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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 6, 2019 | 讻状讟 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 99

What is unique about the cooked foreleg of the ram that only applies in that case? Why can one still derive from there the laws of nullification of 60 or 100? Abaye questions the opinion that nullification is at 100 from a mishna in Orla and Rav Dimi answers. From our mishna it is clear that the sciatic nerve has flavor but this is a subject of tannitic debate.


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

讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讞讟讗转 讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讘砖专讛 讬拽讚砖 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛 砖讗诐 驻住讜诇讛 转驻住诇 讜讗诐 讻砖专讛 转讗讻诇 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛

The Gemara objects: Let us learn from the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram that the flavor of sacrificial food can be nullified. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One revealed in the Torah with regard to the sin offering: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be holy鈥 (Leviticus 6:20). This teaches that the halakhic status of any food that touches and absorbs flavor from a sin offering becomes like it, so that if the sin offering is disqualified, this food shall also be disqualified, and if the sin offering is valid, this food may be eaten in accordance with the stringencies that apply to a sin offering.

讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讙诪专讬谞谉 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 what did you see to indicate that we learn the principle of nullification concerning sacrificial food from that verse of the sin offering? Derive it instead from this verse concerning the foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram. The Gemara answers: This case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is a novelty, 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 讗讟讜 讗谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 拽讗 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 objects: If so, if the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is not a viable precedent for general halakhic principles, then one should 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 both based on the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram. The Gemara responds: 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, one would say that by Torah law forbidden food is nullified in a mixture in which there is a simple majority of permitted food.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪拽讜诐 讞转讱 讚讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 讞转讱 讘注诇诪讗 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 砖专讬

Ravina said an alternative explanation of the term: This is, that appears in the baraita with regard to the nazirite鈥檚 ram. This limitation is necessary only for the place where the foreleg is cut from the body of the ram, as it was said that in a case where permitted and forbidden foods were attached and one cut the forbidden section from the permitted section, the place of the cut on the permitted part is generally forbidden. But here, in the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram, it is permitted.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗

搂 The Gemara returns to discussing the statement of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k (98a) that forbidden food is nullified in a mixture only if there is one hundred times its volume of permitted food. Rav Dimi sat and said this halakha.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘诪讗讛 讜讛转谞谉 诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛诪讞诪抓 讜诪转讘诇 讜诪讚诪注 诇讛讞诪讬专 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专 诪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜

Abaye said to him: And is it true that all the forbidden foods in the Torah that are mixed with permitted foods are nullified only in a mixture containing one hundred times their volume of permitted food? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Orla 2:6): Why did the Sages say that with regard to anyone who leavens non-sacred food with a leavening agent that is teruma or flavors it with spices of teruma or mixes teruma into non-sacred food, thereby making the food forbidden for non-priests, the halakha is to be stringent if he mixed one type of food that is teruma with non-sacred food of the same type. But the halakha is to be lenient and to be stringent if he mixed one type of teruma with non-sacred food of a different type.

讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专 诪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讻讬爪讚 讙专讬住讬谉 砖谞转讘砖诇讜 注诐 讛注讚砖讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛诐 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘讬谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讗住讜专

And it is taught in the latter clause, i.e., in the following mishna (Orla 2:7): When it is stated that the halakha is to be lenient and to be stringent if he mixed one type of teruma with non-sacred food not of its type, how is this accomplished? For example, in a case of split beans of teruma that were cooked with non-sacred lentils, if there are enough split beans relative to the lentils to impart flavor to the lentils, then regardless of whether there are enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, i.e., the volume of the lentils is one hundred and one times the volume of the split beans, or whether there are not enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, the entire mixture is forbidden to a non-priest.

讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 诪讜转专

Conversely, if there are not enough split beans of teruma to impart flavor to the lentils, then regardless of whether there are enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, or whether there are not enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, the mixture is permitted even to a non-priest.

讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖砖讬诐

Abaye commented: When the mishna says that there are not enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, and nevertheless if the split beans did not impart flavor to the lentils, the mixture is permitted, in what amount of lentils are the split beans nullified? Is it not that the split beans are permitted because they are mixed with sixty times their volume of non-sacred lentils? This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k.

诇讗 讘诪讗讛

Rav Dimi answered Abaye: No, the mishna means that although there is not one hundred and one times as much non-sacred food as teruma, the teruma is nullified because there is one hundred times its volume of non-sacred food.

讜讛讗 诪讚专讬砖讗 讘诪讗讛 讛讜讬 住讬驻讗 讘砖砖讬诐 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讻讬爪讚 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇注讬住转 讞讟讬谉 讜讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讘讬谉 讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讗住讜专

Abaye responded: But since the first clause states that it is nullified in one hundred times its volume, it must be that the latter clause is referring to a case where there is sixty times its volume. As the mishna (Orla 2:6) teaches in the first clause: When it is stated that the halakha is to be stringent if one type of teruma is mixed with non-sacred food of its type, how is this accomplished? For example, in a case of leaven of teruma wheat that fell into dough made of non-sacred wheat, and there is enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened, whether there is enough non-sacred wheat to neutralize the teruma in one hundred and one times its volume, or whether there is not enough non-sacred wheat to neutralize the teruma in one hundred and one times its volume, the entire dough is forbidden to a non-priest.

讗讬谉 讘讜 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讗住讜专 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪讗讛

But if there is not enough non-sacred wheat to neutralize the teruma in one hundred and one times its volume, then whether there is enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened or whether there is not enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened, the entire dough is forbidden to a non-priest. Would you suggest that both the first clause and the latter clause are stating that the teruma is nullified in one hundred times its volume?

诇讗 专讬砖讗 讘诪讗讛 讜讞讚 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪讗讛

Rav Dimi answered: No. The first clause is referring to a case where the teruma is mixed with one hundred and one times its volume of non-sacred food, and the latter clause is referring to a case where the teruma is mixed with one hundred times its volume of non-sacred food.

讜讻讬 讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讘诪讗讛 讜讞讚 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讗讬砖转讬拽

Abaye asked Rav Dimi: If so, when the mishna states that if there is enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened the entire mixture is forbidden to non-priests, why is that the case? If leaven is mixed with one hundred and one times its volume of non-sacred wheat it will have no leavening effect, so why is it not nullified? Rav Dimi did not have an answer and was silent.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 砖讗讜专 讚讞讬诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚讻专转谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 讻诇 讛砖讬注讜专讬谉 砖讜讬谉 砖讛专讬 爪讬专 砖讬注讜专讜 拽专讜讘 诇诪讗转讬诐 讚转谞谉 讚讙 讟诪讗 爪讬专讜 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讘住讗转讬诐

Abaye said to him: Perhaps leaven is different, because its leavening properties are potent, and there are some forms of leaven that can have an effect on such a large quantity of dough. Rav Dimi said to him: You reminded me of a matter that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: Not all the measures are equal, because the measure required in order to nullify non-kosher fish brine is close to two hundred times its volume. As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:8): The brine of a non-kosher fish is forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda says: A quarter-log of non-kosher fish brine renders kosher food forbidden even if it is mixed with two se鈥檃 of permitted food, which is one hundred ninety-two times as much as a quarter-log.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 砖讗谞讬 爪讬专 讚讝讬注讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Yehuda say that fish brine is nullified at all? Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified? The Gemara answers: Brine is different because it is merely sweat, i.e., it does not have the halakhic status of the fish itself.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讘砖专 讘专讗砖讬 诇驻转讜转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

搂 The mishna (96b) teaches: How does one measure whether there is enough sciatic nerve to impart flavor to the meat of the entire thigh? One relates to it as though the sciatic nerve were meat and the thigh were a turnip. If the meat would impart flavor to the turnip when they were cooked together, then the entire thigh is forbidden. The Gemara states that Rav Huna says: The mishna means that it is measured like meat cooked in a pot with turnip heads. The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor at all.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讬谞讗 讗讘讘讗 讻讬 谞驻拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖专讬讗 谞讬讛诇讬讛

There was a certain man who came before Rabbi 岣nina to ask about the status of a thigh of an animal that was cooked with its sciatic nerve, and Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina was sitting at the gate. When the man left, Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina said to him: What did Rabbi 岣nina say to you? The man said to him: He permitted me to eat the thigh.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专 注讬讬诇讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诪讗谉 讛讗讬 讚拽讗 诪爪注专 诇讬 讝讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讬转讬讘 讗讘讘讗 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina said to him: Bring the animal before him again; perhaps he did not fully understand the question. When the man returned to Rabbi 岣nina, Rabbi 岣nina said: Who is this person who is bothering me? Go and say to the individual who is sitting at the gate, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor. Consequently, he can remove the sciatic nerve and the rest of the meat is permitted.

讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪砖讚专 诇讛讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讞诇讜讘 讚诪讜专讬 讘讛 诇讛讬转讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

When people would come before Rabbi Ami to ask about the halakha of a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve inside, he would send them before Rabbi Yitz岣k ben 岣lov, who would rule leniently about this issue and say that is was permitted, in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Ami himself did not hold accordingly, but he did not wish to rule stringently for others. And the halakha is that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor at all.

讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖谞转讘砖诇 讜诇讬讘讟讜诇 讘专讜讘讗

搂 The mishna states (96b): With regard to a sciatic nerve that was cooked with other sinews, when one identifies the sciatic nerve and removes it, the other sinews are forbidden if the sciatic nerve was large enough to impart flavor. And if he does not identify it, all the sinews are forbidden because each one could be the sciatic nerve. The Gemara challenges: Let the sciatic nerve be nullified by a simple majority.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 99

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 99

讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讞讟讗转 讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讘砖专讛 讬拽讚砖 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛 砖讗诐 驻住讜诇讛 转驻住诇 讜讗诐 讻砖专讛 转讗讻诇 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛

The Gemara objects: Let us learn from the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram that the flavor of sacrificial food can be nullified. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One revealed in the Torah with regard to the sin offering: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be holy鈥 (Leviticus 6:20). This teaches that the halakhic status of any food that touches and absorbs flavor from a sin offering becomes like it, so that if the sin offering is disqualified, this food shall also be disqualified, and if the sin offering is valid, this food may be eaten in accordance with the stringencies that apply to a sin offering.

讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讙诪专讬谞谉 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 what did you see to indicate that we learn the principle of nullification concerning sacrificial food from that verse of the sin offering? Derive it instead from this verse concerning the foreleg of the nazirite鈥檚 ram. The Gemara answers: This case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is a novelty, 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 讗讟讜 讗谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 拽讗 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 objects: If so, if the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram is not a viable precedent for general halakhic principles, then one should 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 both based on the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram. The Gemara responds: 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, one would say that by Torah law forbidden food is nullified in a mixture in which there is a simple majority of permitted food.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪拽讜诐 讞转讱 讚讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 讞转讱 讘注诇诪讗 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 砖专讬

Ravina said an alternative explanation of the term: This is, that appears in the baraita with regard to the nazirite鈥檚 ram. This limitation is necessary only for the place where the foreleg is cut from the body of the ram, as it was said that in a case where permitted and forbidden foods were attached and one cut the forbidden section from the permitted section, the place of the cut on the permitted part is generally forbidden. But here, in the case of the nazirite鈥檚 ram, it is permitted.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗

搂 The Gemara returns to discussing the statement of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k (98a) that forbidden food is nullified in a mixture only if there is one hundred times its volume of permitted food. Rav Dimi sat and said this halakha.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘诪讗讛 讜讛转谞谉 诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛诪讞诪抓 讜诪转讘诇 讜诪讚诪注 诇讛讞诪讬专 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专 诪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜

Abaye said to him: And is it true that all the forbidden foods in the Torah that are mixed with permitted foods are nullified only in a mixture containing one hundred times their volume of permitted food? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Orla 2:6): Why did the Sages say that with regard to anyone who leavens non-sacred food with a leavening agent that is teruma or flavors it with spices of teruma or mixes teruma into non-sacred food, thereby making the food forbidden for non-priests, the halakha is to be stringent if he mixed one type of food that is teruma with non-sacred food of the same type. But the halakha is to be lenient and to be stringent if he mixed one type of teruma with non-sacred food of a different type.

讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专 诪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讻讬爪讚 讙专讬住讬谉 砖谞转讘砖诇讜 注诐 讛注讚砖讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛诐 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘讬谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讗住讜专

And it is taught in the latter clause, i.e., in the following mishna (Orla 2:7): When it is stated that the halakha is to be lenient and to be stringent if he mixed one type of teruma with non-sacred food not of its type, how is this accomplished? For example, in a case of split beans of teruma that were cooked with non-sacred lentils, if there are enough split beans relative to the lentils to impart flavor to the lentils, then regardless of whether there are enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, i.e., the volume of the lentils is one hundred and one times the volume of the split beans, or whether there are not enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, the entire mixture is forbidden to a non-priest.

讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 诪讜转专

Conversely, if there are not enough split beans of teruma to impart flavor to the lentils, then regardless of whether there are enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, or whether there are not enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, the mixture is permitted even to a non-priest.

讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖砖讬诐

Abaye commented: When the mishna says that there are not enough lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, and nevertheless if the split beans did not impart flavor to the lentils, the mixture is permitted, in what amount of lentils are the split beans nullified? Is it not that the split beans are permitted because they are mixed with sixty times their volume of non-sacred lentils? This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k.

诇讗 讘诪讗讛

Rav Dimi answered Abaye: No, the mishna means that although there is not one hundred and one times as much non-sacred food as teruma, the teruma is nullified because there is one hundred times its volume of non-sacred food.

讜讛讗 诪讚专讬砖讗 讘诪讗讛 讛讜讬 住讬驻讗 讘砖砖讬诐 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讻讬爪讚 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇注讬住转 讞讟讬谉 讜讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讘讬谉 讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讗住讜专

Abaye responded: But since the first clause states that it is nullified in one hundred times its volume, it must be that the latter clause is referring to a case where there is sixty times its volume. As the mishna (Orla 2:6) teaches in the first clause: When it is stated that the halakha is to be stringent if one type of teruma is mixed with non-sacred food of its type, how is this accomplished? For example, in a case of leaven of teruma wheat that fell into dough made of non-sacred wheat, and there is enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened, whether there is enough non-sacred wheat to neutralize the teruma in one hundred and one times its volume, or whether there is not enough non-sacred wheat to neutralize the teruma in one hundred and one times its volume, the entire dough is forbidden to a non-priest.

讗讬谉 讘讜 诇讛注诇讜转 讘诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讗住讜专 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪讗讛

But if there is not enough non-sacred wheat to neutralize the teruma in one hundred and one times its volume, then whether there is enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened or whether there is not enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened, the entire dough is forbidden to a non-priest. Would you suggest that both the first clause and the latter clause are stating that the teruma is nullified in one hundred times its volume?

诇讗 专讬砖讗 讘诪讗讛 讜讞讚 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪讗讛

Rav Dimi answered: No. The first clause is referring to a case where the teruma is mixed with one hundred and one times its volume of non-sacred food, and the latter clause is referring to a case where the teruma is mixed with one hundred times its volume of non-sacred food.

讜讻讬 讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讘诪讗讛 讜讞讚 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讗讬砖转讬拽

Abaye asked Rav Dimi: If so, when the mishna states that if there is enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened the entire mixture is forbidden to non-priests, why is that the case? If leaven is mixed with one hundred and one times its volume of non-sacred wheat it will have no leavening effect, so why is it not nullified? Rav Dimi did not have an answer and was silent.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 砖讗讜专 讚讞讬诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚讻专转谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 讻诇 讛砖讬注讜专讬谉 砖讜讬谉 砖讛专讬 爪讬专 砖讬注讜专讜 拽专讜讘 诇诪讗转讬诐 讚转谞谉 讚讙 讟诪讗 爪讬专讜 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讘住讗转讬诐

Abaye said to him: Perhaps leaven is different, because its leavening properties are potent, and there are some forms of leaven that can have an effect on such a large quantity of dough. Rav Dimi said to him: You reminded me of a matter that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: Not all the measures are equal, because the measure required in order to nullify non-kosher fish brine is close to two hundred times its volume. As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:8): The brine of a non-kosher fish is forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda says: A quarter-log of non-kosher fish brine renders kosher food forbidden even if it is mixed with two se鈥檃 of permitted food, which is one hundred ninety-two times as much as a quarter-log.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 砖讗谞讬 爪讬专 讚讝讬注讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Yehuda say that fish brine is nullified at all? Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified? The Gemara answers: Brine is different because it is merely sweat, i.e., it does not have the halakhic status of the fish itself.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讘砖专 讘专讗砖讬 诇驻转讜转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

搂 The mishna (96b) teaches: How does one measure whether there is enough sciatic nerve to impart flavor to the meat of the entire thigh? One relates to it as though the sciatic nerve were meat and the thigh were a turnip. If the meat would impart flavor to the turnip when they were cooked together, then the entire thigh is forbidden. The Gemara states that Rav Huna says: The mishna means that it is measured like meat cooked in a pot with turnip heads. The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor at all.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讬谞讗 讗讘讘讗 讻讬 谞驻拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖专讬讗 谞讬讛诇讬讛

There was a certain man who came before Rabbi 岣nina to ask about the status of a thigh of an animal that was cooked with its sciatic nerve, and Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina was sitting at the gate. When the man left, Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina said to him: What did Rabbi 岣nina say to you? The man said to him: He permitted me to eat the thigh.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专 注讬讬诇讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诪讗谉 讛讗讬 讚拽讗 诪爪注专 诇讬 讝讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讬转讬讘 讗讘讘讗 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina said to him: Bring the animal before him again; perhaps he did not fully understand the question. When the man returned to Rabbi 岣nina, Rabbi 岣nina said: Who is this person who is bothering me? Go and say to the individual who is sitting at the gate, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor. Consequently, he can remove the sciatic nerve and the rest of the meat is permitted.

讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪砖讚专 诇讛讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讞诇讜讘 讚诪讜专讬 讘讛 诇讛讬转讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

When people would come before Rabbi Ami to ask about the halakha of a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve inside, he would send them before Rabbi Yitz岣k ben 岣lov, who would rule leniently about this issue and say that is was permitted, in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Ami himself did not hold accordingly, but he did not wish to rule stringently for others. And the halakha is that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor at all.

讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖谞转讘砖诇 讜诇讬讘讟讜诇 讘专讜讘讗

搂 The mishna states (96b): With regard to a sciatic nerve that was cooked with other sinews, when one identifies the sciatic nerve and removes it, the other sinews are forbidden if the sciatic nerve was large enough to impart flavor. And if he does not identify it, all the sinews are forbidden because each one could be the sciatic nerve. The Gemara challenges: Let the sciatic nerve be nullified by a simple majority.

Scroll To Top