Chullin Daf 97 (חולין דף צ״ז)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (97a)

Segment 1

TYPE: תירוץ

Chelev is different — it permeates

Hebrew/Aramaic:

שָׁאנֵי חֵלֶב, דִּמְפַעְפַּע.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: Forbidden fat is different from the sciatic nerve, because its flavor permeates throughout the animal, unlike that of the sciatic nerve.

קלאוד על הדף:

The daf opens by answering the challenge that closed 96b. Rav Huna’s stringency about a kid roasted in its forbidden fat does not contradict Shmuel’s peel-and-eat leniency for a thigh roasted with its gid, because chelev is fundamentally different: fat is rich and mobile, and when heated its flavor migrates (mefapea) through the entire animal. A nerve is dry and inert — its flavor stays local under roasting — so the two rulings occupy different physical realities.

Key Terms:

• מְפַעְפֵּעַ (mefapea) = Permeates/spreads — the property of fat whose flavor migrates through surrounding meat when heated
• חֵלֶב (chelev) = The forbidden fats of a domesticated animal (around the kidneys and flanks), prohibited by the Torah

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

R’ Yochanan’s peel-and-eat ruling in Maon; answer — the kid was lean

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּבְחֵלֶב אָסוּר? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּכְנִישְׁתָּא דְמָעוֹן, בִּגְדִי שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ בְּחֶלְבּוֹ, וַאֲתוֹ וְשַׁיְילוּהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמַר: קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְחֶלְבּוֹ! הָהוּא כָּחוּשׁ הֲוָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara challenges Rav Huna’s statement: And in the case of a kid roasted with its forbidden fat, is the meat forbidden? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say: There was an incident that came before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the synagogue of the town of Maon, where a young goat was roasted with its fat, and the people came and asked Rabbi Yoḥanan about the status of the meat, and he said: Peel away the meat and eat it until you reach the forbidden fat? This indicates that the flavor of the fat does not permeate the entire animal in which it is roasted. The Gemara answers: That kid was lean and had so little fat that its flavor did not permeate throughout the animal.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabba bar bar Chana’s report seems to refute the permeation principle: a kid was roasted in its own chelev in the synagogue of Maon, and R’ Yochanan ruled peel-and-eat until you reach the fat — exactly the leniency just denied for chelev. The Gemara defends the distinction: that particular kid was lean (kachush), with so little fat that there was nothing to permeate. The principle stands; the incident was an exception in fact, not in law.

Key Terms:

• כָּחוּשׁ (kachush) = Lean — an animal with minimal fat, whose chelev is too scant to spread flavor
• קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל (kolef v’ochel) = Peel and eat — consuming a roast layer by layer until reaching the forbidden part

Segment 3

TYPE: גמרא

Two alternative accounts of the Maon incident — a kidney in its fat; a kilkhit in a stewpot

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר: כּוּלְיָא בְּחֶלְבָּהּ הֲוָה, וְשַׁרְיַאּ. רָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר: כִּילְכִּית בְּאִילְפָּס הֲוָה, וַאֲתוֹ שַׁיְילוּהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: לִיטְעֲמֵיהּ קַפִּילָא אֲרַמָּאָה.

English Translation:

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said: That was a case of a kidney of a young goat roasted with its forbidden fat, and Rabbi Yoḥanan permitted it to be eaten because there is a membrane that separates the fat from the kidney and prevents the fat from penetrating the kidney. Ravin bar Rav Adda said: That was a case of a small, non-kosher fish known as kilkhit, which fell into a stewpot [ilpas], and they came to ask Rabbi Yoḥanan about its status. And he said to them: Let a gentile cook [kapeila] taste it in order to determine whether the flavor of the non-kosher fish has permeated the entire mixture.

קלאוד על הדף:

Two Amoraim retell the incident so that it never touches the permeation principle at all. Rav Huna bar Yehuda: it was a kidney roasted in its fat — permitted because the kidney’s membrane blocks the fat from penetrating. Ravin bar Rav Adda relocates it entirely: a small non-kosher fish (kilkhit) fell into a stewpot, and R’ Yochanan said to have a gentile cook (kapeila) taste the dish. This last version quietly introduces the daf’s central institution — the professional taster — which Rava is about to build into a system.

Key Terms:

• כּוּלְיָא (kulya) = Kidney — encased in a membrane that separates it from the surrounding fat
• כִּילְכִּית (kilkhit) = A small non-kosher fish
• קַפִּילָא (kapeila) = A professional cook; a gentile kapeila may be relied upon to report whether a forbidden flavor is present

Segment 4

TYPE: ברייתא

Rava’s initial difficulty — the meat-pot and teruma-pot baraita

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רָבָא: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה קָא קַשְׁיָא לִי הָא דְּתַנְיָא: קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר – לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חָלָב, וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם; תְּרוּמָה – לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חוּלִּין, וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.

English Translation:

Rava said: Initially that which is taught in the following baraita posed a difficulty for me: With regard to a pot in which one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it; and if he did cook milk in it, the meat absorbed by the pot renders the milk forbidden if it imparts flavor to the milk. Similarly, if one cooked teruma in a pot, one may not cook non-sacred food in it; and if one did cook non-sacred food in it, the absorbed teruma renders the food in the pot sacred if it imparts flavor to it.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava recounts a difficulty that once troubled him. A baraita rules that a pot which absorbed meat may not be used for milk, and a pot which absorbed teruma may not be used for chullin — and in both cases, if one did cook, the outcome depends on notein ta’am, whether the absorption imparts flavor. The parallel phrasing implies a parallel procedure for detecting that flavor — and that is precisely what puzzled Rava, as the next segment explains.

Key Terms:

• קְדֵרָה (kedeira) = A pot — its walls absorb flavor from what is cooked in it and discharge it into later dishes
• נוֹתֵן טַעַם (notein ta’am) = Imparting flavor — the operative measure of whether an absorbed or mixed prohibition forbids the dish
• תְּרוּמָה (teruma) = The portion of produce set aside for kohanim, forbidden to non-priests

Segment 5

TYPE: תירוץ

Teruma has a taster — the kohen; for meat-and-milk, rely on the gentile cook

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בִּשְׁלָמָא תְּרוּמָה, טָעֵים לַהּ כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב – מַאן טָעֵים לֵיהּ? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סָמְכִינַן אַקַּפִּילָא אֲרַמָּאָה, הָכָא נָמֵי סָמְכִינַן אַקַּפִּילָא אֲרַמָּאָה.

English Translation:

Rava explains: Granted, in the case of a pot used for teruma, a priest, who is permitted to partake of teruma, can taste the non-sacred food subsequently cooked in the pot in order to determine whether the teruma imparted flavor to the non-sacred food. But in a case where it is not known whether meat imparted flavor into milk, who can taste it? If the meat did impart flavor to the milk, it would be forbidden for any Jew to consume the milk. But now that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We rely on a gentile cook in the case of the kilkhit, here also we rely on a gentile cook to taste it and say whether the meat has imparted flavor to the milk.

קלאוד על הדף:

The difficulty: for the teruma pot there is an obvious procedure — a kohen, permitted to eat teruma, simply tastes the dish. But for meat cooked in a milk pot, who can taste? If the flavor is present the dish is forbidden to every Jew, so no Jew can perform the test. Now that R’ Yochanan’s kilkhit ruling establishes reliance on a gentile kapeila, the symmetry is restored: the gentile cook is the taster wherever a Jewish palate is barred.

Key Terms:

• טָעֵים לַהּ כֹּהֵן (ta’im lah kohen) = A kohen tastes it — the detection procedure available for teruma mixtures
• סָמְכִינַן אַקַּפִּילָא (samchinan a’kapeila) = We rely on the cook — the gentile taster’s report is trusted as expert testimony

Segment 6

TYPE: מימרא

Rava’s codification begins — taste, cook…

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּטַעְמָא, וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּקַפִּילָא,

English Translation:

The Gemara summarizes the guidelines that determine when an item cooked with another item affects the status of the mixture. Rava said: The Sages said that there are cases where one relies on a Jew tasting the food, and the Sages said that there are some cases where one relies on a gentile cook to taste the food,

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava now distills the whole discussion into a canonical rule-set: the Sages said some cases are resolved b’ta’ama (by a Jew tasting), and some b’kapeila (by the gentile cook). The statement breaks mid-sentence at the amud boundary — its third clause, b’shishim (by sixty), and the assignment of each tool to its case, open 97b. This three-tier framework becomes the operating system of the entire law of forbidden mixtures.

Key Terms:

• בְּטַעְמָא (b’ta’ama) = By tasting — direct sampling by someone permitted to eat the mixture
• בְּקַפִּילָא (b’kapeila) = By the cook — the gentile expert taster’s verdict

Amud Bet (97b)

Segment 1

TYPE: מימרא (נמשכת)

…and sixty; the assignment of each tool to its case

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּשִׁשִּׁים. הִלְכָּךְ, מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא – בְּטַעְמָא, דְּאִיסּוּרָא – בְּקַפִּילָא.

English Translation:

and the Sages said that there are cases where the mixture is permitted if there is sixty times as much permitted food as forbidden food. Therefore, in a case where the mixture is a type of food mixed with food not of its own type, so that there is a difference in taste between the two components, when there are Jews for whom the mixture is permitted, one relies on a Jew tasting the mixture. This is the halakha when teruma is cooked with non-sacred food. When the mixture is potentially forbidden, e.g., in the case of meat cooked with milk, one relies on a gentile cook to taste it.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava’s rule concludes: the third tool is shishim — nullification in sixty parts. The assignment follows. A mixture of unlike types (min b’she’eino mino) that is heteira — permitted to someone, like teruma in chullin — is tested b’ta’ama, by the permitted party tasting. Unlike types that are issura — forbidden to all Jews, like meat in milk — go b’kapeila, to the gentile cook. Taste is always the ideal measure; the only question is who may sample it.

Key Terms:

• מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ (min b’she’eino mino) = A type mixed with a different type — the flavors are distinguishable, so tasting is meaningful
• דְּהֶיתֵּרָא / דְּאִיסּוּרָא (d’heteira / d’issura) = A mixture permitted to some (teruma) versus forbidden to all Jews (meat-and-milk)

Segment 2

TYPE: מימרא (נמשכת)

Like-with-like, or no cook available — sixty

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ, דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵיקַם אַטַּעְמָא, אִי נָמֵי מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ דְּאִיסּוּרָא, דְּלֵיכָּא קַפִּילָא – בְּשִׁשִּׁים.

English Translation:

And if the mixture is composed of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, where one cannot ascertain whether the forbidden component has imparted flavor; or if it is composed of a type of food mixed with food not of its own type when the mixture may be forbidden and it is a case where there is no gentile cook available to taste it, the mixture is permitted if there is sixty times as much permitted food as forbidden food.

קלאוד על הדף:

The fallback tier: where tasting is impossible, measure. In min b’mino — like mixed with like — the flavors are identical, so no palate can detect the forbidden component; and even in unlike types that are forbidden, there may be no kapeila at hand. In both cases the mixture is permitted only if the permitted food is sixty times the forbidden. Shishim is thus not a rival principle to taste but its statistical surrogate — the volume at which the Sages determined flavor is no longer imparted.

Key Terms:

• מִין בְּמִינוֹ (min b’mino) = Like mixed with like — indistinguishable flavors, where tasting cannot decide
• שִׁשִּׁים (shishim) = Sixty — the ratio of permitted to forbidden at which flavor is deemed absent and the mixture permitted

Segment 3

TYPE: מעשה

The salted thighs at the Exilarch’s house

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הָנְהוּ אַטְמָהָתָא דְּאִימְּלִיחוּ בֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא בְּגִידָא נַשְׁיָא, רָבִינָא אָסַר, רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי שָׁרֵי. אֲתוֹ שַׁיְילוּהּ לְמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אַבָּא שָׁרֵי.

English Translation:

The Gemara (96b) cited Shmuel’s opinion with regard to the thigh of an animal that was roasted or cooked with the sciatic nerve still inside. The Gemara relates the following incident: There were those animal thighs that were salted in the home of the Exilarch with the sciatic nerve still inside; Ravina ruled that they were forbidden, whereas Rav Aḥa bar Rav Ashi ruled that they were permitted. They came and asked Mar bar Rav Ashi to render a decision. He said to them: My father permitted the meat in such circumstances.

קלאוד על הדף:

A live case tests Shmuel’s framework from 96b. Thighs were salted at the Exilarch’s residence with the sciatic nerve still inside: Ravina forbade them, Rav Acha bar Rav Ashi permitted, and when the question reached Mar bar Rav Ashi he reported simply, ‘My father permitted’ in such circumstances. The question underneath: does salting transmit the gid’s flavor through the thigh like cooking, or does it leave flavor local like roasting?

Key Terms:

• אַטְמָהָתָא (atmahata) = Thighs (Aramaic)
• רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא (Reish Galuta) = The Exilarch — the political head of Babylonian Jewry, whose household kitchen generated frequent halachic questions
• גִּידָא נַשְׁיָא (gida nashya) = The sciatic nerve (Aramaic) — the gid hanasheh

Segment 4

TYPE: קושיא

What is your reasoning — Shmuel’s ‘salted is like boiling’?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב לְרָבִינָא: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ, כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל.

English Translation:

Rav Aḥa bar Rav said to Ravina: What is your reasoning in prohibiting the meat? Is it because of what Shmuel said: A salted food item is considered like a boiling hot food item, and a food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like is considered like a cooked food item? Perhaps based on this statement of Shmuel you consider the salted thighs as though they have been cooked with their sciatic nerves, in which case they are forbidden.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Acha bar Rav presses Ravina to justify the prohibition. Presumably Ravina relies on Shmuel’s own dictum: malia’ch harei hu k’rotei’ach — a salted item is like a boiling one — and kavush harei hu ki’mevushal — a marinated item is like a cooked one. On that reading, salting the thighs with the gid inside is equivalent to cooking them with it, and Shmuel himself (96b) forbids a thigh cooked with its nerve entirely.

Key Terms:

• מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ (malia’ch harei hu k’rotei’ach) = A salted item is like a boiling-hot item — salt extracts and transmits flavor as heat does
• כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל (kavush harei hu ki’mevushal) = A marinated/pickled item is like a cooked item — prolonged soaking equals cooking

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא (נמשכת)

But Shmuel himself limited the prohibition to cooking

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ, אֲבָל נִצְלָה בָּהּ – קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַגִּיד.

English Translation:

But didn’t Shmuel also say (96b): They taught that the thigh is entirely forbidden only when it was cooked with the sciatic nerve inside it. But if the sciatic nerve was roasted inside the thigh, one may peel away the meat and eat it until he reaches the sciatic nerve, and then he removes the nerve.

קלאוד על הדף:

The challenge sharpens: Shmuel is also the author of the leniency (96b) — ‘they taught only where it was cooked with it, but roasted, one peels and eats until reaching the gid.’ So Shmuel’s own system distinguishes cooking, which spreads flavor, from roasting, which does not. To convict the salted thighs, Ravina must decide which side of that line salting falls on — and Shmuel’s dicta are about to be read against him.

Key Terms:

• לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא (lo shanu ela) = They taught only — a formula restricting a ruling to its stated case
• נִצְלָה (nitzlah) = Was roasted — dry heat, which keeps flavor local

Segment 6

TYPE: דחייה וסיום — קשיא

‘Like boiling’ means like the boiling of roasting; kashya on Ravina

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְכִי תֵּימָא, מַאי כְּרוֹתֵחַ דְּקָאָמַר? כְּרוֹתֵחַ דִּמְבוּשָּׁל! וְהָא מִדְּקָאָמַר כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל, מִכְּלָל דְּרוֹתֵחַ דְּצָלִי קָאָמַר. קַשְׁיָא.

English Translation:

And if you would say: What is the meaning of the phrase: Like a boiling hot food item, that Shmuel said? It is like boiling hot food that was cooked rather than hot food that was roasted, and therefore if the thigh was salted with its sciatic nerve the entire thigh becomes forbidden. This is not a convincing claim, because from the fact that Shmuel said: A food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like is considered like a cooked food item, it may be understood by inference that when he said that salted food is like boiling hot food he was saying that it is like boiling hot food that is roasted. The Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Ravina.

קלאוד על הדף:

Could Ravina answer that ‘salted is like boiling’ means like the boiling of cooked food — making salting equal to cooking and the thighs forbidden? The Gemara refutes it from the dictum’s own structure: since Shmuel separately said ‘marinated is like cooked,’ the salted clause must mean something less — like the heat of roasting. Salting therefore parallels roasting, where Shmuel says peel-and-eat, and the thighs should be permitted. The sugya closes kashya — a standing difficulty against Ravina, and the practical vindication of Mar bar Rav Ashi’s report.

Key Terms:

• קַשְׁיָא (kashya) = It remains difficult — a standing objection, softer than tiyuvta but leaving the position wounded
• רוֹתֵחַ דְּצָלִי (rotei’ach d’tzali) = The boiling-heat of roasting — the weaker transmission salting is equated to

Segment 7

TYPE: מימרא

R’ Chanina — what counts toward the sixty

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּשֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִין, מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּרוֹטֶב וּבַקֵּיפֶה וּבַחֲתִיכוֹת וּבִקְדֵרָה. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּקְדֵרָה עַצְמָהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּמַאי דְּבָלְעָה קְדֵרָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara elaborates on the statement that if permitted and forbidden foods are cooked together and there is sixty times as much permitted food as forbidden food, the mixture is permitted. Rabbi Ḥanina says: When they assess whether or not there is sixty times as much permitted food, they assess the volume of the broth, the deposits [kifa], the pieces of permitted food cooked in the pot, and the pot itself. The Gemara explains this last point: There are those who say this means that one includes the volume of the material of the pot itself, and there are those who say it means that one includes the volume of that which the pot has absorbed from the permitted food. When meat cooks its volume decreases, and some of the meat that constitutes that discrepancy is absorbed into the sides of the pot.

קלאוד על הדף:

R’ Chanina defines the denominator of the sixty-measure: one counts the broth, the kifa (the thick sediment of the dish), the pieces of permitted meat, and the pot. Two readings of the last item: the substance of the pot itself, or the volume the pot has absorbed — meat shrinks in cooking, and the lost volume is assumed to sit in the pot’s walls, still counting toward the nullifying mass. Either way, the principle is generous: everything the forbidden flavor diffused into helps dilute it.

Key Terms:

• קֵיפָה (kifa) = The thick deposits/sediment at the bottom of a cooked dish
• בְּמַאי דְּבָלְעָה קְדֵרָה (b’mai d’val’ah kedeira) = That which the pot absorbed — the cooked-off volume reckoned into the sixty

Segment 8

TYPE: מימרא

All Torah prohibitions assessed as if onion and leek

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה (מְשַׁעֲרִינַן) [מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתָן] כְּאִילּוּ הֵן בָּצָל וְקַפְלוֹט.

English Translation:

The Gemara continues its discussion of nullification. Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to all forbidden foods that are prohibited in the Torah, if they are cooked with permitted food and one cannot tell whether they have imparted flavor to the permitted food, we assess the mixture as though the forbidden food were onion or leek [kaflot]. If that amount of onions or leeks would impart flavor to the permitted food, one must assume that the mixture is forbidden.

קלאוד על הדף:

R’ Abbahu in R’ Yochanan’s name supplies the yardstick for when actual tasting is unavailable: assess every Torah prohibition as though the forbidden item were onion or leek (kaflot). That is, ask whether that quantity of the most flavor-aggressive ordinary food would season the dish; if it would, the mixture is forbidden. The rule standardizes the immeasurable — rather than guessing each substance’s potency, halacha assigns all prohibitions a single worst-ordinary-case flavor profile.

Key Terms:

• בָּצָל וְקַפְלוֹט (batzal v’kaflot) = Onion and leek — the benchmark strong-flavored foods used as the standard of assessment

Segment 9

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not assess by pepper and spices? The Sages fixed the ceiling at onion and leek

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וּלְשַׁעֲרִינְהוּ בְּפִלְפְּלִין וְתַבְלִין, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶלֶף לֹא בְּטֵלִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים דְּאֵין נוֹתֵן טַעַם בְּאִיסּוּרִין יוֹתֵר מִבָּצָל וְקַפְלוֹט.

English Translation:

Rabbi Abba said to Abaye: But let one assess the mixture as though the forbidden food were pepper or other spices, which are even more pungent, in which case they would not be nullified even if they were mixed with a thousand times as much permitted food. Abaye said to him: The Sages ascertained that with regard to forbidden foods, there is nothing that imparts more flavor to a mixture than onion and leek.

קלאוד על הדף:

R’ Abba objects: if we want a worst case, pepper and spices are sharper still — they are not nullified even in a thousand parts, and measuring by them would forbid nearly everything. Abaye answers that the benchmark is not a theoretical maximum but an empirical calibration: the Sages determined that among actual forbidden foods, nothing imparts more flavor than onion and leek. Spices are a different category of substance; issurim are assessed against the strongest flavor their own class can produce.

Key Terms:

• פִּלְפְּלִין וְתַבְלִין (pilpelin v’tavlin) = Pepper and spices — flavor so intense it is never nullified, even in a thousand parts
• שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים (shi’aru chachamim) = The Sages assessed/calibrated — an empirically fixed halachic standard

Segment 10

TYPE: מימרא

Rav Nachman — gid, udder, egg: sixty, and who counts toward it

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: גִּיד בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְאֵין גִּיד מִן הַמִּנְיָן; כְּחָל בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וּכְחָל מִן הַמִּנְיָן; בֵּיצָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְאֵין בֵּיצָה מִן הַמִּנְיָן.

English Translation:

The Gemara continues to discuss the nullification of forbidden foods. Rav Naḥman says: A sciatic nerve that was cooked with kosher food is nullified if the mixture contains permitted food that is sixty times the nerve’s volume, and the sciatic nerve itself is not counted in that number, because it cannot nullify itself. If an udder, which is meat but also contains milk, is cooked with other meat, the milk is nullified if the meat is sixty times its volume, and the udder itself is counted with the rest of the meat. If the egg of a non-kosher bird is cooked with kosher food, it is nullified if the permitted food is sixty times its volume, and the egg itself is not counted in that number, as it cannot nullify itself.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Nachman applies the sixty-measure to three classic cases, with a precise accounting rule. A gid cooked with kosher food: sixty against it, and the gid is not counted in the sixty — a forbidden item cannot join the mass that nullifies itself. An udder (kechal) cooked with meat: sixty against its milk, and the udder is counted — the udder’s own flesh is kosher meat, only the milk within it is the problem, so the flesh itself helps dilute. A non-kosher egg: sixty, and the egg is not counted, like the gid.

Key Terms:

• כְּחָל (kechal) = Udder — kosher meat containing milk, cooked meat-with-milk being the concern
• אֵין… מִן הַמִּנְיָן (ein… min haminyan) = Not counted in the number — the forbidden item is excluded from the sixty that nullifies it

Segment 11

TYPE: מימרא

The udder itself remains forbidden and forbids a second pot

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וּכְחָל עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר, וְאִי נָפַל לִקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת – אוֹסֵר.

English Translation:

Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, says: In the case of an udder cooked with meat, even if the meat is sixty times the volume of the milk, so that the meat is permitted, the udder itself is forbidden, because the meat imparts flavor to the milk contained within the udder, which then renders the udder forbidden. And if the udder subsequently falls into another pot, it also renders the contents of that pot forbidden unless they are sixty times the volume of the udder.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Mesharshiya adds a sting to the udder’s leniency: even when the pot holds sixty and the dish is permitted, the udder itself remains forbidden — the surrounding meat has imparted meat-flavor into the milk held within it, rendering the udder a cooked meat-and-milk item. And it carries that status forward: if the udder falls into a second pot, it forbids those contents too unless they are sixty against it.

Key Terms:

• כְּחָל עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר (kechal atzmo asur) = The udder itself is forbidden — it absorbed meat flavor into its own milk even when the dish around it is permitted

Segment 12

TYPE: בעיא

Rav Ashi — assess against the udder itself, or against what came out of it?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, אִיבַּעְיָא לַן: כִּי מְשַׁעֲרִינַן בְּדִידֵיהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, אוֹ בְּמַאי דִּנְפַק מִינֵּיהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן?

English Translation:

Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, a dilemma was raised before us: When we assess whether the contents of the pot are sufficient to nullify the udder, do we assess whether the pot contains sixty times as much permitted food as the entire volume of the meat of the udder itself, or do we assess only that milk which came out from the udder, since the udder itself has been removed from the mixture?

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Ashi recalls a dilemma from Rav Kahana’s study hall: when measuring sixty against an udder, is the denominator the whole udder — its entire meat volume — or only the milk that actually exuded from it into the pot? The stakes are practical: measuring against the whole udder demands a far larger pot of permitted food than measuring against a trickle of milk.

Key Terms:

• בְּדִידֵיהּ (b’dideih) = Against it itself — the whole udder’s volume as the measure
• בְּמַאי דִּנְפַק מִינֵּיהּ (b’mai di’nfak mineih) = Against what came out of it — only the exuded milk

Segment 13

TYPE: פשיטא וקושיא

Obviously the whole udder — but then why does it forbid a second pot?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

פְּשִׁיטָא דִּבְדִידֵיהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, דְּאִי בְּמָה דִּנְפַק מִינֵּיהּ – מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, נָפַל לִקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת – לֹא יֶאֱסֹר?

English Translation:

The Gemara responds: It is obvious that we assess the entire volume of the meat of the udder itself, as if we were to attempt to assess only that which came out of it, how would we know how much came out? The Gemara objects: If that is so, then if the udder falls into another pot, it should not render the food in that second pot forbidden, because it has been assumed that all the milk in the udder has been released into the first pot.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara answers on pragmatic grounds: obviously we measure against the whole udder, for how could anyone know how much milk came out? The unmeasurable cannot be a legal standard. But this generates its own difficulty: if we assume all the milk was surrendered to the first pot’s reckoning, an udder that later falls into a second pot should have nothing left to give — yet Rav Yitzchak said it forbids the second pot.

Key Terms:

• מְנָא יָדְעִינַן (mena yad’inan) = How would we know? — an unmeasurable quantity cannot serve as a halachic measure

Segment 14

TYPE: תירוץ

The Sages made the udder like a piece of neveila

Hebrew/Aramaic:

כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וּכְחָל עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר, שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כַּחֲתִיכָה דִּנְבֵלָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara explains: Since Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, says that even if there is sixty times as much meat in the pot as there is milk in the udder, the udder itself is forbidden, clearly the Sages equated the udder with a piece of non-kosher meat. Consequently, the reason the udder renders the contents of the second pot forbidden is that the udder is intrinsically forbidden, not because of the milk that is released into the pot while it is being cooked.

קלאוד על הדף:

The resolution reframes the second-pot rule. The udder forbids the second pot not because of milk still seeping out, but because — as Rav Yitzchak taught — the udder itself is intrinsically forbidden: the Sages equated it with a chatikha of neveila, a piece of non-kosher meat. A forbidden piece forbids whatever it falls into (absent sixty) by its own status, regardless of how much it exudes. The accounting question and the intrinsic-status rule thus coexist without contradiction.

Key Terms:

• חֲתִיכָה דִּנְבֵלָה (chatikha di’neveila) = A piece of non-kosher meat — an item that is itself an object of prohibition, not merely a carrier of absorbed flavor

Segment 15

TYPE: קושיא

Does an egg impart flavor? People say ‘mere egg-water’!

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בֵּיצָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְאֵין בֵּיצָה מִן הַמִּנְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין לְאַבָּיֵי: לְמֵימְרָא דְּיָהֲבָה טַעְמָא? וְהָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: כִּי מַיָּא דְּבֵיעֵי בְּעָלְמָא!

English Translation:

The Gemara addresses Rav Naḥman’s statement that if the egg of a non-kosher bird is cooked with kosher food, it is nullified if the permitted food is sixty times its volume, and the egg itself is not counted in that number, as it cannot nullify itself. Rav Idi bar Avin said to Abaye: Is this to say that the forbidden egg imparts flavor to the food with which it is cooked? But isn’t it true that when people want to indicate that food is tasteless, they say: This is like mere egg-water? This indicates that an egg does not impart flavor.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara returns to Rav Nachman’s third clause — the non-kosher egg needing sixty. Rav Idi bar Avin challenges from folk speech: when people call a dish tasteless they say it is ‘like mere egg-water’ (k’maya d’bei’ei b’alma). If the popular palate itself testifies that eggs contribute no flavor, why should a forbidden egg require sixty parts to nullify at all?

Key Terms:

• כִּי מַיָּא דְּבֵיעֵי (ki maya d’bei’ei) = Like egg-water — a folk idiom for utterly tasteless food, marshaled as halachic evidence

Segment 16

TYPE: תירוץ (נמשך)

Abaye — here we are dealing with… (continues on 98a)

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן?

English Translation:

Abaye said to him: Here we are dealing with

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye begins his answer — ‘Here we are dealing with…’ — and the daf ends mid-sentence. The continuation (98a) will identify the case: an egg containing a chick, whose developing embryo does impart real flavor, which is why Rav Nachman’s egg demands sixty. The folk idiom about tasteless egg-water speaks of ordinary eggs and is no objection.

Key Terms:

• הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן (hakha b’mai askinan) = ‘Here, what are we dealing with?’ — the formula that re-identifies a ruling’s true case, resolved on 98a

📝 Summary

Overview

Chullin 97 builds the operating system of the laws of forbidden mixtures. Opening with the answer that chelev differs from the gid because its flavor permeates (mefapea), the daf works through three retellings of the Maon incident, arrives at Rava’s canonical three-tool framework — a Jewish taster (b’ta’ama), a gentile cook (b’kapeila), or nullification in sixty (b’shishim) — and then applies the sixty-measure to concrete cases: what counts toward the sixty, the onion-and-leek benchmark, and Rav Nachman’s trio of gid, udder, and non-kosher egg.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• Chelev is different from the gid: its flavor permeates the animal when heated, so a kid roasted in its fat is forbidden while a thigh roasted with its nerve allows peel-and-eat.
• The Maon incident — R’ Yochanan’s peel-and-eat ruling on a kid roasted in its chelev — is answered: the kid was lean. Two alternative accounts follow: a kidney in its fat (permitted, the membrane blocks penetration) and a kilkhit fish in a stewpot, where R’ Yochanan said to let a gentile cook (kapeila) taste it.
• Rava’s initial difficulty from the meat-pot/teruma-pot baraita: teruma has a taster (the kohen), but who tastes for meat-and-milk? Resolved by R’ Yochanan’s reliance on the kapeila.
• Rava’s canonical rule begins: the Sages said b’ta’ama, and the Sages said b’kapeila…

Amud Bet Highlights

• …and b’shishim. Assignments: unlike types permitted to someone (teruma) — a Jewish taster; unlike types forbidden to all (meat-and-milk) — the gentile cook; like-with-like, or no cook available — sixty.
• The salted thighs at the Exilarch’s house: Ravina forbade, Rav Acha bar Rav Ashi permitted, Mar bar Rav Ashi reported “my father permitted.” Shmuel’s “salted is like boiling” is read to mean the heat of roasting, ending in kashya against Ravina.
• R’ Chanina: the sixty counts broth, kifa, pieces, and the pot (its substance, or what it absorbed).
• R’ Abbahu citing R’ Yochanan: all Torah prohibitions are assessed as if onion and leek; Abaye answers R’ Abba’s pepper objection — the Sages calibrated that no forbidden food imparts more flavor than these.
• Rav Nachman: gid in sixty (not counted), udder in sixty (counted), egg in sixty (not counted). The udder itself remains forbidden and forbids a second pot — the Sages made it like a chatikha of neveila. Rav Idi bar Avin’s “mere egg-water” objection breaks to 98a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Rava’s three-tier framework stands as the canonical rule. The salted-thighs sugya ends kashya against Ravina, vindicating the lenient ruling. Rav Ashi’s dilemma is resolved: measure against the whole udder, and the second-pot rule holds because the udder is intrinsically forbidden as a chatikha of neveila. Abaye’s answer to the egg-water objection breaks mid-sentence, resolved on 98a (an egg with a chick inside).

Key Figures

Tannaim: None named — the daf is entirely Amoraic apart from the anonymous meat-pot/teruma-pot baraita. Amoraim: R’ Yochanan, Rabba bar bar Chana, Rav Huna bar Yehuda, Ravin bar Rav Adda, Rava, Shmuel (cited), Ravina, Rav Acha bar Rav Ashi, Rav Acha bar Rav, Mar bar Rav Ashi, R’ Chanina, R’ Abbahu, R’ Abba, Abaye, Rav Nachman, Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Mesharshiya, Rav Ashi, Rav Kahana, Rav Idi bar Avin

One-Line Takeaway

Taste is the true measure of a forbidden mixture — and where no permitted palate can test it, halacha substitutes the gentile expert or the sixty-fold measure that guarantees flavor is gone.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is the great “taste test” page of the Talmud! Almost every rule about what happens when a tiny bit of non-kosher food falls into kosher food starts right here. The big question: when something forbidden gets mixed in, how do we know if it ruined the whole dish?

Fat Travels, Nerves Stay Home 🧈

Yesterday ended with a puzzle: why is a leg roasted with the forbidden nerve (the gid hanasheh — the sciatic nerve, which the Torah forbids us to eat) okay to peel and eat, while a kid goat roasted in its forbidden fat (chelev — special fats around the kidneys that the Torah forbids) is a problem?

Today’s answer: fat and nerves behave totally differently in the oven! Fat melts and its flavor seeps everywhere — the Gemara calls this mefapea, “it spreads.” A nerve is dry and boring; its taste just stays put.

Think of it like… dropping a pat of butter versus a pebble onto hot toast. The butter melts and soaks into every corner. The pebble? It just sits there. You can pick it off and the toast is fine.

The Simple Idea 💡: Melty, rich things spread their flavor everywhere; dry things keep their flavor to themselves.

The Mystery of the Maon Goat 🐐

But wait! There’s a famous story: a goat was roasted in its own forbidden fat in the town of Maon, and the great Rabbi Yochanan said, “Peel off the meat and eat it until you reach the fat.” Doesn’t that break our new rule?

The Gemara gives three answers. One: that goat was super skinny — barely any fat, so there was nothing to spread. Two: maybe it was really a kidney roasted in its fat, and a kidney wears its own protective wrapper (a membrane) that blocks the fat, like food in a ziplock bag. Three: maybe the story was actually about a tiny non-kosher fish that fell into a big stewpot — and Rabbi Yochanan said, “Have a professional non-Jewish chef taste it and tell us if the fish flavor is there.”

That last version is a big deal, because it introduces the star of the daf: the kapeila, the expert taster!

Think of it like… calling in a professional referee. You can’t judge your own game, but a neutral expert can tell you honestly what happened.

The Simple Idea 💡: The famous lenient story doesn’t break the rule — and it gave us the idea of the expert taste-tester.

Rava’s Three Tools 🧰

Now Rava (a great sage) organizes everything into one neat system. When forbidden food mixes with kosher food, there are three tools:

Tool 1: A Jew tastes it. This works when SOMEONE is allowed to eat the mix. Example: teruma (special food set aside for kohanim, the priests) fell into regular food. A kohen is allowed to eat teruma anyway — so he just tastes it! Flavor there? Forbidden to everyone else. No flavor? All good.

Tool 2: The expert chef tastes it. What if NO Jew may taste it — like maybe-meat-mixed-with-milk? We ask the kapeila, a professional non-Jewish cook, to taste and report.

Tool 3: Count to sixty. Sometimes tasting is useless — like when chicken soup falls into chicken soup (the Gemara calls this min b’mino, “same kind into same kind” — the flavors are identical, so no tongue on Earth can tell them apart!). Or there’s simply no chef around. Then we measure: if the kosher food is SIXTY times bigger than the forbidden bit, the flavor is officially drowned out and the dish is fine.

Think of it like… one drop of juice in a huge swimming pool. At sixty-to-one, the Sages decided the forbidden taste has simply vanished.

The Simple Idea 💡: Taste it if you can, ask an expert if you can’t, and count to sixty when tasting won’t work at all.

The Salty Thighs at the Palace 🧂

Real-life case! At the palace of the Exilarch (the head of the Jews in Babylonia), animal thighs were SALTED with the sciatic nerve still inside. Ravina said: forbidden! Rav Acha said: permitted! Which is it?

Here’s the question underneath: is salting like COOKING in water (which spreads flavor everywhere — whole thigh forbidden) or like ROASTING (flavor stays local — just peel and eat)? Shmuel once said “salted is like boiling hot” — sounds strict! But Shmuel ALSO said “pickled is like cooked.” If pickling is the one that equals cooking, then “salted is like boiling” must mean the weaker kind of hot — like roasting.

The Gemara ends this round with kashya — “it’s a difficulty” for the strict Ravina. Salting acts like roasting, so peel-and-eat wins.

Think of it like… two settings on a machine. Pickling got assigned to the “full power” setting, so salting must be the “gentle” setting.

The Simple Idea 💡: Salting spreads flavor only a little, like roasting — so the salted thighs were okay.

What Counts in the Sixty? 🍲

When we count to sixty, what goes on the kosher side of the scale? Rabbi Chanina says: everything in the pot! The broth, the thick gloopy sediment at the bottom (called kifa), all the meat pieces — and even the pot itself, or at least the juices the pot’s walls soaked up (meat shrinks while cooking, and that lost bit is hiding in the pot walls).

Think of it like… weighing your whole backpack, not just the books. Every single thing the flavor spread into helps dilute it.

The Simple Idea 💡: When counting to sixty, the entire dish — liquid, gloop, meat, even the pot’s absorbed juices — joins the kosher team.

The Onion Test 🧅

What if you can’t taste and you’re estimating? Rabbi Yochanan gives a clever trick: pretend the forbidden item were an ONION or a LEEK — the strongest-tasting normal foods there are. Would that much onion flavor the dish? Then it’s forbidden. Wouldn’t? It’s fine.

But why not pretend it’s PEPPER, which is even stronger? Answer: pepper is in a whole different league — it’s so intense it isn’t cancelled even in a THOUSAND parts! The Sages checked and found no ordinary forbidden food tastes stronger than onion or leek. So that’s the fair worst-case ruler.

Think of it like… measuring kids’ heights against the tallest kid in class — not against a giraffe.

The Simple Idea 💡: When estimating, imagine the forbidden bit was onion — the strongest fair comparison.

Rav Nachman’s Scoreboard 🥚

Rav Nachman rules on three classic cases, and here’s the twist — does the forbidden item itself get counted in its own sixty?

The gid (sciatic nerve): needs sixty against it, and does NOT count toward the sixty. A forbidden thing can’t help cancel itself — that’s like a player refereeing his own game!

The kechal (udder — kosher cow meat that has milk inside it, so cooking it with meat is a meat-and-milk worry): needs sixty against its milk, and DOES count! Why? The udder’s own flesh is perfectly kosher meat — only the milk inside is the issue — so the flesh joins the kosher team.

A non-kosher egg: needs sixty, does NOT count. Like the gid.

One more sting: even when the pot has its sixty and the dish is fine, the udder ITSELF stays forbidden — the meat flavor soaked into its milk, so the Sages treat it like a piece of outright non-kosher meat. And if that udder later falls into a second pot? It forbids THAT pot too, unless there’s sixty against it there!

Think of it like… a sponge that soaked up spilled paint. The room got cleaned, but the sponge is still full of paint — and it’ll stain the next room you carry it into.

The Simple Idea 💡: Kosher parts count toward the sixty, forbidden parts don’t — and the udder stays off-limits even when the dish is saved.

The Cliffhanger 🥚❓

Wait — an egg needs SIXTY? Rav Idi objects: when people call food tasteless, they say it’s “mere egg-water”! If eggs have no flavor, why all the fuss? Abaye opens his mouth: “Here we are dealing with…” — and the page ENDS mid-sentence! (Sneak peek at tomorrow: it’s an egg with a baby chick inside — and THAT definitely has flavor.)

The Simple Idea 💡: Even the Talmud loves a good cliffhanger.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• Forbidden FAT spreads its flavor everywhere when roasted (like melting butter); a NERVE stays put (like a pebble) — so fat is stricter.
• Rava’s three tools: a Jew tastes (if someone may eat it), an expert non-Jewish chef tastes (if no Jew may), and sixty-to-one cancels the flavor (when tasting can’t work).
• Salting acts like gentle roasting, not full cooking — so the salted palace thighs were permitted.
• Everything in the pot — broth, sediment, meat, even what the pot absorbed — counts toward the sixty.
• Can’t taste? Pretend the forbidden bit was an onion, the strongest normal food. (Pepper doesn’t count — it’s never cancelled, even in a thousand!)
• The udder counts toward its own sixty (its flesh is kosher); the nerve and non-kosher egg don’t — and the udder itself stays forbidden and can “infect” a second pot.

⚖️ Halacha

Chullin 97 is arguably the single most consequential daf in Shas for the everyday laws of the kosher kitchen: Rava’s three-tier rule (b’ta’ama, b’kapeila, b’shishim), R’ Chanina’s accounting of the pot, the onion-and-leek benchmark, Rav Nachman’s gid/udder/egg triad, and Shmuel’s malia’ch harei hu k’rotei’ach all flow directly into Rambam Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot chapters 9 and 15 and into Yoreh De’ah simanim 86, 90, 93, 98, 99, and 105. Below, each ruling of the daf is traced to its codification — including the places where the codes follow a later resolution or custom that departs from the daf’s surface reading.

The Permeating Fat: A Kid Roasted in Its Chelev

Source in Daf: 97a, Segments 1-3

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:32

Hebrew:

גְּדִי שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ בְּחֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר לֶאֱכל אֲפִלּוּ מִקְצֵה אָזְנוֹ. שֶׁהָחֵלֶב נִבְלָע בְּאֵיבָרָיו וְהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ וְנוֹתֵן בּוֹ טַעַם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה כָּחוּשׁ וְלֹא הָיָה בּוֹ חֵלֶב כְּלָיוֹת וְלֹא חֵלֶב קֶרֶב אֶלָּא מְעַט כְּאֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַחֵלֶב. וְכֵן יָרֵךְ שֶׁצְּלָאָהּ בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁבָּהּ קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁהוּא מַגִּיעַ לַגִּיד וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁצְּלָאָהּ שְׁלֵמָה וְלֹא הֵסִיר לֹא חוּטִין וְלֹא קְרוּמוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְדָבָר אָסוּר חוֹתְכוֹ וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ שֶׁאֵין בַּגִּידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם כְּדֵי לְשַׁעֵר בָּהֶן:

English:

When a goat is roasted in its fat, it is forbidden to eat from even the tip of its ear. [The rationale is that] the fat permeates through all its limbs, improves [their taste], and imparts flavor. Accordingly, if [a goat] is lean and possessed only a meager amount of fat on its kidneys and digestive organs, i.e., one in sixty-one [of the entire animal], one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the fat.Similarly, when the thigh [of an animal] is roasted together with the gid hanesheh, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the gid [hanesheh]. [This], he should cast away. Similarly, if an animal was roasted whole without removing the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it. When he reaches a forbidden substance, he should cast it away. There is no need to calculate the ratio [of this forbidden tissue to the meat,] for this [forbidden] tissue does not impart flavor.

Connection: This halacha is a direct codification of the opening of 97a. The rule that a kid roasted in its chelev is forbidden “even from the tip of its ear” is Rav Huna’s stringency as explained by the daf’s first segment — chelev is mefapea, its flavor permeates. The exception for a lean animal (kachush) is the Gemara’s answer in Segment 2 to Rabba bar bar Chana’s report of the Maon incident: R’ Yochanan’s peel-and-eat ruling stands only for a lean kid. And the thigh-roasted-with-its-gid clause preserves Shmuel’s kolef v’ochel leniency (96b), which the daf distinguishes from chelev because sinews do not spread flavor.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 105:5

Hebrew:

במה דברים אמורים שאין הצלי אוסר אלא כדי נטילה בירך עם גידו וכיוצא בו דבר כחוש שאין בו כח לפעפע בכל החתיכה אבל גדי שמן שצלאו בחלבו אם אין בכל הגדי ששים כנגד כל החלב שבו אסור לאכול אפילו מראש אזנו שכיון שהוא שמן מפעפע בכולו אבל אם הוא כחוש אף על פי שאין בו ס’ כנגד כל החלב שבו אינו אוסר אלא כדי נטילה שהחלב של בהמה כחושה כחוש הוא בטבעו ואינו מפעפע […] הגה: […] וי”א דאין אנו בקיאין איזה מיקרי כחוש או שמן ויש לאסור בכל ענין עד דאיכא ס’ […] והכי נהוג […]

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

To what does this refer — that roasting forbids only a finger’s breadth (netilah)? To a thigh with its gid and similar lean things, which have no power to spread through the entire piece. But a fatty kid that was roasted in its chelev — if the entire kid does not contain sixty against all the chelev in it, it is forbidden to eat even from the tip of its ear, for since it is fatty, [the chelev] spreads through all of it. But if it is lean, even though it does not contain sixty against all its chelev, it forbids only a netilah, for the chelev of a lean animal is lean by nature and does not spread. […] (Rema: […] And some say that we are not expert in what is called lean or fatty, and one should forbid in every case unless there is sixty […] and so is the practice. […])

Connection: The Mechaber codifies the daf’s lean/fat distinction exactly: mefapea for a fat kid (forbidden throughout, absent sixty), locality for a lean one and for the gid. Note the Rema’s honest departure in practice: since we can no longer judge which fat counts as lean, Ashkenazi custom requires sixty in every case — the daf’s factual distinction survives in principle but not in applied practice.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 105:8

Hebrew:

כוליא שצלאו בחלבו אינו אוסר אלא כדי קליפה שהקרום מפסיק: הגה ויש אוסרים וכן נוהגים ואין לשנות ודינו כשאר חלב הנצלה עם בשר ואם נתבשל כך הכוליא נעשית נבילה וצריך ששים נגד כולה וה”ה בקרום שעל היותרת (סמ”ק והגהות ש”ד והג”א):

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

A kidney that one roasted in its fat forbids only to the depth of a peel (kelipah), for the membrane interposes. (Rema: And some forbid, and so is the practice, and one should not deviate; and its law is like other chelev roasted with meat. And if it was cooked in this manner, the kidney becomes neveila and sixty is required against the whole of it; and the same applies to the membrane on the lobe of the liver.)

Connection: This is Rav Huna bar Yehuda’s retelling of the Maon incident (Segment 3): kulya b’chelbah — the kidney’s membrane blocks the fat, so R’ Yochanan permitted it. The Mechaber rules like that version; the Rema records that Ashkenazi practice does not rely on the membrane and treats it like any chelev roasted with meat.

The Taster System: Kohen, Kapeila, and Sixty

Source in Daf: 97a, Segments 3-6; 97b, Segments 1-2

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:1

Hebrew:

דָבָר אָסוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּדָבָר מֻתָּר מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד עַל טַעֲמוֹ יִבָּטֵל בְּרֹב:

English:

When a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of another type, [it causes it to become forbidden] if its flavor can be detected. When [a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of] the same type and it is impossible to detect [the forbidden substance] by its flavor, its presence becomes nullified if there is a majority [of the permitted substance].

Connection: This is Rava’s framework in miniature: min b’she’eino mino is governed by notein ta’am — actual flavor — while min b’mino, where “it is impossible to detect its flavor” (the daf’s d’leika l’meikam a’ta’ama), falls back on a quantitative standard.

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:29

Hebrew:

וּמִי יִטְעֹם אֶת הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת. אִם הָיָה הַמְעֹרָב תְּרוּמוֹת עִם הַחֻלִּין טוֹעֵם אוֹתָן הַכֹּהֵן. אִם הָיָה טַעַם הַתְּרוּמָה נִכָּר הַכּל מְדֻמָּע. וּבְהִלְכוֹת תְּרוּמוֹת יִתְבָּאֵר דִּין הַמְדֻמָּע:

English:

Who will taste the mixture? If terumot were mixed with ordinary crops, a priest should taste the mixture. If the flavor of the terumah is discernible, the entire mixture is considered as miduma. In Hilchot Terumot, the laws pertaining to [produce that is] miduma will be explained.

Connection: This codifies Rava’s resolution of the teruma-pot baraita (97a, Segment 5): bishlama teruma, ta’im lah kohen — the kohen, who may eat teruma, is the built-in taster for teruma mixtures.

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:30

Hebrew:

וְאִם הָיָה בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְיֵין עָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִדְבַשׁ. אוֹ בְּשַׂר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הָיָּרָק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. טוֹעֵם אוֹתָן הָעַכּוּ”ם וְסוֹמְכִין עַל פִּיו. אִם אָמַר אֵין בּוֹ טַעַם אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר יֵשׁ בּוֹ טַעַם וּמִטַּעַם רַע הוּא וַהֲרֵי פְּגָמוֹ הַכּל מֻתָּר. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה סוֹפוֹ לְהַשְׁבִּיחַ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עַכּוּ”ם לִטְעֹם מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁעוּרוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים אוֹ בַּמֵּאָה אוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם:

English:

If [the mixture involved] meat and milk, wine poured as a libation, wine that was orlah, or [made from grapes that grew together with] mixed species in a vineyard that fell into honey, or the meat of crawling animals or teeming animals that were cooked with vegetables and the like, a gentile should taste [the mixture].We rely on his word. If he says: “It does not have the flavor [of the forbidden substance],” or he says: “It [imparted] its flavor, but that flavor is bad and it detracts [from the flavor of the permitted substance,” the entire [mixture] is permitted, provided it will not ultimately improve it, as we explained. If there is no gentile to taste it, we rely on the measures of 60, 100, or 200.

Connection: This is the other half of Rava’s rule: for meat-in-milk and other mixtures forbidden to every Jew (min b’she’eino mino d’issura), no Jewish palate is available, so we rely on the gentile taster — R’ Yochanan’s kapeila from the kilkhit incident (97a, Segment 3), generalized in Segment 5 (“hashta d’amar R’ Yochanan samchinan a’kapeila… hakha nami samchinan a’kapeila”). And when no gentile is available — b’shishim: the closing clause of Rava’s statement as it opens 97b.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 98:1

Hebrew:

איסור שנתערב בהיתר מין בשאינו מינו כגון חלב שנתערב בבשר יטעמנו עובד כוכבים אם אומר שאין בו טעם חלב או שאומר שיש בו טעם אלא שהוא פגום מותר והוא שלא יהא סופו להשביח וצריך שלא ידע שסומכין עליו ואם אין שם עובד כוכבים לטועמו משערינן בס’ וכן אם הוא מין במינו כיון דליכא למיקם אטעמא משערים בס’ (ואין נוהגים עכשיו לסמוך אעובד כוכבים ומשערינן הכל בס’) (באגור ותשובת מהר”מ פדואה סימן ע”ט ושאר אחרונים):

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

A forbidden food that became mixed into permitted food of a different type — for example, forbidden fat (chelev) that became mixed into meat — a gentile should taste it. If he says there is no taste of chelev in it, or he says there is a taste but it is a detrimental one, it is permitted — provided that it will not eventually improve [the dish], and provided that he does not know that we rely upon him. And if there is no gentile available to taste it, we assess by sixty. And likewise, if it is a mixture of like type with like type, since the taste cannot be determined, we assess by sixty. (Rema: And nowadays we do not practice reliance on a gentile, and we assess everything by sixty.)

Connection: Siman 98 opens Yoreh De’ah’s mixture laws with Rava’s exact architecture from this daf: taste where possible, the gentile taster where a Jew cannot taste, sixty where neither applies (min b’mino — d’leika l’meikam a’ta’ama, in the daf’s own words). The Mechaber adds the Rishonim’s condition that the gentile speak innocently (masiach lefi tumo), not knowing he is being relied upon. The Rema’s gloss must be stated honestly: since the Agur and Maharam Padua, Ashkenazi (and now near-universal) practice no longer relies on the kapeila at all, and everything is assessed at sixty. The daf’s taster remains the theory; sixty is the practice.

The Meat Pot and the Milk Pot

Source in Daf: 97a, Segments 4-5

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 9:11

Hebrew:

קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חָלָב. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם:

English:

When meat has been cooked in a pot, milk should not be cooked in it. If one cooked [milk] in it, [it is forbidden] if it imparted its flavor.

Connection: This is the meat-pot clause of the baraita Rava cites in 97a, Segment 4, codified nearly verbatim: kedeira she’bishel bah basar — lo yevashel bah chalav, v’im bishel — b’notein ta’am.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 93:1

Hebrew:

קדירה שבשל בה בשר לא יבשל בה חלב ואם בישל בה בתוך מעת לעת אסור בנותן טעם (וצריך לשער נגד כל הקדירה) אבל אם שהה מעת לעת קודם שבישל בה הוי ליה נותן טעם לפגם ומותר התבשיל אבל הקדרה אסורה לבשל בה לא בשר ולא חלב: […]

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

A pot in which one cooked meat — one may not cook milk in it. And if one cooked in it within twenty-four hours, [the food] is forbidden if flavor is imparted (Rema: and one must assess against the entire pot). But if it stood a full day before he cooked in it, it is flavor-imparted-to-detriment (notein ta’am lifgam), and the cooked dish is permitted — but the pot itself remains forbidden for cooking either meat or milk. […]

Connection: The same baraita, refined by later halacha: the ben-yomo distinction (within twenty-four hours) determines whether the pot’s absorbed flavor still improves, and the Rema’s parenthesis applies YD 98:4’s principle — since one cannot know how much the walls absorbed, one measures sixty against the whole pot. The daf’s simple b’notein ta’am became, in practice, this stricter accounting.

Malia’ch Harei Hu K’Rotei’ach: The Salted Thighs

Source in Daf: 97b, Segments 3-6

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 9:18

Hebrew:

מָלִיחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ. וְאִם נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ הַכּוּתָח אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹתֵחַ:

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

A salted item that cannot be eaten because of its salt is like a boiling-hot item (rotei’ach); and if it can be eaten as it is, like kutach, it is not like a boiling-hot item.

Connection: Shmuel’s dictum from Segment 4 — malia’ch harei hu k’rotei’ach — codified with the Gemara’s operative threshold (elsewhere, Chullin 112a): only salting so heavy the item is inedible counts as rotei’ach.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 105:1

Hebrew:

איסור שנשרה עם היתר מעת לעת בצונן מקרי כבוש והרי הוא כמבושל ונאסר כולו אבל פחו’ מכאן בהדחה סגי: […] ואם הוא כבוש בתוך ציר או בתוך חומץ (ד”ע) אם שהה כדי שיתננו על האור וירתיח ויתחיל להתבשל הרי הוא כמבושל ובפחות משיעור זה לא נאסר אלא כדי קליפה (וע”ל סימן ע’ מדין בשר שנפל לציר):

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

A forbidden food that soaked together with permitted food in cold liquid for a full day (me’et le’et) is called kavush, and it is like cooked (kavush harei hu ki’mevushal), and the whole of it becomes forbidden; but for less than this, rinsing suffices. […] And if it was soaked in brine or in vinegar — if it remained long enough that, were it placed on the fire, it would come to a boil and begin to cook, it is like cooked; and in less than this measure, it is forbidden only to the depth of a peel.

Connection: The second half of Shmuel’s dictum in Segment 4 — kavush harei hu ki’mevushal — codified with the measures the later halacha assigned it: twenty-four hours in cold liquid, or the boiling-time interval in brine or vinegar.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 105:9

Hebrew:

מליח שאינו נאכל מחמת מלחו דינו כרותח ומפליט לאסור כדי קליפה ואם הוא שומן הגיד וקנוקנות שבו והקרומות יש להחמיר ולהצריכם נטילת מקום ואם הוא חלב ממש צריך ששים לבטלו […] הגה: […] ולפי שאין אנו בקיאין בין בשר שמן לכחוש נוהגין לשער בכל מליחה בס’ כמו בבישול […]

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

A salted item that cannot be eaten because of its salt has the status of boiling-hot, and it discharges so as to forbid to the depth of a peel (kelipah). And if it is the fat of the gid, the filaments (kenokanot) in it, and the membranes, one should be stringent and require removal of a finger’s breadth (netilat makom); and if it is actual chelev, sixty is required to nullify it. […] (Rema: […] And since we are not expert at distinguishing fatty meat from lean, the practice is to assess every salting by sixty, as with cooking. […])

Connection: This seif is the codified outcome of the salted-thighs case at the Exilarch’s house (Segments 3-6). The Gemara closed with a kashya against Ravina: since Shmuel separately said kavush is like cooked, malia’ch must mean only like the heat of roasting (rotei’ach d’tzali) — so salting, like roasting, forbids only locally, vindicating Rav Acha bar Rav Ashi and Mar bar Rav Ashi’s father. The Mechaber rules exactly that: salted = rotei’ach that forbids a kelipah (like roasting), not the whole piece — with netilat makom for the gid’s fat and sixty only for actual chelev. The Rema again converts theory to practice: because we cannot judge fat versus lean, Ashkenazi custom assesses every salting at sixty as if it were cooking — a practical stringency that lands near Ravina’s position, though for a different reason.

What Counts Toward the Sixty

Source in Daf: 97b, Segment 7 (R’ Chanina); Segments 12-13 (Rav Ashi’s dilemma)

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:24

Hebrew:

כְּשֶׁמְּשַׁעֲרִין בְּכָל הָאִסּוּרִין בֵּין בְּשִׁשִּׁים בֵּין בְּמֵאָה בֵּין בְּמָאתַיִם. מְשַׁעֲרִין בַּמָּרָק וּבַתַּבְלִין וּבְכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּקְּדֵרָה וּבְמַה שֶּׁבָּלְעָה קְדֵרָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁנָּפַל הָאִסּוּר לְפִי אֹמֶד הַדַּעַת. שֶׁהֲרֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד עַל מַה שֶּׁבָּלְעָה בְּצִמְצוּם:

English:

When we calculate the measure of permitted substances with regard to all prohibitions, whether the measure is 60, 100, or 200, we include the soup, the spices, everything that is in the pot, and what the pot has absorbed after the prohibited substance fell according to our estimation. For it is impossible to know the exact amount which the pot absorbed.

Connection: R’ Chanina’s rule (Segment 7) codified: the broth, the seasonings, everything in the pot, and — following the second version of the daf’s ika d’amri — what the pot absorbed, reckoned by estimate. The Rambam’s closing rationale (“it is impossible to know the exact amount which the pot absorbed”) echoes the daf’s own logic in Segment 13: mena yad’inan, the unmeasurable is reckoned by generous estimate rather than excluded.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 99:4

Hebrew:

משערים ברוטב ובקיפה (פירוש הדק הדק של בשר ותבלין המתאסף בשולי קדרה) ובחתיכות ומשערים ההיתר והאיסור כמו שבא לפנינו אע”פ שהי’ בהיתר יותר מתחילה ונתמעט בבישולו ונבלע בקדרה והני מילי במין בשאינו מינו אבל אם הוא מין במינו משערין גם במה שבלעה הקדרה ועומד בדופני הקדרה ומשערים זה באומד יפה ורואין אותו כאילו הוא בעין אבל מה שכלה ואבד מחמת האור אינו מצטרף שזה כלה לגמרי:

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

We assess with the broth and with the kifa (meaning: the fine sediment of meat and spices that collects at the bottom of the pot) and with the pieces. And we assess the permitted and the forbidden as they come before us now, even though there was originally more of the permitted food and it diminished in its cooking and was absorbed into the pot. And this applies to unlike types; but if it is like type with like type, we assess also with what the pot absorbed and what stands in the walls of the pot — and we estimate this generously, viewing it as if it were present in substance. But that which was consumed and lost by the fire does not combine, for it is entirely gone.

Connection: R’ Chanina’s list — rotev, kifa, chatichot, kedeira — appears here almost word for word. The Mechaber, following Rashi and the Tur against the Rambam, splits the daf’s two readings of “the pot”: for min b’she’eino mino we measure only what is now before us, while for min b’mino (where Torah law requires only a majority) we also count what the pot absorbed. The daf’s ika d’amri thus survives as a live distinction in the codes.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 98:4

Hebrew:

איסור שנתבשל עם היתר אפי’ מכירו והוא שלם וזרקו צריך ששים כנגד כל האיסור מפני שאין אנו יודעים כמה יצא ממנו לפיכך המבשל בקדירת איסור שהיא בת יומא או תוחב כף של איסור בהיתר צריך ס’ כנגד כל הקדירה וכנגד כל מה שתחב מהכף שאין אנו יודעין כמה בלעו בין שהם של חרס או עץ או מתכת: […]

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

A forbidden item that was cooked with permitted food — even if one recognizes it and it is intact and he threw it away — requires sixty against the entire forbidden item, because we do not know how much came out of it. Therefore, one who cooks in a pot of forbidden food that is ben yomo (used that same day), or thrusts a spoon [that absorbed] forbidden food into permitted food, requires sixty against the entire pot and against the entire part of the spoon he inserted, for we do not know how much they absorbed — whether they are of earthenware, wood, or metal. […]

Connection: “Because we do not know how much came out of it” is Rav Ashi’s dilemma from Rav Kahana’s study hall (Segments 12-13) resolved and generalized: pshita di’b’dideih mesha’arinan — we measure against the whole item, for mena yad’inan, who can know what exuded? What the daf established for the udder became Yoreh De’ah’s universal rule for every cooked-in issur, every treif pot, and every treif spoon.

Onion, Leek, and Pepper: The Assessment Benchmark

Source in Daf: 97b, Segments 8-9

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:17

Hebrew:

שְׁאָר אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּן כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וְחֵלֶב וְדָם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שִׁעוּרָן בְּשִׁשִּׁים. כֵּיצַד. כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב כְּלָיוֹת שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ שִׁשִּׁים כְּזַיִת מֵחֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה הַכּל מֻתָּר. נָפַל לְפָחוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים הַכּל אָסוּר. וְכֵן אִם נָפַל כִּשְׂעוֹרָה חֵלֶב צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שָׁם כְּמוֹ שִׁשִּׁים שְׂעוֹרָה. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר אִסּוּרִין. וְכֵן שֻׁמָּן שֶׁל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנָּפַל לִקְדֵרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים. וְאֵין שֻׁמַּן הַגִּיד מִן הַמִּנְיָן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשֻּׁמַּן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. הוֹאִיל וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ כְּאִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה. וְהַגִּיד עַצְמוֹ אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר שֶׁאֵין בַּגִּידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם:

English (our translation from the Hebrew; the standard English on Sefaria misrenders the clause about the gid’s fat):

The measure for all the other prohibitions in the Torah — such as the flesh of shekatzim and remasim, chelev, blood, and the like — is sixty. How so? An olive-bulk of kidney chelev that fell into sixty olive-bulks of fat-tail fat — the whole is permitted; if it fell into less than sixty, the whole is forbidden. Likewise, if a barley-bulk of chelev fell in, there must be about sixty barley-bulks present; and so with the other prohibitions. Likewise, the fat of the gid hanasheh that fell into a pot of meat — we assess it by sixty, and the fat of the gid is not counted in the number. And even though the fat of the gid hanasheh is Rabbinic, as we have explained, since the gid hanasheh is a distinct creation (beriyah), they were stringent with it as with Torah prohibitions. And the gid itself is not assessed, and it does not forbid — for sinews do not impart flavor.

Connection: R’ Abbahu citing R’ Yochanan (Segment 8) taught that all Torah prohibitions are assessed “as if they were onion and leek,” and Abaye explained (Segment 9) that the Sages calibrated this as the strongest flavor among forbidden foods. The codes do not preserve onion-and-leek as an operative test; rather, its output is the flat sixty of this halacha — the Sages’ calibration of the worst ordinary case became the universal ratio, so a separate onion-leek procedure never appears in the Rambam or the Shulchan Aruch. The pepper objection, however, survives — see the next source.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 98:8

Hebrew:

כחל מתבטל בתשעה וחמשים: הגה כל האיסורים הנוהגין בזמן הזה כולם מתבטלים בששים מלבד חמץ בפסח ויין נסך כאשר נתבאר בהלכותיהם (טור) ובלבד שהאיסור אינו נותן טעם בקדירה אבל אם נותן טעם באותה קדירה והוא אסור מצד עצמו אפילו באלף לא בטיל כל זמן שמרגישין טעמו ולכן מלח ותבלין מדברים דעבידי לטעמא אם אסורים מחמת עצמן אינן בטילים בששים (בארוך כלל כ”ה עיין ס”ק כ”ז וע”ל סוף סימן ק”ה):

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

A kechal (udder) is nullified in fifty-nine. (Rema: All the prohibitions practiced in our time are nullified in sixty, except for chametz on Pesach and libation wine, as explained in their own laws — provided that the forbidden item does not impart flavor to the pot; but if it imparts flavor to that pot and it is forbidden in its own right, it is not nullified even in a thousand, so long as its taste is perceived. Therefore salt and spices, which are things made for flavor, if they are forbidden in their own right, are not nullified in sixty.)

Connection: The Rema’s closing clause is R’ Abba’s pepper objection (Segment 9) turned into law: pilpelin v’tavlin, “which even in a thousand are not nullified,” are excluded from the sixty-rule because things made for flavor season the dish at any dilution. Abaye’s answer — that ordinary issurim never exceed onion-and-leek strength — is why everything else stops at sixty. (The Mechaber’s fifty-nine for the udder belongs to the next topic: since the udder itself counts as one of the sixty, fifty-nine parts of other meat suffice.)

The Gid in the Mixture: Sixty, and Not Counted

Source in Daf: 97b, Segment 10

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 65:9

Hebrew:

גופו של גיד אינו אלא כעץ שאין בו טעם ואף עפ”כ אסרתו תורה לפיכך אינו אוסר תערובתו בפליטתו והקנוקנות והשומן יש בהם טעם לפיכך אוסרין תערובתן בפליטתן:

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

The body of the gid itself is nothing but wood, having no taste; nevertheless the Torah forbade it. Therefore it does not forbid its mixture through what it exudes. But the kenokanot (offshoot filaments) and its fat do have taste; therefore they forbid their mixture through what they exude.

Connection: Rav Nachman ruled: gid b’shishim, v’ein gid min haminyan — the gid needs sixty and is not counted toward its own sixty, since the forbidden item cannot help nullify itself (the same accounting logic as the egg, below). Honesty requires noting how the codes land: the halacha follows the view (Chullin 99b) that ein b’gidin b’notein ta’am — the gid itself is flavorless wood — so the Mechaber here rules that the gid itself does not forbid a mixture at all, and the Rambam (15:17, quoted above) transposes Rav Nachman’s sixty-and-not-counted rule to the gid’s fat (shuman hagid), which does have flavor. Rav Nachman’s arithmetic survives; its object shifted from the nerve to its fat.

The Kechal: Sixty, Counted, and Forbidden Itself

Source in Daf: 97b, Segments 10-14

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 9:12

Hebrew:

הַכְּחַל אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל בַּחֲלֵב שְׁחוּטָה אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קְרָעוֹ וּמֵרֵק הֶחָלָב שֶׁבּוֹ מֻתָּר לִצְלוֹתוֹ וּלְאָכְלוֹ. וְאִם קְרָעוֹ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב וְטָחוֹ בַּכֹּתֶל עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר בּוֹ לַחְלוּחִית חָלָב מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ עִם הַבָּשָׂר. וּכְחַל שֶׁלֹּא קְרָעוֹ בֵּין שֶׁל קְטַנָּה שֶׁלֹּא הֵינִיקָה בֵּין שֶׁל גְּדוֹלָה אָסוּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ. וְאִם עָבַר וּבִשְּׁלוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ. וְאִם בִּשְּׁלוֹ עִם בָּשָׂר אַחֵר מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים וּכְחַל מִן הַמִּנְיָן:

English:

The udders [of an animal] are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. [The prohibition is not of Scriptural origin, because] meat that was cooked in milk from an animal that was slaughtered is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law, as we explained.Therefore if one cut it open and discharged the milk it contained, it is permitted to roast it and eat it. If one cut it both horizontally and vertically and then pressed it into a wall until none of the moisture of the milk remained, it may be cooked with other meat.When an udder has not been cut open, when from a young animal that never nursed or from an older one, it is forbidden to cook it. If one transgressed and cooked it alone, it is permitted to partake of it. If one cooked it with other meat, we require 60 times its volume. The udder itself is calculated in the 60.

Connection: The frame for Rav Nachman’s middle clause: the udder is only Rabbinically forbidden (milk of a slaughtered animal is not Torah-law basar b’chalav), which is why the daf treats it more leniently than the gid and the egg — kechal b’shishim, u’kechal min haminyan, the udder itself counts toward the sixty, as this halacha’s closing words codify verbatim.

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 9:13

Hebrew:

כֵּיצַד. אִם הָיָה הַכּל עִם הַכְּחַל כְּמוֹ שִׁשִּׁים בַּכְּחַל הַכְּחַל אָסוּר וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם הָיָה בְּפָחוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים הַכּל אָסוּר. בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ אִם נָפַל לִקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת אוֹסֵר אוֹתָהּ וּמְשַׁעֲרִין בּוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים כְּבָרִאשׁוֹנָה. שֶׁהַכְּחַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל נַעֲשָׂה כַּחֲתִיכָה הָאֲסוּרָה וְאֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא בְּעֵת שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל לֹא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנָּפַל:

English:

What is implied? If the entire mixture together with the udder was sixty times the volume of the udder, the udder is forbidden, and the remainder is permitted. If there was less than 60 times its volume, the entire mixture is forbidden. Regardless of [the ruling applying to the entire mixture], if the udder fell into another pot, it can cause it to be forbidden. We require 60 times its volume as in the original instance. [The rationale is that] the udder which is cooked becomes considered as a forbidden piece of meat.We measure [the volume of] the udder at the time that it was cooked, not according to its state when it fell [into the mixture].

Connection: Three statements of the daf are welded together here. “The udder is forbidden and the remainder permitted” is Rav Yitzchak b. Rav Mesharshiya’s u’kechal atzmo asur (Segment 11). “If it fell into another pot it forbids it, and we require sixty as at first” is his second clause, justified by the Gemara’s resolution in Segment 14: the cooked udder “becomes considered as a forbidden piece of meat” — shavyuha rabbanan ka’chatikha di’neveila — so it forbids the second pot by intrinsic status, not by exuded milk. And measuring against the whole udder (“as it was when cooked”) is the pshita of Segment 13: we cannot know how much milk came out.

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:18

Hebrew:

אֲבָל כְּחַל שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הַבָּשָׂר בְּשִׁשִּׁים וּכְחַל מִן הַמִּנְיָן. הוֹאִיל וְהַכְּחַל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הֵקֵלּוּ בְּשִׁעוּרוֹ:

English:

When, by contrast, an udder is cooked with meat, we require sixty times its amount and the udder is considered as part of the sum. [The rationale is that] since [the prohibition against] the udder is Rabbinic in origin, [our Sages] were lenient in establishing a measure.

Connection: The Rambam’s stated rationale for why the udder, alone of Rav Nachman’s three cases, counts toward its own sixty: its prohibition is Rabbinic, so the Sages were lenient in the accounting.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 90:1

Hebrew:

הכחל (פי’ הדד של הבהמה) אסור מדברי סופרים שאין בשר שנתבשל בחלב שחוטה אסור מן התורה לפיכך אם קרעו ומירק החלב שבו מותר לצלותו ולאוכלו ואם קרעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל עד שלא נשאר בו לחלוחית חלב מותר לבשלו עם הבשר וכחל שלא קרעו בין של קטנה שלא הניקה בין של גדולה אסור לבשלו ואם עבר ובשלו בפני עצמו (וכ”ש אם צלאו) מותר לאכלו ואם בשלו עם בשר אחר משערין אותו בששים וכחל מן המנין כיצד אם היה הכל עם הכחל כמו ששים בכחל הכחל אסור והשאר מותר ואם היה בפחות מששים הכל אסור בין כך ובין כך אם נפל לקדירה אחרת אוסר אותה ומשערין בו בס’ כבראשונה שהכחל עצמו שנתבשל נעשה כחתיכה האסורה ואין משערין בו אלא כמות שהוא בעת שנתבשל לא כמו שהיה בשעה שנפל: הגה ויש אומרים דאם נפל תחילה לקדירה שאין בה ס’ ונאסר הכחל אם נפל אחר כך לקדירה אחרת אין הכחל מצטרף לס’ (טור בשם הרשב”א וד”ע לר”ן דלא כב”י לר”ן) וכן עיקר:

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

The kechal (that is, the udder of the animal) is forbidden by the words of the Scribes, for meat cooked in the milk of a slaughtered animal is not forbidden by Torah law. Therefore, if one tore it and emptied out the milk in it, it is permitted to roast it and eat it; and if one tore it lengthwise and crosswise and pressed it against a wall until no moisture of milk remained in it, it is permitted to cook it with meat. A kechal that one did not tear — whether of a young animal that never nursed or of a grown one — it is forbidden to cook it; but if one transgressed and cooked it by itself (and certainly if he roasted it), it is permitted to eat it. And if one cooked it with other meat, we assess it by sixty, and the kechal is counted in the number. How so? If everything together with the kechal was about sixty times the kechal, the kechal is forbidden and the rest is permitted; and if there was less than sixty, everything is forbidden. Either way, if it fell into another pot, it forbids it, and we assess it by sixty as at first, for the kechal itself that was cooked has become like a forbidden piece; and we assess it only as it was at the time it was cooked, not as it was at the time it fell. (Rema: And some say that if it first fell into a pot that did not contain sixty, and the kechal became forbidden, then if it afterwards fell into another pot, the kechal does not combine toward the sixty; and this is the essential ruling.)

Connection: Siman 90 is this daf’s udder sugya codified end to end — sixty with the udder counted (Rav Nachman), the udder itself forbidden and forbidding a second pot (Rav Yitzchak b. Rav Mesharshiya), measured against the whole udder as cooked (Rav Ashi’s resolved dilemma), on the chatikha-di’neveila rationale (Segment 14). The Rema records the Tur and Rashba’s stringency for the second pot: once the udder has actually become forbidden, it no longer joins the sixty that nullifies it — in the second pot its own flesh is now the issur, unlike the first pot where only its milk was. Note also YD 98:8 above: “the kechal is nullified in fifty-nine,” the same counted-in-the-minyan rule expressed from the other direction.

The Non-Kosher Egg: Sixty-One Eggs

Source in Daf: 97b, Segments 10, 15-16

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:19

Hebrew:

בֵּיצָה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁנִּשְׁלְקָה עִם בֵּיצִים הַמֻּתָּרוֹת אִם הָיְתָה עִם שִׁשִּׁים וְאַחַת וְהִיא הֲרֵי הֵן מֻתָּרוֹת. הָיְתָה עִם שִׁשִּׁים בִּלְבַד נֶאֶסְרוּ הַכּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ עָשׂוּ הֶכֵּר בָּהּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ בְּשִׁעוּרָהּ:

English:

[The following laws apply when] an egg in which a chick is found is cooked together with eggs that are permitted. If there are 61 and it, they are permitted. If, however, there are only sixty [permitted eggs], the entire mixture is forbidden. [The rationale is that the chick] is a creation in its own right, [our Sages] made a distinction and added to its [required] measure.

Connection: Rav Nachman’s third clause — beitza b’shishim, v’ein beitza min haminyan — as the Gemara’s continuation (Abaye’s answer, completed on 98a) limits it: the egg that demands sixty is one containing a chick, a beriyah whose embryo imparts real flavor. Sixty-one eggs — sixty permitted plus the forbidden one, which is not counted — is precisely “sixty and the egg not of the number.”

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:20

Hebrew:

אֲבָל בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא שֶׁנִּשְׁלְקָה עִם בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר לֹא אָסְרָה אוֹתָם. וְאִם טָרַף אֵלּוּ עִם אֵלּוּ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא אוֹ בֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה עִם בֵּיצִים אֲחֵרוֹת שִׁעוּרָן בְּשִׁשִּׁים:

English:

If, however, the egg of an non-kosher fowl was cooked together with the eggs of kosher fowl, it does not cause them to become forbidden.If [the eggs were opened and] mixed together or the egg of a non-kosher fowl or the egg of a fowl that is trefe become mixed with other eggs, the required measure is 60.

Connection: The complement, from Rav Idi bar Avin’s objection (Segment 15): an ordinary non-kosher egg cooked in its shell with kosher eggs forbids nothing, because — as people say — it is “mere egg-water” (ki maya d’bei’ei b’alma); only if beaten open and mixed does its substance require sixty.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 86:5

Hebrew:

ביצת עוף טמא שנתבשלה עם אחרות אם היא בקליפתה אינה אוסרת ואם היא קלופה אוסרת (ואם היא נקובה דינה כקלופה) (ארוך כלל מ”ב והג”ה ש”ד) וצריך ס”א ביצים של היתר כנגדה לבטלה (ואפילו אינה שלימה רק טרופה) (בארוך וב”י בשם הרשב”א) ואם נתבשלה בתבשיל של היתר אין צריך אלא ששים מן התבשיל לבטלה וביצה שיש בה אפרוח או דם אוסרת המתבשל עמה אפילו אם אינה קלופה: הגה וקליפות האיסור מצטרפים גם עם ההיתר לבטל האיסור וכ”ש קליפות ההיתר (תא”ו נט”ו וירושלמי וש”ס עיין ס”ק י”ד) וע”ל סימן צ”ט:

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

The egg of a non-kosher bird that was boiled with others: if it is in its shell, it does not forbid them; and if it is peeled, it forbids them (and if it is punctured, its law is as if peeled), and sixty-one permitted eggs are needed against it to nullify it (and even if it is not whole but beaten). And if it was cooked in a permitted dish, only sixty of the dish is needed to nullify it. And an egg that contains a chick or blood forbids what is cooked with it even if it is not peeled. (Rema: And the shells of the forbidden egg combine with the permitted to nullify the forbidden, and certainly the shells of the permitted ones.)

Connection: The famous “sixty-one eggs” of Yoreh De’ah is Rav Nachman’s ein beitza min haminyan in practice: sixty against the egg, and the egg itself excluded, hence sixty-one in total. The seif’s closing line — an egg with a chick or blood forbids even unpeeled — is Abaye’s hakha b’mai askinan resolution (Segment 16, completed 98a): the embryo egg is the real flavor-imparter.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 86:6

Hebrew:

ביצת טריפה ונבילה דינה כדין ביצת עוף טמא דכל שאינה קלופה ונתבשלה עם אחרות אינה אוסרת דמיא דביעי בעלמא היא: הגה וי”א דכל ביצים דינם שוה ואוסרים אפילו אינם קלופים (טור בשם בה”ת ורוב הפוסקים) וכן יש לנהוג במקום שאין הפסד מרובה אבל בהפסד מרובה יש לסמוך אמקילין:

English (our translation from the Hebrew):

The egg of a treifa or of a neveila — its law is like the egg of a non-kosher bird: so long as it is not peeled and was boiled with others, it does not forbid them, for it is mere egg-water (maya d’bei’ei b’alma). (Rema: And some say that all eggs are alike in law and forbid even when not peeled; and so one should conduct oneself where there is no great loss; but where there is great loss, one may rely on the lenient authorities.)

Connection: The Mechaber’s rationale is the daf’s own folk idiom, verbatim: d’maya d’bei’ei b’alma hi — Rav Idi bar Avin’s proof from popular speech (Segment 15) that an ordinary egg imparts no flavor became the operative legal reasoning of the Shulchan Aruch. The Rema’s stringency treats all eggs alike except in cases of substantial loss.

Summary of Rulings