אלא הא דרב אשי בדותא היא

cannot be neutralized even in a thousand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Times its quantity. ');">²⁵</span> This statement of R. Ashi, however, is mere fiction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] v. B. M., Sonc. ed., p. 47. n. 1. ');">²⁶</span> For to whom [would the mixture become permitted]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law which rules out neutralization in the case of objects which may attain to a state of permissibility without this process, is applicable only to such objects as become permissible, i.e., which emerge from a state of prohibition into one of permissibility. Cf. Bezah 3b. ');">²⁷</span>

וסבר ר' יוחנן תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא והתניא שתי קופות אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ולפניהם שתי סאין אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ונפלו אלו בתוך אלו הרי אלו מותרים שאני אומר תרומה לתוך תרומה נפלה וחולין בתוך חולין נפלו

To<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if to'. ');">²⁸</span> the priest it is permitted [all the time];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may eat the piece of consecrated food even if it were never mixed up with the unconsecrated food. ');">²⁹</span> to the Israelite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if to'. ');">²⁸</span>

ואמר ריש לקיש והוא שרבו חולין על התרומה ור' יוחנן אמר אע"פ שלא רבו חולין על התרומה

it is for ever forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If no neutralization were to be allowed. ');">³⁰</span> The statement of R. Ashi must consequently be regarded as mere fiction. But is R. Johanan of the opinion that <i>terumah</i> at the present time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the destruction of the Temple. ');">³¹</span> is Pentateuchal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra 81a. ');">³²</span>

בשלמא לריש לקיש קסבר בדרבנן נמי רבויא הוא דבעינן אלא לרבי יוחנן קשיא

Surely it was taught: If in front of two baskets, one of which contained unconsecrated fruit and the other that of <i>terumah</i>, were two <i>se'ah</i> measures, one containing unconsecrated fruit and the other that of <i>terumah</i>, and the latter fell into the former, behold these are permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even an Israelite may eat from the basket that contained the unconsecrated fruit. ');">³³</span> for it is assumed that the <i>terumah</i> fell into the <i>terumah</i> and the unconsecrated fruit fell into the unconsecrated fruit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Ter. VI end; Pes. 9b, 44a; Naz. 36b. ');">³⁴</span> And [in reference to this ruling] Resh Lakish stated: 'Only if the unconsecrated fruit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the basket. ');">³⁵</span>

הא מני רבנן היא

was more than that of the terumah';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the se'ah measure. Only in such a case is the assumption mentioned made, because the terumah representing the smaller quantity might be regarded as neutralized even if it had fallen into the basket of the unconsecrated fruit. ');">³⁶</span> while R. Johanan stated, 'Even if the unconsecrated fruit were no more than the terumah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No excess of unconsecrated fruit is necessary since the assumption mentioned is alone sufficient to establish the permissibility of the unconsecrated fruit. ');">³⁷</span> Now, according to Resh Lakish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, as stated supra, regards terumah at the present time as Rabbinical. ');">³⁸</span> the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha cited. ');">³⁹</span> may well be justified since he may hold the opinion that with Rabbinically [forbidden food] also it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make the mentioned assumption. ');">⁴⁰</span> to have a larger quantity [of the permitted food]. According to R. Johanan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In whose opinion terumah is Pentateuchal at the present time also. ');">⁴¹</span> however, a difficulty arises!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could the assumption mentioned be made in the case of a prohibition which is Pentateuchal! ');">⁴²</span> 'This'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the Baraitha cited. ');">⁴³</span> [R. Johanan may reply] 'is the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this according to whom?' ');">⁴⁴</span> the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that terumah at the present time is only Rabbinical. ');">⁴⁵</span>