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.
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true baal chesed, who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition. He was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true baal chesed, who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition. He was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Chullin 99
וְלִיגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ? גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חַטָּאת: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יִקְדָּשׁ״, לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהָ – שֶׁאִם פְּסוּלָה תִּפָּסֵל, וְאִם כְּשֵׁרָה תֵּאָכֵל כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהּ.
The Gemara objects: Let us learn from the case of the nazirite’s 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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be holy” (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.
וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּגָמְרִינַן מֵהַאיְךְ, לִיגְמַר מֵהַאי? חִדּוּשׁ הוּא, וּמֵחִדּוּשׁ לָא גָּמְרִינַן.
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’s ram. The Gemara answers: This case of the nazirite’s ram is a novelty, and we do not learn principles from a novelty.
אִי הָכִי, לְמֵאָה וְשִׁשִּׁים נָמֵי לָא לִיגְמַר? אַטּוּ אֲנַן לְקוּלָּא קָא גָמְרִינַן? לְחוּמְרָא קָא גָמְרִינַן, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרוּבָּא בָּטֵיל.
The Gemara objects: If so, if the case of the nazirite’s 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’s 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.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ, דְּאָמַר: מְקוֹם חֲתָךְ בְּעָלְמָא אָסוּר, וְהָכָא שְׁרֵי.
Ravina said an alternative explanation of the term: This is, that appears in the baraita with regard to the nazirite’s 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’s ram, it is permitted.
יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי, וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.
§ The Gemara returns to discussing the statement of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak (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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בְּמֵאָה? וְהָתְנַן: לָמָה אָמְרוּ כׇּל הַמְחַמֵּץ וּמְתַבֵּל וּמְדַמֵּעַ לְהַחְמִיר – מִין וּמִינוֹ, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחְמִיר – מִין וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ.
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’t 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.
וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחְמִיר מִין וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, כֵּיצַד? גְּרִיסִין שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ עִם הָעֲדָשִׁים, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, בֵּין יֵשׁ בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד – אָסוּר.
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.
אֵין בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד – מוּתָּר.
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.
אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, אֶלָּא בְּמַאי? לָאו בְּשִׁשִּׁים?
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 Yitzḥak.
לָא, בְּמֵאָה.
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.
וְהָא מִדְּרֵישָׁא בְּמֵאָה הָוֵי, סֵיפָא בְּשִׁשִּׁים! דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: לְהַחְמִיר מִין וּמִינוֹ כֵּיצַד? שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חִטִּין שֶׁנָּפַל לְעִיסַּת חִטִּין, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ, בֵּין יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד – אָסוּר.
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.
אֵין בּוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ, בֵּין אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ – אָסוּר. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְאָה?
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?
לָא, רֵישָׁא בִּמְאָה וְחַד, וְסֵיפָא בִּמְאָה.
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.
וְכִי יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ בִּמְאָה וְחַד, אַמַּאי לָא בְּטִיל? אִישְׁתִּיק.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי שְׂאוֹר דְּחִימּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְכַּרְתַּן מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא כׇּל הַשִּׁיעוּרִין שָׁוִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי צִיר שִׁיעוּרוֹ קָרוֹב לְמָאתַיִם. דִּתְנַן: דָּג טָמֵא צִירוֹ אָסוּר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רְבִיעִית בְּסָאתַיִם.
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 Ḥanina, 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’a of permitted food, which is one hundred ninety-two times as much as a quarter-log.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל? שָׁאנֵי צִיר, דְּזֵיעָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Yehuda say that fish brine is nullified at all? Doesn’t 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.
כֵּיצַד מְשַׁעֲרִינַן? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כְּבָשָׂר בְּרָאשֵׁי לְפָתוֹת. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּהַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
§ 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 Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor at all.
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִינָא אַבָּבָא. כִּי נְפַק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֲמַר לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁרְיָא נִיהֲלֵיהּ.
There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina say to you? The man said to him: He permitted me to eat the thigh.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲדַר עַיְּילַיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: מַאן הַאי דְּקָא מְצַעַר לִי? זִיל אֵימָא לֵיהּ לְמַאן דְּיָתֵיב אַבָּבָא: אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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 Ḥanina, Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
כִּי אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, מְשַׁדַּר לְהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן חֲלוּב, דְּמוֹרֵי בַּהּ לְהֶיתֵּירָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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 Yitzḥak ben Ḥalov, 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.
גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל. וְלִיבְטוֹל בְּרוּבָּא!
§ 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.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
Chullin 99
וְלִיגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ? גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חַטָּאת: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יִקְדָּשׁ״, לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהָ – שֶׁאִם פְּסוּלָה תִּפָּסֵל, וְאִם כְּשֵׁרָה תֵּאָכֵל כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהּ.
The Gemara objects: Let us learn from the case of the nazirite’s 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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be holy” (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.
וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּגָמְרִינַן מֵהַאיְךְ, לִיגְמַר מֵהַאי? חִדּוּשׁ הוּא, וּמֵחִדּוּשׁ לָא גָּמְרִינַן.
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’s ram. The Gemara answers: This case of the nazirite’s ram is a novelty, and we do not learn principles from a novelty.
אִי הָכִי, לְמֵאָה וְשִׁשִּׁים נָמֵי לָא לִיגְמַר? אַטּוּ אֲנַן לְקוּלָּא קָא גָמְרִינַן? לְחוּמְרָא קָא גָמְרִינַן, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרוּבָּא בָּטֵיל.
The Gemara objects: If so, if the case of the nazirite’s 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’s 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.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ, דְּאָמַר: מְקוֹם חֲתָךְ בְּעָלְמָא אָסוּר, וְהָכָא שְׁרֵי.
Ravina said an alternative explanation of the term: This is, that appears in the baraita with regard to the nazirite’s 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’s ram, it is permitted.
יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי, וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.
§ The Gemara returns to discussing the statement of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak (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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בְּמֵאָה? וְהָתְנַן: לָמָה אָמְרוּ כׇּל הַמְחַמֵּץ וּמְתַבֵּל וּמְדַמֵּעַ לְהַחְמִיר – מִין וּמִינוֹ, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחְמִיר – מִין וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ.
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’t 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.
וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחְמִיר מִין וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, כֵּיצַד? גְּרִיסִין שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ עִם הָעֲדָשִׁים, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, בֵּין יֵשׁ בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד – אָסוּר.
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.
אֵין בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד – מוּתָּר.
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.
אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, אֶלָּא בְּמַאי? לָאו בְּשִׁשִּׁים?
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 Yitzḥak.
לָא, בְּמֵאָה.
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.
וְהָא מִדְּרֵישָׁא בְּמֵאָה הָוֵי, סֵיפָא בְּשִׁשִּׁים! דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: לְהַחְמִיר מִין וּמִינוֹ כֵּיצַד? שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חִטִּין שֶׁנָּפַל לְעִיסַּת חִטִּין, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ, בֵּין יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד – אָסוּר.
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.
אֵין בּוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ, בֵּין אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ – אָסוּר. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְאָה?
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?
לָא, רֵישָׁא בִּמְאָה וְחַד, וְסֵיפָא בִּמְאָה.
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.
וְכִי יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ בִּמְאָה וְחַד, אַמַּאי לָא בְּטִיל? אִישְׁתִּיק.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי שְׂאוֹר דְּחִימּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְכַּרְתַּן מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא כׇּל הַשִּׁיעוּרִין שָׁוִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי צִיר שִׁיעוּרוֹ קָרוֹב לְמָאתַיִם. דִּתְנַן: דָּג טָמֵא צִירוֹ אָסוּר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רְבִיעִית בְּסָאתַיִם.
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 Ḥanina, 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’a of permitted food, which is one hundred ninety-two times as much as a quarter-log.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל? שָׁאנֵי צִיר, דְּזֵיעָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Yehuda say that fish brine is nullified at all? Doesn’t 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.
כֵּיצַד מְשַׁעֲרִינַן? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כְּבָשָׂר בְּרָאשֵׁי לְפָתוֹת. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּהַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
§ 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 Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor at all.
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִינָא אַבָּבָא. כִּי נְפַק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֲמַר לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁרְיָא נִיהֲלֵיהּ.
There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina say to you? The man said to him: He permitted me to eat the thigh.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲדַר עַיְּילַיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: מַאן הַאי דְּקָא מְצַעַר לִי? זִיל אֵימָא לֵיהּ לְמַאן דְּיָתֵיב אַבָּבָא: אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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 Ḥanina, Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
כִּי אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, מְשַׁדַּר לְהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן חֲלוּב, דְּמוֹרֵי בַּהּ לְהֶיתֵּירָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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 Yitzḥak ben Ḥalov, 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.
גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל. וְלִיבְטוֹל בְּרוּבָּא!
§ 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.
Follow
