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.
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the continued health and good outcome for Talia Nechama bat Chana.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the continued health and good outcome for Talia Nechama bat Chana.
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.
Hullin 44: Resolved by a Bat Kol/Heavenly Voice (Or Not)
June 15, 2026 | ל׳ בסיון תשפ״ו
Hullin 43: Even for Unusual Healing, Don’t Rely on Miracles
June 14, 2026 | כ״ט בסיון תשפ״ו
Hullin 40: Not in the Name of the Mountain, the River, the Sea!
June 11, 2026 | כ״ו בסיון תשפ״ו
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.
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, 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
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
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
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, 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.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
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
