Explanation: It is not even nullified if it is mixed with one thousand (permitted parts). Similarly, a piece that is fit to honor one with is not nullified, as stated in our Gemara.

Observation: In a case where one item from a mixture including a Beryah or a piece fit to honor with was separated from the mix, it also is forbidden due to a decree that someone will end up taking from a Kavua doubt (which is considered fifty-fifty), being that the prohibition is not recognizable as stated earlier (95a).

Observation (cont.): If something is neither a Beryah nor a piece fit to honor with, it is nullified with a majority (of permitted parts). It is not even forbidden according to Rabbinic law, as is implied here. However, perhaps for one person (to eat all of the pieces) would be prohibited.

Question: If so, why does the Gemara say in Yevamos (81b) that a piece of impure Chatas is nullified in one hundred pieces of pure Chatas?

Answer: You might say that a piece of Neveilah is different as it is fit to serve to Nochri guests, whereas an impure Chatas is forbidden from benefit.

Question: [This is incorrect.] The Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (74a) says that a piece of meat cooked with milk is not nullified even though it is forbidden from benefit, as stated there.

Answer: Anything that is fit to honor guests if it would be nullified is considered important enough that it is not nullified. However, in Yevamos (81b), even if the piece of impure Chatas would be nullified in the pieces of pure Chatas it would only be fit for Kohanim, and there (i.e. amidst the Kohanim) it is not considered important. This is because Kohanim are not grateful to each other (for the fact that they are receiving meat from the Korbanos), as the Pasuk says, "For all of the sons of Aharon should be (a portion for) a man like his brother" (Vayikra 7:10). However, if a Chatas is mixed with Chulin, the Gemara there (ibid.) states that it is not nullified.

Question: The Gemara here implies that a piece of Neveilah is not nullified. In Avodah Zarah (74a), the Gemara implies that it is nullified. The Gemara asks, what is the Tana listing? If he is listing items that are sold by counting them, he should also list a piece of Neveilah! If he is listing items forbidden from benefit, he should also Chametz on Pesach!

Question (cont.): The Gemara (ibid.) answers that it is listing items that have both qualifications: they are sold by number and are forbidden from benefit. The Gemara there also explains that when the Mishnah says, "They are forbidden" it excludes items that are sold by number but not forbidden from benefit, as well as items forbidden from benefit that are not sold by number. (This implies that Neveilah, which is sold by count but not forbidden from benefit as implied by the Gemara, should always be able to be nullified!)

Answer: The Gemara there merely means that the Mishnah is not discussing these items, not that they are able to be nullified.

Implied Question: The Gemara says that it (the Mishnah) excludes (as stated above). (Doesn't this mean that other items do not have the same law as the items listed in the Mishnah?)

Answer: This means that the Mishnah excludes items from its discussion (not that it holds they can be nullified).

Proof: We find a similar exclusion in Bava Kama (5b) that the amount states in the Mishnah excludes the list of Rebbi Chiya, and the list of Rebbi Chiya excludes the list of Rebbi Oshiya, but this is not because they argue.

Question: However, there is a difficulty. When the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (74a) asks why the Mishnah doesn't list a piece of Neveilah, why doesn't it answer that it is not said in this Mishnah because it was already stated in our Mishnah in Chulin (96b)?

Question (cont.): This would be similar to the answer given in Avodah Zarah (ibid.) to the question why Egozei Perech (a special type of nut) and Rimonei Biladan (a special type of pomegranate) were not listed. The Gemara answered that the Mishnah (in Orlah 3:7) already stated, "that which is fit for Orlah etc."

Answer: The Gemara there asks as follows. Why not list a piece of Neveilah? If the reason is because the Mishnah already stated this in Chulin (96b), the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (74a) should also not list meat cooked with milk because the Mishnah in Chulin (ibid.) also taught that a piece of forbidden meat is not nullified because it is sold by number! The Gemara answers that the Tana only listed items that had two criteria (counted by number and forbidden from benefit).

Observation: According to this explanation one must explain that something which is counted but is not forbidden from benefit can be nullified according to this Tana. This is why he only listed a piece of meat cooked with milk. He argues on the Tana of our Mishnah (in Chulin 96b).

Explanation: Rashi explains that this piece was cooked first with the piece of Neveilah before he put the other pieces in the pot. This piece was not sixty times bigger than the piece of Neveilah, which therefore put its taste into the previously permitted piece.

Explanation (cont.): Afterwards, the other pieces were placed in the pot (together with the Neveilah). The previously permitted piece that received the taste of the Neveilah is considered Neveilah, and forbids all of the other pieces as they are of the same type.

Question: There is a difficulty with Rashi's explanation. If so, the sauce that was in the pot when it cooked with the Neveilah was already forbidden due to the taste of the Neveilah. Yet the Gemara later implies that the pieces of Neveilah can be nullified through the sauce, as it is not its type!

Question (cont.): Isn't the sauce itself forbidden and made into Neveilah? This should forbid all of the sauce in the pot being that it is of the same type! The added pieces of permitted meat should have to be sixty times larger than the amount of sauce that originally cooked with the Neveilah!

Answer: Rather, the case must be where there is a piece of permitted meat that is totally outside of the sauce, and the piece of Neveilah is on top of it outside of the sauce. The formerly permitted piece becomes Neveilah because it absorbs the flavor of the Neveilah, and it does not have sixty times the amount of the Neveilah. Afterwards, when he stirs the pot, it forbids all of the pieces because they are of the same type.

Explanation: He took away the Neveilah.

Question: Why is it significant that the piece of permitted meat received taste from the Neveilah? Even if it would not receive this taste it would be prohibited, as Min b'Mino forbids with even a small amount (which is clearly not dependent in taste)!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that while this piece of meat would be forbidden when cooked with even a small amount of Neveilah, we would not say that it turns the other pieces of meat into Neveilah since it was only forbidden due to a small amount of Neveilah.

Opinion: Rabeinu Efraim said due to this that even if the permitted piece did receive taste from the Neveilah, the amount of permitted item does not have to be sixty times greater than this piece, but rather sixty times greater than the amount of Neveilah absorbed by the once permitted piece.

Opinion (cont.): Therefore, according to Rav who says here that Min b'Mino is not nullified when a piece of permitted meat received flavor from a Neveilah, the prohibited taste is considered extant and it therefore prohibits all of the other pieces of meat with even a small amount.

Opinion (cont.): However, when the Neveilah does not give any taste to the permitted piece of meat it would not forbid the other pieces because they are of the same type, as only the prohibited taste must be nullified. Since the permitted piece did not receive the taste of the Neveilah, it is considered as if the taste is not extant and it therefore only forbids the first piece. This is because the first piece is not looked at Neveilah and therefore does not forbid the other pieces.

Implied Question: Specifically regarding a drop of milk we say later (108a) that the piece itself is a forbidden piece of meat like Neveilah (even though the context here is meat with milk), and that sixty times the amount of the piece of meat is required to permit it. It is insufficient to nullify the drop of milk itself. (What is the difference between a drop of milk turning an entire piece of meat into "Neveilah" and our case where we only have to nullify the forbidden taste?)

Answer: This is because each of them (the milk and the meat) separately are permitted, and only when they come together do they become forbidden. Therefore, the meat itself becomes forbidden, and one receives lashes if he eats a half Zayis from the meat and a half Zayis from the milk. This is why the sauce requires sixty times the amount of the entire piece of meat that had the drop of milk fall on it.

Answer (cont.): However, if a piece of permitted meat that became forbidden because it absorbed taste from a Neveilah then proceeded to give its taste to a sauce, one only requires sixty times the amount of the taste of the Neveilah that was absorbed in the originally permitted piece of meat. Sixty times the amount of the entire piece of meat is not required.

Question: There is a difficulty with Rabeinu Efraim's explanation. According to Rava who answers that this is even if one did not take the original piece of Neveilah etc., how does it help to have a piece of permitted meat that was forbidden and turned into Neveilah? We only need sixty times the amount of sauce in order to nullify the piece of Neveilah itself, not to nullify one of Neveilah plus the one that was forbidden due to the Neveilah!

Answer: The case is where the Neveilah shrunk from its original size before its taste was absorbed into the permitted piece. Since it gave its taste to the permitted piece, sixty times its original size is required. There is not enough sauce to nullify it.

Answer (cont.): However, if it did not give taste to the permitted piece, only sixty times its current size is required. There is enough sauce to nullify this amount.

Answer (cont.): Rav, who is arguing on Rabah bar bar Chanah, only needed to say that a piece of Neveilah can forbid all of the pieces because they are of the same type. However, as an aside he taught that this is only if it gave off taste of Neveilah, as opposed to if it did not.

Proof: Rabeinu Efraim Alav ha'Shalom used to prove his position from the Gemara earlier (98a). The Gemara stated that there was a Kzayis of forbidden fat that fell into a "Dikula" - "basket" of meat that was full of pieces of boiling hot meat. The Gemara did not say that the piece of meat that the fat fell on is considered Neveilah, and that it forbids the other pieces because the other pieces are not sixty times the amount of the fat plus the new piece of Neveilah, which becomes Neveilah because it itself was not sixty times larger than the fat that fell on it. Rather, we see if all of the meat in the basket was sixty times greater than the Kzayis of forbidden fat. (This proves that only what was absorbed is significant, and that we do not always say the entire piece is considered Neveilah.)

Question: There is no proof from this Gemara (ibid.), as a Dikula is a pot as explained by Rashi and as we explained earlier (98a, DH "d'Nafal").

Question (cont.): Even if we say that a Dikula is a basket as implied here and in all other places, there is no proof. If the forbidden fat does not bubble from piece to piece as we explained earlier, the only piece that would be forbidden is the piece that it fell on. All other pieces would be permitted.

Question (cont.): If it bubbles from piece to piece, it is understandable that all of the pieces should come together to nullify it. We do not say that the piece the fat fell upon should be considered Neveilah, as the fat is going to end up spreading out into all of the pieces, just like a drop of milk that falls on a piece of meat. If it does not give taste, it is permitted. This is despite the fact that before the drop of milk spread it did give taste to the spot of meat where it landed. We do not say that that piece of meat should be considered Neveilah, as the milk is going to spread out.

Observation: However, according to what I explained earlier in the name of Rebbi Eliezer from Metz that one cannot say a half piece becomes Neveilah, there is no proof (that this is the reason why it does not become Neveilah).

Implied Question: There is no proof to Rabeinu Efraim from the Mishnah in Terumos (5:6) that says that a mixture that partially contains Terumah only causes other grain it mixes with to be considered mixed with Terumah based on the amount of Terumah in the original mixture. We do not say that the entire mixture is looked upon as Terumah. (In other words, if one Sa'ah of Terumah fell into ten Sa'ah of Chulin, and then one Sa'ah of this mixture fell into ten Sa'ah of Chulin, we say that the second mixture nullifies the Terumah that fell into it, as there is only one part Terumah to one hundred parts Chulin. We do not look at the entire Sa'ah that fell into the second mixture as Terumah.)

Answer: This is because we can differentiate between a dry item and an item forbidden through absorption.

Proof: According to Rabeinu Efraim's explanation, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (73b) that discusses Yayin Nesech that fell into a pit is understandable.

Proof (cont.): This is because there is an opinion there that even if a pitcher of water fell into the pit after the wine was already present, we look at what is permitted as if it is nothing and the rest has the water nullify it. We do not say that the amount of permitted wine becomes as if it is forbidden wine (i.e. "Neveilah") in order to consider it like Yayin Nesech which would also have to be nullified by the water.

Question: However, it is possible to say that the case there is where there was not enough Yayin Nesech present to give taste to the permitted wine that was in the pit. It was only forbidden due to a small amount of forbidden wine (Mino). Since it was only a small amount, we do not say that the permitted wine becomes like "Neveilah" as I explained earlier.

Answer: This is despite the fact that it is really incomparable. Earlier, we only said this (small amount of taste) should not forbid the other pieces. However, it itself is forbidden with the small amount of taste, and as this is so it is forbidden forever according to the opinion later (108a) that even if the prohibited flavor absorbed can be cooked with other things and taken out, it is still prohibited.

Question: However, it is possible to say that the opinion in Avodah Zarah (73b) that permits the nullification of the wine even when the water fell in after the forbidden wine was in the pit will hold that if the prohibited flavor can be taken out is permitted.

Opinion: Rabeinu Efraim similarly permitted the piece itself.

Implied Question: The fact that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (ibid.) states that if permitted wine fell into prohibited water (of idolatry) the mixture is forbidden only if the water gives taste to the wine is not proof to Rabeinu Efraim's opinion. (Why not?)

Answer: It is possible to say that the case is where all of the permitted wine fell into the water at one time, causing the prohibited wine to be immediately nullified. However, if it did not fall in at one time, the first drops that fall become prohibited and do become Yayin Nesech that forbids the permitted wine that falls in afterwards, as explained earlier (87a).

Observation: According to the explanation of Rabeinu Efraim, it is certainly understandable that the Torah commanded us to scald the pots of Midyan.

Observation (cont.): How can one kasher a big pot that cannot be kashered in another pot? There is not sixty times the amount of water to nullify the prohibited pot! If he will kasher it (i.e. dip another part of it into the water) again, the first waters become Neveilah and they forbid the pot! If we only measure based on the amount of prohibited taste, it is understandable.

Observation (cont.): We have no reason to say that kashering should be done when it is not a Ben Yomo, as the Torah only forbade a Ben Yomo.

Question: There is no clear proof from here, as it is possible to say that the Torah only said to kasher small vessels in a big pot where the water will be sixty times greater than the pot in order to nullify the prohibited item.

Opinion: Rabeinu Yehudah writes that it appears to the Ri that one should be stringent (unlike Rabeinu Efraim) being that there is no clear proof.

Opinion: The Rashbam says that just as there needs to be enough sauce to nullify the forbidden piece, so too there has to be enough permitted meat to nullify an amount of sauce equivalent to the size of two of the forbidden pieces of meat.

Opinion (cont.): Since the sauce was absorbed into the forbidden piece it becomes Neveilah. When the sauce is emitted from the piece, it forbids the rest of the sauce because it is Mino.

Opinion (cont.): This is said by the Gemara later (108a) regarding the case where a Kzayis of meat fell into a pot of milk. Rav says that the meat is forbidden and the milk is permitted. The Gemara asks, if he holds that even if one can take out the prohibited flavor from a piece by cooking it with something else it is still forbidden, why is the milk permitted? It is milk of Neveilah!

Opinion (cont.): This means that the milk that is absorbed in the meat becomes Neveilah, and when it is emitted it forbids all of the milk because it is Mino.

Question: Rabeinu Efraim asks that the Gemara in Bechoros (22a) says that if someone buys brine from an Am ha'Aretz he should connect it to a Mikvah and it becomes pure. If most of it is water, it becomes pure through connecting it. If it is mostly brine, it does not become impure anyway, as the small amount of water in it is nullified. Rebbi Yirmiyah there says that this is only in order to dip his bread in the brine. However, if he wants to cook with it, the water in the brine mixes with the water in the pot and will remix (causing it to become impure).

Question (cont.): How does this mixing happen? Why don't we say that there (as we do in our Gemara that) we should take away Mino (i.e. in this case the water) as if it was not there, and the brine which is not Mino should nullify the impure water? This would mean that the brine that is the majority will always nullify the impure water (unlike Rebbi Yirmiyah)!

Answer: The cases are incomparable. In our case, Mino is only forbidden due to the power of what is prohibited that is mixed together with it, and it is impossible to separate the two. It is therefore always considered permitted wherever it is. This is why it is possible to say that the name was taken away. However, where Mino itself is impure due to it touching impure water, it is impossible to say that we should take away Mino.

Implied Question: According to this, the Gemara could have asked a question from Rebbi Yehudah's statement in our Mishnah, "Wasn't Gid ha'Nasheh forbidden even to the sons of Yaakov, and they were still allowed to eat non kosher animals!" This implies that for this reason the prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh should take effect on the prohibition of a non kosher animal, as stated later in the conclusion of the Gemara that this statement in the Mishnah can be deduced from etc.

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara could also have asked this on its original question that the Mishnah implies that Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning is due to the fact that he holds a prohibition can take effect when another prohibition is already present (on this object) in general (as opposed to it only being correct in this case). (Why didn't the Gemara ask these questions?)

Answer: Rabeinu Shmuel understands that our Gemara thinks that Rebbi Yehudah understood the Tana Kama's reasoning to be based on the opinion of Rebbi Shimon quoted later. Rebbi Shimon says, "This only refers to an animal whose Gid is forbidden but whose flesh is permitted, excluding etc." This is why Rebbi Yehudah asked, ""Wasn't Gid ha'Nasheh forbidden even to the sons of Yaakov, and they were still allowed to eat non kosher animals!"

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked that the Gemara said earlier (75a) that if an animal had a Neifel its fat is permitted like that of an undomesticated animal, as an animal must be formed for a certain amount of months before its fat becomes forbidden. (Why didn't the Gemara ask this question?)

Answer #1: Rather, the Gemara had a better question, as there is an opinion (ibid.) that its fat is indeed prohibited because the fact that it came into the world prohibits it. This logic applies to a non kosher animal as well, since the Pasuk, "Anything that is in an animal you should eat" does not apply to it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is perhaps possible to answer that forbidden fat is different, as the Torah states, "Any fat of an ox, sheep, or goat" and this is not an ox, sheep, or goat. However, the Torah forbade a Gid ha'Nasheh as long as it is on the Kaf.