skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If one touches a marrow bone of a human corpse, he receives the impurity of the dead body. Actually, that is true even if the bone does not contain marrow, but since the rules below will mention specifically marrow bones, our teacher (Tanna) chose to start with it, for symmetry. As little as a barley-corn of a human bone transmits impurity. This impurity requires the ashes of the red heifer and two immersions in the mikvah, for the person to be purified.
The bone marrow of a sacrifice that became a leftover also conveys impurity. In contrast to the impurity of the human bone, this impurity is decreed by the Sages. They wanted the priests to be alacritous in their duties and eat the sacrifices on time, not leaving them over. They also wanted to prevent the priests from taking personal revenge on the people by bringing their sacrifices with the wrong intent of eating them beyond allotted time – and intent that would ruin the sacrifice. The Sages thus decreed impurity on the hand of the priests for these violations, which would deter them, since they would not be able to continue their service for the day.
Art: David The Younger Teniers - Sausage-making
If a hide has an olive's volume of dead meat (nevelah) attached to it, that piece of meat is ritually impure. If one touches it through a sliver attached to it, the sliver acts as a handle and transmits impurity to the person. A hair on the other side of the hide is regarded as a protector to the meat and transmits impurity from it, since it goes through the hide.
If there were two half-olive volumes of meat attached to the hide, they add up when they are carried, and thus transmit impurity to the one who carries the hide. However, if one touches them, even at the same time, he does not become impure, because these are two separate acts of contact – these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says that the two half-olive volumes of meat are nullified by the hide and do not transmit impurity at all. That is because through his actions of separating meat from the hide, the butcher showed that he does not consider the pieces significant. Even Rabbi Akiva agrees that if one stuck the two pieces of meat on a splinter and moved them, he becomes impure.
Art: Bartolomeo Passerotti - The Butcher's Shop
The hide of an animal, although not in the same category as its flesh, can nevertheless transmit ritual impurity to and from the animal. In the case of a kosher animal, a person might be impure, and he may transmit his impurity to the carcass. In the case of a non-kosher animal, its meat is ritually impure, and it may transmit impurity to the person working with it.
If one is flaying a dead animal, whether domestic or wild, kosher or non-kosher, small or large, and his goal is to make a spread out of it, he first cuts the hide from head to hindquarters. The beginning of flaying is the hardest, and until he peels enough hide to grasp the carcass, the hide is considered a handle, and it transmits impurity both ways. If he wants to make a leather flask and strips the hide whole from the neck, the hardest is flaying the breast, so until the breast the hide is considered a handle and it conveys impurity. However, if in flaying for a flask, he begins from the hind legs, then all of the flayed hide is considered a handle, until he flays the breast.
Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Still Life With Four Stone Bottles Flask And White Cup
The hide of an animal is normally not considered as flesh, since it is tough and inedible. Therefore, though the meat connected to it may carry the impurity of dead meat (nevelah), the hide itself does not carry this impurity.
In contrast, the skin of the creatures discussed below is treated as their flesh. The first one is that of a human. Thus, the skin of a human corpse conveys corpse impurity. Incidentally, the human skin is prohibited for consumption, like its flesh. Actually, a corpse is prohibited for all benefit.
The skin of the domestic pig is soft and is commonly eaten, and is thus treated as flesh, and according to Rabbi Yehudah also the skin of a wild pig. Other skins are: the skin of the hump of a tender camel, the soft skin of the head of a tender calf, the skin of the hooves, the skin of the pudendum, the skin of a fetus, and the skin of the eight reptiles mentioned in the Torah.
If any of these skins were worked into leather, they become ritually pure, except for human skin. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri does not consider the skin of the eight reptiles as flesh.
Art: Eugène-Alexis Girardet - Camel Train By An Oasis At Dawn
When a Jew slaughters a kosher animal, it is considered dead, even while it is convulsing. The Sages later prohibited eating meat from a convulsing animal, but the fact remains that it is already considered food, which makes it susceptible to ritual impurity. Should it, while convulsing, touch a dead lizard, it would acquire the ritual impurity of food.
If a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal, then while it is convulsing, it cannot be eaten by anybody: by a Jew, because it is non-kosher, and by a non-Jew, because slaughter does not make it permitted for him, and he must wait till the animal completely dies. Nevertheless, if a Jew slaughters a non-kosher on behalf of a non-Jew, then, since the Jew's intention is to prepare it as food for the non-Jew, it, too, is susceptible to ritual impurity of foods while it is convulsing. Thus, paradoxically, it cannot be eaten, but it is already considered food. The same would be if a non-Jew slaughters a kosher animal.
If one sodomizes a convulsing animal, he is liable, since it is considered partially alive, as proved by the absence of the impurity of dead meat until it dies.
Art: Simon Van Den Berg - Minding the animals
Previously we learned that gravy combines with meat for the volume of an egg, necessary to convey ritual impurity. Rava said, “Gravy is the fat that rises to the top of meat sauce.” Abbaye said to him, “That would be food in its own right, not only in combination with meat! Rather, it is congealed glaze, which people don't eat by itself, but only with meat.” Why does it have to be congealed? Didn't Resh Lakish say that salad dressing combines with the salad to transgress the fast of Yom Kippur? – That would not be a contradiction: on Yom Kippur all depends on alleviating the affliction of hunger, and the dressing helps that, whereas only congealed glaze combines with foods.
If one cooked blood to make it solid and then ate it, or if he dissolved the prohibited fat and then ate that, he is liable. Now, we understand about blood: by his actions he showed that he values it as solid and it has the status of food in his eyes, but the fat is only prohibited to eat, not to drink!? As Resh Lakish explained, the extra word “that soul” prohibits drinking the fat.
Art: Aurelio Zingoni - The Hungry Chimney Sweep
Earlier we saw that there can be light and strict impurity. Light impurity is that of foods: it requires the larger volume of an egg to be transmitted, and it can be transmitted only to other foods. Strict impurity is that of dead meat (nevelah): it requires a smaller volume of an olive to be transmitted, and it can make ritually impure even people and utensils.
Furthermore, impurity can be transmitted not only through direct contact with the item, but also through contact with its handle or its protector. A handle is an appendage that can be used to grasp the item, such as the stem of a fruit. A protector is an appendage that protects the item, such as the peel of a fruit.
Thus, if the source of impurity touches the stem or peel of a susceptible fruit, impurity is delivered to the fruit via its attached handle or protector, even though they are not food and would not be susceptible to impurity in their own right. Conversely, if the stem or peel of an impure fruit touches a susceptible item, the impurity is delivered to the item via the fruit's handle or protector.
Art: Ignace Henri Jean Fantin-Latour - Still Life, Hyacinths and Fruit
Any amount of food can become ritually impure, but to transmit impurity further, it needs to have a volume of at least an egg's volume. This impurity will be only secondary, since intrinsically food does not possess impurity.
In contrast, if an animal died by itself, or even if it was killed, but not by the method of shechitah, then its meat is intrinsically impure, and it can contaminate other foods. To be significant, the amount of dead animal's meat must measure at least an olive volume.
The following parts of the animal combine with its meat in order to reach the egg's volume, a pre-requisite for the food to transmit impurity: the hide, the gravy, the sediment, the shreds, the bones, the ligaments, the horns, and the hooves. The hide adds up, because it serves as a protector for the meat. The gravy is the juice that exudes from the meat. It is not eaten by itself, but it is eaten with the meat. The same refers to the other parts. However, since they are not really food, they do not add up to the olive's volume, required for the dead animal's meat impurity.
Art: Pieter Aertsen - Butcher's Stall
Fat and blood are prohibited in the same Torah phrase, “Any internal fat that is normally sacrificed and any blood you shall not eat.” Both carry an excision penalty if done intentionally and a sin-offering if done by mistake. However, each one has stringencies not found in another.
If one benefits from the internal fat of an animal that is a sacrifice, he has committed a misappropriation of the Temple property. If he eats it after it was offerred by the priest with the intention to eat it after the alloted time, or after it was left actually over, or after he became ritually impure – he is liable, which is not the case with blood. That is because blood serves for atonement, and only for atonement, but not for additional transgressions. One does not commit misappropriation with blood, because it is given “to you.”
On the other hand, the prohibition of eating blood applies to domestic animals, wild animals, and to fowl, whether kosher or non-kosher, but the prohibition of eating the inner fat applies only to kosher domesticated animals.
Art: Pieter Aertsen - Vendor Of Fowl
The fourth stomach of the ruminants is called abomasum. Its lining contains an enzyme, called rennin, which, when added to milk, causes it to coagulate into cheese. The congealed milk, found in the abomasum of young nursing ruminants, is called rennet. Sometimes the term “rennet” is used to denote the membrane lining the stomach, and sometimes it refers to rennin.
The rennet of an animal of an idolater and of an animal that died of itself (nevelah) is prohibited for consumption. If one curdles milk with the meat of the abomasum and there is enough meat to impart flavor to the cheese, the cheese is prohibited. If a terefah animal suckled from a kosher animal, its rennet is permitted, because it is merely gathered in its innards.
There are three different ways to understand the above rules. (1) Both liquid and congealed rennet are not classified as milk but as refuse, thus rennet is always permitted; (2) Both liquid and congealed rennet are classified as milk, thus, it is kosher only when the milk was suckled from a kosher animal; (3) Liquid rennet is viewed as milk; congealed rennet is viewed as refuse.
Art: Julien Dupre - The Milkmaid
Rav Ashi said, “How do we know that the mixture of meat cooked with milk is prohibited for consumption?” After all, the Torah only prohibited cooking. However, since it also said, “You shall not eat any abomination,” it is teaching us that one should distance himself from anything that the Torah considers prohibited, and thus one should not eat such mixture.
Furthermore, from the teaching of Rabbi Abahu we learn not to derive benefit from such mixture. For Rabbi Abahu said, “Any time that the Torah commanded not to eat something, it is prohibited both for food and to derive benefit – unless the benefit was specifically allowed. For example, the Torah said, “Do not eat any animal that died by itself (nevelah), give to a Noahide or sell to a gentile.” Had the Torah not mentioned specifically giving and selling, we would not be allowed to benefit from it - and this teaches us all such cases.
Incidentally, Rabbi Yehudah requires to gift nevelah to a Noahide, absent that, one can sell it to a gentile. However, Rabbi Meir allows to equally sell or gift it, either to a Noahide, or to a gentile.
Art: Sören Emil Carlse - Still Life with Ducks
From the phrase, “You shall not cook a young goat in the milk of its mother” we only know that it is prohibited to cook it in the milk of a she-goat. How do we know this for the milk of a cow or an ewe? – We can derive this logically: if the young goat's own mother, with whom he can have offspring, is nevertheless so strict that it is prohibited to cook him in its milk, then a cow, with whom he is not allowed to have offspring (for that would be prohibited interbreeding) – her milk certainly cannot be used to cook him!
However, this logic is flawed. There is a stringency with the young goat and its mother: they cannot be killed on one day. This stringency is not found in regards to the goat kid and a cow who is a complete stranger to him. Thus, with our logic disproved, we need another way to derive the prohibition – and it is derived from the second repetition of “don't cook a young goat in its mother milk,” which, his mother being already prohibited, now teaches us the same law about a cow.
Art: Richard Ansdell - Feeding Goats in the Alhambra
Shmuel explained the salting process. To extract blood from the meat, one needs to salt it very well and then rinse it very well. That means covering it with thick salt and leaving it in a vessel for eighteen minutes, but preferably for an hour. Rinsing is needed to remove the salt, the blood, and then another rinsing removes the previous dirty waters. Furthermore, meat being salted should always be in a perforated vessel, so that the blood is not re-absorbed into it. Rav Sheshet would salt each piece of meat individually, but that's too much. For if one suspects that blood from one piece will get absorbed into the other, then he must equally suspect that blood from one side of one piece with get absorbed into the other side.
Only meat of a kosher animal with the milk of a kosher animal are forbidden. Rabbi Akiva says that the Torah did not prohibit cooking meat of a wild kosher animal or the meat of a fowl with milk, although he agrees that the Sages later prohibited this as well: the Torah repeated the prohibition thrice to exclude from it the meat of wild animals, non-kosher animals, and fowl.
Art: Ferdinand Loyen Du Puigaudeau - Landscape with Mill near the Salt Ponds
If fish was roasted on the fire and taken directly from the fire – while still hot – and placed on a clean meat plate, then the fish absorbs the taste of meat, which in turn has been previously absorbed by the plate. The fish is thus removed from direct contact with meat, and its taste of meat is what is called “taste, the son of a taste.” Rav said about this imparted meat taste that this fish should not be eaten with milk products, but Shmuel said that it is permitted.
Rav Elazar was once serving Shmuel at a meal, and they brought Shmuel such fish, and he ate it with a sauce made with milk. He offered some to Rav Elazar, who refused. Shmuel then said, “I served it to your teacher, Rav, and he ate!” When Rav Elazar asked Rav about this, Rav said, “Shmuel could not serve me anything forbidden!” Indeed, the law follows Shmuel.
By extension, even fish cooked in a meat pot or roasted on a meat spit can be served with dairy foods, although one should not knowingly create such a situation.
Art: Frederic Bazille - Still Life with Fish
Blood absorbed in the meat of animals is permitted as long as it is not separated from the meat. Thus a it is permitted to eat a peace of raw meat, even though it contains blood. However, once the blood leaves the meat, it becomes prohibited. If it is later re-absorbed into the meat, that meat should not be eaten. Accordingly, meat may not be cooked until its blood has been exacted. There are two methods for exacting blood, by roasting the meat or by salting it. Both methods cause the blood to leave the meat, never to return.
The liver, however, is so saturated with blood that salting is ineffective in extracting all of it. Abaye said to Rav Safra, “When you go to the Land of Israel, ask them, what do they do with the liver.” Rav Safra posed the question to Rabbi Zerika, and he related that he himself stewed a liver for Rabbi Asi. Abaye was not satisfied. He said, “I had no doubt that you can cook the liver by itself. Can you cook it with other meats?” Since this was never resolved, people don't cook liver together with other meats.
Art: Floris Gerritsz. van Schooten - A Still Life of Meat and Fish with a Cook
Rav once heard a certain housewife ask her friend, “How much milk is required to cook a pound of meat?” On hearing this, Rav enacted in Sura a law prohibiting eating the udder altogether. He also established there an academy that lasted for 800 years.
Rami bar Tamrei visited Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. The people, preparing a pre-Yom Kippur meal, threw the udders into the street, and he collected and ate them. They brought him to Rav Chisda, where the following dialog ensued.
Ch: Why did you eat the udders in violation of the local custom?
R: I am from a place of Rav Yehudah, who allows to eat udders.
Ch: But don't you agree to the rule that if you are in a place of a more stringent custom, you don't violate it?
R: I ate them outside the city limit.
Ch: And with what did you roast the udders?
R: With grape pits that I found near a winepress.
Ch: But perhaps they were from wine use for libations?
R: They were older than 12 months and thus permitted for benefit.
Ch: But perhaps they were stolen goods?
R: The owners abandoned them, there were nettles sprouting there.
Rav Chisda saw that Rami was not wearing tefilin.
Ch: Why are you not wearing tefilin?
R: He (that is, I) suffers from stomach ailment.
Ch: And why are not wearing tsitzit fringes?
R: My garment is borrowed.
Meanwhile, they brought a person to be punished with lashes, because he refused to honor his parents. Rami said, “Release him!” There is no punishment for a commandment if a reward for it is mentioned next to it in the Torah.
Rav Chisda relented and said, “I see that you are very sharp.” Rami replied, "If you would be in Rav Yehudah's city, I would show you my sharpness!"
Art: Lorenzo Lotto - Portrait Of A Young Scholar
Since the Torah said, “You shall not cook a young goat in its mother's milk,” only milk from an animal that is fit to be a mother and is alive falls under this prohibition. Still, the Sages prohibited cooking other meat in this milk. Nonetheless, the meat of the udder is different.
One should tear open the udder prior to cooking and extract its milk. If he did not tear it open and prepared it as is, he does not transgress on account of it. Rabbi Zeira said, “It is permitted to consume the udder prepared with its milk.” But we just learned that “one does not transgress on account of it.” This seemed to imply that it is prohibited by the Sages, only that one does not transgress the Torah!? Rabbi Zeira was talking about roasting, where the milk drips off, and the ruling – about boiling, where the milk gets out, becomes prohibited, then gets reabsorbed.
Yalta, the wife of Rav Nachman, said to him, “Whatever God forbade us, he allowed something similar. For example, there is a fish that tastes like pig, and one can marry a non-Jewish woman whom he captures in battle. I want to eat meat in milk.” Rav Nachman asked his chefs to roast udders on a spit for her.
Art: Leo Malempre - Milking the Goat
If a drop of milk fell onto a slice of meat that was cooking in a pot, then if the drop contained enough milk to impart a flavor to that slice, it is prohibited. Since in this case no one was stirring the pot, the milk spread throughout the piece on which it fell but no further.
If someone was stirring the pot when the drop fell in, the milk was not absorbed into that slice on which it fell, but continued to travel through the slice out into the soup, and dispersed throughout the entire contents of the pot. Now if the drop contains enough milk to impart a flavor into that entire pot, it is prohibited.
Rav said, “In the ruling's first case, the words 'it is prohibited' refer not only to that piece, but to the entire pot.” Why?! According to Rav, the complete slice, having become forbidden because of a drop of milk, acquires the status of prohibited meat, or nevelah. Now there is much more prohibited matter in the pot, affecting the whole. Furthermore, Rav follows Rabbi Yehudah, who says that like matters (meat in meat) never become nullified.
Art: Jean Baptiste-Simeon Chardin - The Kitchen Table
One may wrap meat and cheese in one cloth, as long as they don't touch one another. Now, even if they did touch, what would be the problem? If they are wet, they would have to be washed before eating, and a person might forget to do so.
Two people in a restaurant may eat at one table, one meat and the other one cheese. That is true for strangers, who don't share food with each other. However, if they know each other and may share food, they need an additional reminder, something placed on the table.
Two brothers who are on bad terms and are particular not to eat from one another, can they eat meat and cheese at the same table? On the one hand, if we allow them to eat together, people will wonder, why all other brothers are not allowed to eat meat and cheese at one table, and these are? On the other hand, someone who has only one shirt would be allowed to wash it on a weekday of a Holiday, while others are forbidden. However, the last is not a good comparison, because his situation is special, and this is evident to all.
Art: Giuseppe de Nittis - Breakfast in the garden
Washing the hands before the meal is a mitzvah, but washing them afterwards is an obligation, because of the dangerous salt that may be present on the hands. The first water may be warm, but the last water must be cold.
Two porters once carried a barrel of wine and stopped to rest, placing the barrel under a drainpipe. The invisible demon frequently found under a drainpipe caused the barrel to burst. The porters sued the demon in the court of Mar bar Rav Ashi. At first the demon refused to come, but Mar, adept at practical kabbalah, forced him with shofar blowing, and he appeared. Mar asked, “Why did you break the barrel?” The demon answered, “What was I to do, when they placed the barrel on my ear as I was sleeping.” However, Mar told him, “Since you slept in a public place, you are the one who acted irregularly, and you have to pay.” The demon asked for some time, and avoided the payment in the end.
It once happened that someone did not wash his hands before the meal, was taken for a non-Jew, and was fed pork as a result.
Art: Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vrubel : Demon sitting
There is a Jewish custom to wait some length of time, up to six hours, after eating a meat dish and before a dairy dish. This is a precaution: the taste of meat lingers in one's mouth, and meat pieces get stuck between the teeth, as in “The meat was still between their teeth.”
Agra said, “Fowl and cheese may be eaten one after the other in a carefree manner, without washing one's hands and without cleaning the mouth with food and drink.” Rav Yitzchak visited Rav Ashi's home. They brought him cheese, and he ate it; they then brought domestic animal meat, and he ate it without washing his hands. They questioned his behavior, “Agra taught that fowl and cheese may be eaten in a carefree manner, but not any meat!?” He answered, “This applies only at night, but by day, when I can see that my hands are clean from cheese, no washing is required.”
Mar Ukva said, “Regarding this matter I am like vinegar the son of wine compared to my father. For my father waited for twenty-four hours after meat before eating cheese, and I eat cheese at the next meal.”
Art: Joris Van Son - Still-Life with Cheese
The Torah said, “You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk.” Since it repeated this again and again, then only only cooking, but eating such mixture or selling it is also prohibited. At this the Torah prohibition stops. For example, eating cold meat with cold milk would be allowed. However, the Sages extended the prohibition with safeguards. Thus the rule: all kinds of meat should not be cooked with milk, except for the meat of fish and locusts. It is also forbidden to serve meat and milk or cheese on the table together.
Beit Shammai allows to place chicken and cheese on the same table, provided that they are not eaten together. Rabbi Yose says that this is one of the unusual leniences of Beit Shammai over Beit Hillel. In truth, Rabbi Yose is the author of this complete ruling, but initially it was taught anonimously. When the teacher learned who was its author, he added Rabbi Yose's name, because one who transmits a teaching in the name of the one who said it saves the world – just as Esther did when she told the king about a plot against him in the name of Mordechai.
Art: loris Claesz Van Dijck : Still Life With CheesesStill-Life with Cheeses
If one ate a live small kosher bird, is he liable for eating limbs from a live animal? Rabbi Yehudah the Prince says that he is not liable, since a live bird is a creature in its own right, not a collection of limbs. Neither is he liable for eating its meat, because it is small, less than an olive volume. Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon disagrees: if he is liable to each limb, then of course he is liable for the whole bird, which is the best limb of all!
If one took a small piece of a limb from a living animal, the size of an olive, but cut it in two, and then ate them, he is not liable. However, if he cut it in two inside his mouth with his teeth, then he is liable, because his throat enjoyed an entire olive's volume at one time – so says Rabbi Yochanan. However, Resh Lakish disagrees, because less than an olive's volume went into his stomach at one time. Now, since people chew their food, then according to Resh Lakish, he would never be liable!? – Truly, he would, if he ate a small whole bone.
Art: Martin Johnson Heade - Amethyst Hummingbirds And Red Flowers
It is prohibited to eat a limb taken from an animal while it was alive. Even if the animal is later slaughtered, the limb retains its prohibited status. This applies to both kosher and non-kosher animals – so say Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Elazar, but the Sages say that this prohibition applies only to kosher animals.
Both opinions are derived from the same source. The Torah said, “Only be strong not to eat blood, for the blood is the life, you shall not eat the life with the flesh.” Just as blood is forbidden in kosher and non-kosher animals, so is the limb torn from a live animal – so say Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Elazar. And the Sages? They say that “You shall not eat the life with the flesh” indeed prohibits a limb, but it should be such an animal that “flesh without life” should be permitted – that is, a kosher animal, whose meat may be eaten.
How much of a limb one has to eat to transgress? – An olive's volume. Alternatively, a complete limb, a “creation,” even if smaller than an olive's volume, makes him liable also.
Art: Paolo Antonio Barbieri - Still Life With Plates, A Sack Filled With Olives, Game, Pomegranates, And Quince
The prohibition of a sciatic sinew applies to a kosher animal, but it does not apply to a non-kosher one. What difference does it make, if a non-kosher animal is anyway forbidden to be eaten? One is transgressing a different prohibition when eating it – the prohibition of a non-kosher animal, and not the one of a sciatic sinew. That is important for giving him a proper warning, that is, telling him exactly what prohibition he transgresses, moments before he eats it, as a prerequisite for lashes.
Rabbi Yehudah disagrees and says that the sciatics sinew of a non-kosher animal is also forbidden – because it was prohibited since the time of Jacob, when non-kosher animals were still permitted. The Sages replied to Rabbi Yehudah, “The sciatic sinew prohibition was first given to Moses on Sinai, and it did not apply before then. However, when Moses recorded and arranged the Torah, he recorded this prohibition in the context of Jacob's encounter with the angel, to teach that this incident was the reason for the prohibition.”
Art: Andrea Commodi - Young Woman in the Kitchen
Rabbi Ishmael says that the sinew has so little taste that it does not count. Therefore, even if it is cooked together with other foods, it does not render them prohibited, as long as it is taken out. Thus, Rabbi Ishmael argues against our earlier teaching, and in fact the law follows his view. That is true if the sinew itself is removed. But even if it not removed, why don't we say that the prohibited sinew is nullified in the majority of other sinews? That is because the sinew is a complete “creation,” and the law of nullification by majority does not apply to complete creations – they never get nullified.
What happens when a non-kosher food cooks together with kosher food and is not nullified in one-in-sixty, making the whole mixture prohibited? Do we view it as basically kosher food, with too much taste of non-kosher one, or do we view the entire mixture as completely new non-kosher entity? The practical difference between the two points of view arises when the mixture falls into a large pot, and we need to know if it is now nullified or not? The law follows the second alternative.
Art: Floris Gerritsz. van Schooten - A Kitchen Interior
The Torah said, “You should follow the majority.” Accordingly, any substance should be nullified in a majority, that is, if a forbidden piece became confused with two or more permitted pieces, and you cannot tell which piece is which, then the forbidden piece becomes nullified, and all three pieces are permitted. Why did we say then that a forbidden foreleg becomes nullified in the proportion of one-in-sixty, and according to some, even one-in-hundred?
The rule of the majority is only applicable to dry pieces that became intermingled. The cooking process, however, leads to mixing of all of the particles, and its law has a special stringency. Then let's derive all other cases from it and negate the law of majority!? – No, we cannot do this, because the law of a cooked foreleg is a novelty, and we don't derive general rules from novel cases.
Still, the apparent discrepancy between the laws of dry and cooked foods leads some to believe that the whole law of one-in-sixty is only a Rabbinical stringency. What about the Torah phrase that seems to indicate otherwise? – It is only a hint that the Sages found for their law.
Art: Cornelis Jacobsz Delff - Still-Life of Kitchen Utensils
There was a case of a half an olive volume of prohibited fat that fell into a pot of meat. Mar bar Rav Ashi considered measuring the pot and nullifying the prohibited fat in the proportion of one-in-thirty. His father Rav Ashi told him, “You think that you can use the rule of treating the laws of the Sages leniently. Further, you think that half an olive volume is not even considered eating. However, that is wrong. Eating any amount of prohibited food is still prohibited by the Torah, just that one does not get lashes for it, the taste of the prohibited food is considered as the food itself, and the correct proportion is always one-in-sixty.”
Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Bar Kappara that all prohibited substances nullify one-in-sixty, but Rav Assi said in the name of the same teachers that it is one-in-a-hundred. Both derived their opinion from the case of a cooked foreleg of a ram offering, but one included the bones in the estimate, while the other one didn't.
Art: Antoine Vollon - Brass Cooking Vessel
If one neglected to remove the sciatic sinew and cooked the thigh together with the sinew in it, then if the thigh is small enough, so that the sinew imparts a flavor to it, the complete thigh is forbidden to be eaten. However, how do we differentiate between the two meaty tastes? We imagine that the sinew is made of meat, and the meat is turnip, and estimate whether this amount of meat will impart taste to the turnip.
If a sciatic sinew was cooked with other, permitted sinews, and afterward one recognized the sciatic sinew and removed it, then the whole mixture is forbidden only if the forbidden sinew imparts its flavor to it. Later Sages estimated to be the volume of one-in-sixty. However, if one does not recognize the prohibited sinew, then the entire mixture of forbidden, because any piece might be the forbidden one. In any case the soup is prohibited if there is forbidden taste in it. The same law holds true if a slice of non-kosher meat or non-kosher fish was cooked together with kosher slices.
Art: Jozef Israels - The Frugal Meal
One who removes the sciatic sinew from the thigh meat must remove it entirely. He must dig deep into the thigh and extract it from wherever it is embedded in the meat. This is the presumed opinion of Rabbi Meir, because anonymous ruling are usually his. Rabbi Yehudah says that he needs only remove enough for the mitzvah, leveling it off the surface of the rounded flesh. Both agree that the Torah required only the removal of the external part of the sinew, but Rabbi Meir opines that the Sages extended this prohibition to within the thigh, and Rabbi Yehudah says that they did not enact any additional prohibitions.
Bar Piyuli was excising a sciatic sinew from a piece of thigh meat, doing this in front of Shmuel, and he was cutting it flush at the surface. Shmuel said, “Cut deeper! Had I not seen you, you would have fed me something forbidden.” Bar Piyuli became frighntened, and the knife fell from his hand. “Do not be afraid,” – said Shmuel, – “for you did nothing wrong. The one who taught you did it according to Rabbi Yehudah, but the law follows Rabbi Meir.”
Art: Pietro Longhi - Vendor of Roast Meat
But previously we learned that one is allowed to buy meat from non-Jewish resellers!? Rav will answer that perhaps the reseller never lost sight of the meat. Nevertheless, it was Rav's own stringency.
Rav was once going to the house of his son-in-law and saw a ferry coming toward him. He said, “It is an omen that there will be a festival where I stay.” When everyone came to great him, he himself kept watching the meat. Then he said to the butchers, “If not for me, you would have fed prohibited meat to my family!”
After all, Rav himself did not eat that meat. Not because it was not watched – for he watched it, and not because he used ferry for divination, but because it was a wedding of a daughter of a Sage to an unlearned man, and a Torah scholar like Rav is prohibited to eat at a feast that is not by itself a mitzvah.
Art: Edward Frederick Brewtnall - The three ravens
