Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 5, 2019 | 讻状讞 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Chullin 98


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘讘讬爪转 讗驻专讜讞 讗讘诇 讟诪讗讛 诇讗


an egg that contains a chick, as the chick imparts flavor to the food in which the egg is cooked. But with regard to an egg that does not contain a chick but is from a non-kosher bird, it does not impart flavor to the food with which it is cooked.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 砖砖诇拽谉 注诐 讘讬爪讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讘讬爪转 讗驻专讜讞 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讟诪讗讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 拽专讬 诇讛 讟诪讗讛


Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to this answer based on a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 9:5): With regard to kosher eggs that one boiled with non-kosher eggs, if they have a ratio that allows the non-kosher eggs to impart flavor to the kosher eggs, they are all forbidden. This indicates that eggs from non-kosher birds do have flavor. Abaye answered: Here, too it is referring to an egg from a kosher bird that contains a chick. And why does the baraita call this a non-kosher egg, indicating that it is an egg from a non-kosher species? Since it has a chick inside, which causes the egg to be forbidden, the baraita calls it non-kosher.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讘讬爪讬诐 砖砖诇拽谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讗驻专讜讞 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 注住拽讬谞谉


The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: With regard to eggs that one boiled and a chick was found in one of them, if they have a ratio that allows the chick to impart flavor to them, they are all forbidden, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are dealing with an egg that does not have a chick inside.


驻讬专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讘讬爪讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 砖砖诇拽谉 注诐 讘讬爪讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讻讬爪讚 讻讙讜谉 砖砖诇拽谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讗驻专讜讞 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉


The Gemara explains that this is an incorrect inference, as the latter clause is explaining the first clause, so that the baraita should be read as follows: With regard to kosher eggs that one boiled with non-kosher eggs, if they have a ratio that allows the non-kosher eggs to impart flavor to the kosher eggs, they are all forbidden. How so? It can be referring to a case where one boiled them and a chick was found in one of them.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讬砖讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 讗住讜专讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara adds: So too it is reasonable to explain the baraita in this manner, as if it would enter your mind to say that the first clause is referring to a case where there is no chick in the egg, the latter clause is redundant: Now that the tanna has taught that in a case where there is no chick inside, the non-kosher egg imparts flavor to the kosher eggs and renders them forbidden, is it necessary for the tanna to teach that an egg that has a chick inside imparts flavor to the kosher eggs?


讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 专讬砖讗 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 专讬砖讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 讗讘诇 诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 砖专讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗住讬专讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, i.e., the proof of the argument is inconclusive. The reason is that one can say that the tanna taught the latter clause to reveal the meaning of the first clause. The latter clause was stated so that you would not mistakenly say that the first clause is referring only to a case where the egg has a chick inside, but if there is no chick inside the kosher eggs would be permitted. Therefore, the tanna teaches the latter clause and specifies that it is referring to an egg that has a chick inside. By inference the first clause is referring to a case of an egg that does not have a chick inside, and even so it renders all of the other eggs forbidden.


讛讛讜讗 讻讝讬转讗 转专讘讗 讚谞驻诇 讘讚讬拽讜诇讗 讚讘砖专讗 住讘专 专讘 讗住讬 诇砖注讜专讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讚讘诇注 讚讬拽讜诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讟讜 讚讛讬转专讗 讘诇注 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讘诇注


搂 The Gemara continues discussing the nullification of forbidden foods. There was once a certain olive-bulk of forbidden fat that fell into a pot of kosher meat. Rav Asi thought to measure the volume of the kosher meat together with that which the pot had absorbed. The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: Is that to say that the pot absorbed the permitted meat but did not absorb the forbidden fat?


讛讛讜讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讬转讗 讚转专讘讗 讚谞驻诇 讘讚讬拽讜诇讗 讚讘砖专讗 住讘专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇砖注讜专讬讛 讘转诇转讬谉 驻诇讙讬 讚讝讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诇讗 转讝诇讝诇 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜注讜讚 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛


The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was once a certain half-olive-bulk of forbidden fat that fell into a pot of kosher meat. Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to measure the amount of kosher meat needed to nullify the forbidden fat as thirty half-olive-bulks, rather than sixty. His father, Rav Ashi, said to him: Have I not told you: Do not treat measures lightly even with regard to rabbinic prohibitions? And furthermore, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: A half-measure is prohibited by Torah law? Consequently, the half-olive-bulk of forbidden fat is nullified only in sixty times its volume of permitted meat.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讙专砖诐 讗诪专 诇讜讬 讘专 驻专讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘讬专讬讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讗诪专讜 讘讬爪讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞转 诪讜转专转


搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of nullifying forbidden foods. Rav Shemen bar Abba says that Rav Idi bar Idi bar Gershom says that Levi bar Perata says that Rabbi Na岣m says that Rabbi Biryam says in the name of a certain elder, and his name was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, that the Sages in the house of the Nasi said: If a non-kosher egg is mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty eggs they are all forbidden, but if there are sixty-one eggs they are all permitted.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 专讗讛 砖讗转讛 诪讟讬诇 讘讛 讙讘讜诇 讛讬转专 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 诇讗 驻讬专砖讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬爪讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞转 诪讜转专转


Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: See, one can infer from your words that you fix a limit to permit the eggs if there is a total of sixty-one eggs, including the non-kosher egg. This is a revelation, because the two most eminent Sages of the generation did not clarify this matter. These two eminent Sages were Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani, and both of them said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: In a case where a non-kosher egg is mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty eggs they are all forbidden, but if there are sixty-one eggs they are all permitted.


讜讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞转 讘讛讚讬 讚讬讚讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讘专 诪讬谞讛 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟 讜诪专 驻砖讬讟 诇讛 诪驻砖讟


And a dilemma was raised before these Sages: When Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said they are permitted if there are sixty-one eggs, does that mean there are sixty-one eggs altogether, with the non-kosher egg, or does it perhaps mean that there must be sixty-one kosher eggs aside from the non-kosher egg? And they did not resolve this dilemma. And yet, it appears as though the Master, Rav Shemen, has resolved the dilemma, because you implied that the mixture is kosher if there are a total of sixty-one eggs including the non-kosher egg.


讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬爪讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞转 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转


The Gemara continues: It was stated that Rabbi 岣lbo says that Rav Huna says: If a non-kosher egg becomes mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty kosher eggs in addition to that non-kosher egg, the entire mixture is forbidden. But if there are sixty-one kosher eggs in addition to that one non-kosher egg, the mixture is permitted.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 诇讗 砖讬注专 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖讘注 讜讗谞讬 讗砖注专 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖


搂 There was a certain person who came before Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with a half-olive-bulk of non-kosher food that had been mixed with a larger amount of kosher food. Rabban Gamliel said to him: A similar case came before my father, and even though he did not measure the kosher food as being sixty times the volume of the non-kosher food, he nevertheless permitted the mixture due to the fact that there was forty-seven times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. And similarly, I will permit the mixture because I measure that the kosher food is forty-five times the volume of the non-kosher food.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 诇讗 砖讬注专 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讜讗谞讬 讗砖注专 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诇砖


Similarly there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with a mixture of kosher and non-kosher food. Rabbi Shimon said to him: A similar case came before my father, and even though he did not measure the kosher food as being sixty times the volume of the non-kosher food, he nevertheless permitted the mixture due to the fact that there was forty-five times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. And similarly, I will permit the mixture because I measure that the kosher food is forty-three times the volume of the non-kosher food.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 砖诇砖讬诐


There was a certain man who came before Rabbi 岣yya with a mixture of kosher and non-kosher food. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Is there even thirty times the volume of permitted food as forbidden food? Clearly, the mixture is forbidden.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖诇砖讬诐 诪砖注专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讜讝诪讗


The Gemara seeks to clarify: This indicates that the reason that he prohibited the mixture is that there was not thirty times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. But it may then be inferred that if there is thirty times as much kosher food as non-kosher food, one may assess, i.e., permit, the mixture. And this contradicts the halakha that non-kosher food is nullified only in a mixture containing sixty times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. Rabbi 岣nina said: Rabbi 岣yya did not make this statement to set a halakhic principle, but merely as an exaggeration. There was not even thirty times the volume of kosher food, so it was obvious that the mixture was forbidden.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘诪讗讛


Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: All the forbidden foods in the Torah are nullified when they are mixed with kosher food that is sixty times their volume. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: My teacher, you say this citing Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that bar Kappara said it. But this is what Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: All the forbidden foods in the Torah are nullified when they are mixed with kosher food that is one hundred times their volume.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讝专讜注 讘砖诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讝专注 讘砖诇讛 讜讙讜壮 讜转谞讬讗 讘砖诇讛


The Gemara adds: And both of them learned their principles of nullification only from the term: 鈥淐ooked foreleg,鈥 as it is written with regard to the nazirite鈥檚 ram: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the cooked foreleg of the ram鈥 (Numbers 6:19). And it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淐ooked,鈥


讗讬谉 讘砖诇讛 讗诇讗 砖诇讬诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘砖诇讛 讗诇讗 砖谞转讘砖诇讛 注诐 讛讗讬诇


and the term 鈥渃ooked鈥 indicates that the verse is referring only to a foreleg that is whole. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i disagrees and says: The term 鈥渃ooked鈥 indicates that the verse is referring only to a foreleg that is cooked with the entire ram.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讗讬诇 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 诪专 住讘专 诪讞转讱 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讞转讱 诇讛


The Gemara clarifies their dispute: Everyone agrees that one cooks the foreleg with the rest of the ram. But one Sage holds that one first cuts the foreleg off the animal and then cooks it along with the rest of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i, holds that one first cooks the entire ram and then cuts off the foreleg.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讞转讱 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 诪讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 讘讛讚讬 讗讬诇 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讘拽讚专讛 讗讞专转 诪讘砖诇 诇讛


And if you wish, say that everyone agrees that one first cuts off the foreleg and then cooks it. But one Sage, Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i, holds that one cooks the foreleg with the rest of the ram, and one Sage holds that he cooks the foreleg in another pot, separate from the rest of the ram.


诇诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬


The foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is permitted to be eaten only by a priest, whereas the rest of the ram is eaten by the nazirite even if he is not a priest. Consequently, according to the first formulation, all agree that the principle of nullification may be derived from here, since all agree that the foreleg is cooked together with the rest of the ram, and yet it does not cause the rest of the ram to be forbidden to a non-priest. According to the latter formulation, the principle of nullification may be derived from here in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says that the foreleg is cooked together with the rest of the ram. But according to the latter formulation the first tanna holds that the foreleg is not cooked with the rest of the ram, in which case the principle of nullification cannot be derived from here.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖砖讬诐 住讘专 讘砖专 讜注爪诪讜转 讘讛讚讬 讘砖专 讜注爪诪讜转 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘砖砖讬诐 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讗讛 住讘专 讘砖专 讘讛讚讬 讘砖专 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘诪讗讛


The Gemara now returns to the dispute about whether non-kosher food is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of kosher food, and explains how each opinion is derived from the halakha of the foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram. The one who said that non-kosher food is nullified in sixty times its volume of kosher food holds that we assess the ratio of meat and bones of the foreleg to the meat and bones of the rest of the ram, and this is a ratio of one to sixty. The one who said that non-kosher food is nullified in one hundred times its volume of kosher food holds that we assess only the volume of the meat of the foreleg to the meat of the rest of the ram, and this is a ratio of one to one hundred.


讜诪讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讛讜 讛讬转专 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 讗讬住讜专 讝讛讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


The Gemara asks: And do we derive the principles of nullification from the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the nazirite鈥檚 ram, which absorbs the flavor of the foreleg with which it was cooked: This is a case of permitted meat that comes from the category of forbidden food, i.e., it is permitted despite the fact that it was cooked with forbidden food. The Gemara infers: What does the expression: This is, in the baraita serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude all the other forbidden foods that are in the Torah? This indicates that only the cooked foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of permitted food, but other prohibited foods are not subject to the principle of nullification.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讻讗 讘讟讬诇


The Gemara answers that Abaye said: This emphasis is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that in general, a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. Therefore the baraita teaches us that here, the flavor imparted by the foreleg to the rest of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is nullified.


讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讬


The Gemara objects: Let Rabbi Yehuda learn from this case that all forbidden food can be nullified when it is mixed with permitted food of its own type. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One revealed in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it upon the corners of the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). Both of these two bloods are mixed with each other, and although a bull has more blood than a goat has, the verse makes reference to the blood of the goat, indicating that it maintains its own identity and is not nullified.


讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讙诪专讬转 诪讛讗讬讱 诇讬讙诪专 诪讛讗讬 讞讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讜诪讞讚讜砖 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, what did you see that caused you to derive a principle from that verse with regard to the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat? Derive a principle from this verse about the foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram. The Gemara answers: The case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is a novelty, because even when nullification does apply one may not nullify a forbidden food ab initio, whereas here one is supposed to cook the foreleg together with the rest of the ram; and we do not learn principles from a novelty.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇诪讗讛 讜砖砖讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讙诪专


The Gemara challenges: If so, if Rabbi Yehuda does not consider the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram a viable precedent for general halakhic principles, then let him also not learn from that case that when forbidden food is mixed with permitted food of a different type, it is nullified in either one hundred or sixty times its own volume. As discussed above, the two opinions in this regard are each based on the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram.


讗讟讜 讗谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘专讜讘讗 讘讟讬诇


The Gemara explains: Is that to say that we learn that forbidden food is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of permitted food as a leniency? We learn it only as a stringency, as if it were not for this derivation, we would say that by Torah law forbidden food is nullified in a mixture in which there is a simple majority of permitted food.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讚讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗住讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讻讗 砖专讬


Rava stated an alternative explanation of the term: This is, which appears in the baraita with regard to the nazirite鈥檚 ram: This limitation is necessary only for the principle that the halakhic status of the flavor of forbidden food is like that of its substance. If the flavor of sacrificial food is absorbed into another food, it renders that food forbidden, i.e., it is not nullified. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that here, in the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram, the rest of the ram is permitted even to non-priests.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 98

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 98

讘讘讬爪转 讗驻专讜讞 讗讘诇 讟诪讗讛 诇讗


an egg that contains a chick, as the chick imparts flavor to the food in which the egg is cooked. But with regard to an egg that does not contain a chick but is from a non-kosher bird, it does not impart flavor to the food with which it is cooked.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘讬爪讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 砖砖诇拽谉 注诐 讘讬爪讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讘讬爪转 讗驻专讜讞 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讟诪讗讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 拽专讬 诇讛 讟诪讗讛


Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to this answer based on a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 9:5): With regard to kosher eggs that one boiled with non-kosher eggs, if they have a ratio that allows the non-kosher eggs to impart flavor to the kosher eggs, they are all forbidden. This indicates that eggs from non-kosher birds do have flavor. Abaye answered: Here, too it is referring to an egg from a kosher bird that contains a chick. And why does the baraita call this a non-kosher egg, indicating that it is an egg from a non-kosher species? Since it has a chick inside, which causes the egg to be forbidden, the baraita calls it non-kosher.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讘讬爪讬诐 砖砖诇拽谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讗驻专讜讞 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 注住拽讬谞谉


The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: With regard to eggs that one boiled and a chick was found in one of them, if they have a ratio that allows the chick to impart flavor to them, they are all forbidden, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are dealing with an egg that does not have a chick inside.


驻讬专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讘讬爪讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 砖砖诇拽谉 注诐 讘讬爪讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讻讬爪讚 讻讙讜谉 砖砖诇拽谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讗驻专讜讞 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉


The Gemara explains that this is an incorrect inference, as the latter clause is explaining the first clause, so that the baraita should be read as follows: With regard to kosher eggs that one boiled with non-kosher eggs, if they have a ratio that allows the non-kosher eggs to impart flavor to the kosher eggs, they are all forbidden. How so? It can be referring to a case where one boiled them and a chick was found in one of them.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讬砖讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 讗住讜专讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara adds: So too it is reasonable to explain the baraita in this manner, as if it would enter your mind to say that the first clause is referring to a case where there is no chick in the egg, the latter clause is redundant: Now that the tanna has taught that in a case where there is no chick inside, the non-kosher egg imparts flavor to the kosher eggs and renders them forbidden, is it necessary for the tanna to teach that an egg that has a chick inside imparts flavor to the kosher eggs?


讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 专讬砖讗 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 专讬砖讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 讗讘诇 诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 砖专讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗驻专讜讞 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗住讬专讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, i.e., the proof of the argument is inconclusive. The reason is that one can say that the tanna taught the latter clause to reveal the meaning of the first clause. The latter clause was stated so that you would not mistakenly say that the first clause is referring only to a case where the egg has a chick inside, but if there is no chick inside the kosher eggs would be permitted. Therefore, the tanna teaches the latter clause and specifies that it is referring to an egg that has a chick inside. By inference the first clause is referring to a case of an egg that does not have a chick inside, and even so it renders all of the other eggs forbidden.


讛讛讜讗 讻讝讬转讗 转专讘讗 讚谞驻诇 讘讚讬拽讜诇讗 讚讘砖专讗 住讘专 专讘 讗住讬 诇砖注讜专讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讚讘诇注 讚讬拽讜诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讟讜 讚讛讬转专讗 讘诇注 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讘诇注


搂 The Gemara continues discussing the nullification of forbidden foods. There was once a certain olive-bulk of forbidden fat that fell into a pot of kosher meat. Rav Asi thought to measure the volume of the kosher meat together with that which the pot had absorbed. The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: Is that to say that the pot absorbed the permitted meat but did not absorb the forbidden fat?


讛讛讜讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讬转讗 讚转专讘讗 讚谞驻诇 讘讚讬拽讜诇讗 讚讘砖专讗 住讘专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇砖注讜专讬讛 讘转诇转讬谉 驻诇讙讬 讚讝讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诇讗 转讝诇讝诇 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜注讜讚 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛


The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was once a certain half-olive-bulk of forbidden fat that fell into a pot of kosher meat. Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to measure the amount of kosher meat needed to nullify the forbidden fat as thirty half-olive-bulks, rather than sixty. His father, Rav Ashi, said to him: Have I not told you: Do not treat measures lightly even with regard to rabbinic prohibitions? And furthermore, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: A half-measure is prohibited by Torah law? Consequently, the half-olive-bulk of forbidden fat is nullified only in sixty times its volume of permitted meat.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讙专砖诐 讗诪专 诇讜讬 讘专 驻专讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘讬专讬讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讗诪专讜 讘讬爪讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞转 诪讜转专转


搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of nullifying forbidden foods. Rav Shemen bar Abba says that Rav Idi bar Idi bar Gershom says that Levi bar Perata says that Rabbi Na岣m says that Rabbi Biryam says in the name of a certain elder, and his name was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, that the Sages in the house of the Nasi said: If a non-kosher egg is mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty eggs they are all forbidden, but if there are sixty-one eggs they are all permitted.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 专讗讛 砖讗转讛 诪讟讬诇 讘讛 讙讘讜诇 讛讬转专 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 诇讗 驻讬专砖讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬爪讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞转 诪讜转专转


Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: See, one can infer from your words that you fix a limit to permit the eggs if there is a total of sixty-one eggs, including the non-kosher egg. This is a revelation, because the two most eminent Sages of the generation did not clarify this matter. These two eminent Sages were Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani, and both of them said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: In a case where a non-kosher egg is mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty eggs they are all forbidden, but if there are sixty-one eggs they are all permitted.


讜讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞转 讘讛讚讬 讚讬讚讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讘专 诪讬谞讛 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟 讜诪专 驻砖讬讟 诇讛 诪驻砖讟


And a dilemma was raised before these Sages: When Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said they are permitted if there are sixty-one eggs, does that mean there are sixty-one eggs altogether, with the non-kosher egg, or does it perhaps mean that there must be sixty-one kosher eggs aside from the non-kosher egg? And they did not resolve this dilemma. And yet, it appears as though the Master, Rav Shemen, has resolved the dilemma, because you implied that the mixture is kosher if there are a total of sixty-one eggs including the non-kosher egg.


讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬爪讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞转 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转


The Gemara continues: It was stated that Rabbi 岣lbo says that Rav Huna says: If a non-kosher egg becomes mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty kosher eggs in addition to that non-kosher egg, the entire mixture is forbidden. But if there are sixty-one kosher eggs in addition to that one non-kosher egg, the mixture is permitted.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 诇讗 砖讬注专 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖讘注 讜讗谞讬 讗砖注专 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖


搂 There was a certain person who came before Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with a half-olive-bulk of non-kosher food that had been mixed with a larger amount of kosher food. Rabban Gamliel said to him: A similar case came before my father, and even though he did not measure the kosher food as being sixty times the volume of the non-kosher food, he nevertheless permitted the mixture due to the fact that there was forty-seven times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. And similarly, I will permit the mixture because I measure that the kosher food is forty-five times the volume of the non-kosher food.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 诇讗 砖讬注专 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讜讗谞讬 讗砖注专 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诇砖


Similarly there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with a mixture of kosher and non-kosher food. Rabbi Shimon said to him: A similar case came before my father, and even though he did not measure the kosher food as being sixty times the volume of the non-kosher food, he nevertheless permitted the mixture due to the fact that there was forty-five times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. And similarly, I will permit the mixture because I measure that the kosher food is forty-three times the volume of the non-kosher food.


讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 砖诇砖讬诐


There was a certain man who came before Rabbi 岣yya with a mixture of kosher and non-kosher food. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Is there even thirty times the volume of permitted food as forbidden food? Clearly, the mixture is forbidden.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖诇砖讬诐 诪砖注专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讜讝诪讗


The Gemara seeks to clarify: This indicates that the reason that he prohibited the mixture is that there was not thirty times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. But it may then be inferred that if there is thirty times as much kosher food as non-kosher food, one may assess, i.e., permit, the mixture. And this contradicts the halakha that non-kosher food is nullified only in a mixture containing sixty times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. Rabbi 岣nina said: Rabbi 岣yya did not make this statement to set a halakhic principle, but merely as an exaggeration. There was not even thirty times the volume of kosher food, so it was obvious that the mixture was forbidden.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘诪讗讛


Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: All the forbidden foods in the Torah are nullified when they are mixed with kosher food that is sixty times their volume. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: My teacher, you say this citing Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that bar Kappara said it. But this is what Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: All the forbidden foods in the Torah are nullified when they are mixed with kosher food that is one hundred times their volume.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讝专讜注 讘砖诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讝专注 讘砖诇讛 讜讙讜壮 讜转谞讬讗 讘砖诇讛


The Gemara adds: And both of them learned their principles of nullification only from the term: 鈥淐ooked foreleg,鈥 as it is written with regard to the nazirite鈥檚 ram: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the cooked foreleg of the ram鈥 (Numbers 6:19). And it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淐ooked,鈥


讗讬谉 讘砖诇讛 讗诇讗 砖诇讬诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘砖诇讛 讗诇讗 砖谞转讘砖诇讛 注诐 讛讗讬诇


and the term 鈥渃ooked鈥 indicates that the verse is referring only to a foreleg that is whole. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i disagrees and says: The term 鈥渃ooked鈥 indicates that the verse is referring only to a foreleg that is cooked with the entire ram.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讗讬诇 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 诪专 住讘专 诪讞转讱 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讞转讱 诇讛


The Gemara clarifies their dispute: Everyone agrees that one cooks the foreleg with the rest of the ram. But one Sage holds that one first cuts the foreleg off the animal and then cooks it along with the rest of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i, holds that one first cooks the entire ram and then cuts off the foreleg.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讞转讱 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 诪讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 讘讛讚讬 讗讬诇 诪讘砖诇 诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讘拽讚专讛 讗讞专转 诪讘砖诇 诇讛


And if you wish, say that everyone agrees that one first cuts off the foreleg and then cooks it. But one Sage, Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i, holds that one cooks the foreleg with the rest of the ram, and one Sage holds that he cooks the foreleg in another pot, separate from the rest of the ram.


诇诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬


The foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is permitted to be eaten only by a priest, whereas the rest of the ram is eaten by the nazirite even if he is not a priest. Consequently, according to the first formulation, all agree that the principle of nullification may be derived from here, since all agree that the foreleg is cooked together with the rest of the ram, and yet it does not cause the rest of the ram to be forbidden to a non-priest. According to the latter formulation, the principle of nullification may be derived from here in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says that the foreleg is cooked together with the rest of the ram. But according to the latter formulation the first tanna holds that the foreleg is not cooked with the rest of the ram, in which case the principle of nullification cannot be derived from here.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖砖讬诐 住讘专 讘砖专 讜注爪诪讜转 讘讛讚讬 讘砖专 讜注爪诪讜转 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘砖砖讬诐 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讗讛 住讘专 讘砖专 讘讛讚讬 讘砖专 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘诪讗讛


The Gemara now returns to the dispute about whether non-kosher food is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of kosher food, and explains how each opinion is derived from the halakha of the foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram. The one who said that non-kosher food is nullified in sixty times its volume of kosher food holds that we assess the ratio of meat and bones of the foreleg to the meat and bones of the rest of the ram, and this is a ratio of one to sixty. The one who said that non-kosher food is nullified in one hundred times its volume of kosher food holds that we assess only the volume of the meat of the foreleg to the meat of the rest of the ram, and this is a ratio of one to one hundred.


讜诪讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讛讜 讛讬转专 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 讗讬住讜专 讝讛讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


The Gemara asks: And do we derive the principles of nullification from the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the nazirite鈥檚 ram, which absorbs the flavor of the foreleg with which it was cooked: This is a case of permitted meat that comes from the category of forbidden food, i.e., it is permitted despite the fact that it was cooked with forbidden food. The Gemara infers: What does the expression: This is, in the baraita serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude all the other forbidden foods that are in the Torah? This indicates that only the cooked foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of permitted food, but other prohibited foods are not subject to the principle of nullification.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讻讗 讘讟讬诇


The Gemara answers that Abaye said: This emphasis is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that in general, a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. Therefore the baraita teaches us that here, the flavor imparted by the foreleg to the rest of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is nullified.


讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讬


The Gemara objects: Let Rabbi Yehuda learn from this case that all forbidden food can be nullified when it is mixed with permitted food of its own type. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One revealed in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it upon the corners of the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). Both of these two bloods are mixed with each other, and although a bull has more blood than a goat has, the verse makes reference to the blood of the goat, indicating that it maintains its own identity and is not nullified.


讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讙诪专讬转 诪讛讗讬讱 诇讬讙诪专 诪讛讗讬 讞讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讜诪讞讚讜砖 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, what did you see that caused you to derive a principle from that verse with regard to the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat? Derive a principle from this verse about the foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram. The Gemara answers: The case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is a novelty, because even when nullification does apply one may not nullify a forbidden food ab initio, whereas here one is supposed to cook the foreleg together with the rest of the ram; and we do not learn principles from a novelty.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇诪讗讛 讜砖砖讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讙诪专


The Gemara challenges: If so, if Rabbi Yehuda does not consider the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram a viable precedent for general halakhic principles, then let him also not learn from that case that when forbidden food is mixed with permitted food of a different type, it is nullified in either one hundred or sixty times its own volume. As discussed above, the two opinions in this regard are each based on the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram.


讗讟讜 讗谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘专讜讘讗 讘讟讬诇


The Gemara explains: Is that to say that we learn that forbidden food is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of permitted food as a leniency? We learn it only as a stringency, as if it were not for this derivation, we would say that by Torah law forbidden food is nullified in a mixture in which there is a simple majority of permitted food.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讚讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗住讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讻讗 砖专讬


Rava stated an alternative explanation of the term: This is, which appears in the baraita with regard to the nazirite鈥檚 ram: This limitation is necessary only for the principle that the halakhic status of the flavor of forbidden food is like that of its substance. If the flavor of sacrificial food is absorbed into another food, it renders that food forbidden, i.e., it is not nullified. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that here, in the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram, the rest of the ram is permitted even to non-priests.

Scroll To Top