Chullin Daf 99 (דף צ״ט)
Daf: 99 | Amudim: 99a – 99b | Date: 16 Tevet 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (99a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Objection to learning from the nazirite’s ram
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ? גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חַטָּאת: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יִקְדָּשׁ״, לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהָ – שֶׁאִם פְּסוּלָה תִּפָּסֵל, וְאִם כְּשֵׁרָה תֵּאָכֵל כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a conceptual puzzle: if flavor absorbed from sacrificial food creates a bond of legal status, why wouldn’t we learn the same principle from the foreleg of a nazirite’s ram? The answer hinges on Torah’s explicit teaching about the sin offering—the text “whatever touches its flesh shall be holy” establishes a comprehensive rule that absorbing its flavor transfers its entire halakhic status. The nazirite’s ram has no such explicit Torah language, so we cannot derive a general principle from it alone.
Key Terms:
- Nazirite’s ram (אִיל הַנָּזִיר) = the peace offering brought at the completion of a Nazirite vow
- Foreleg (שׁוֹק) = the portion of the sacrifice given to the kohanim; in this context, it could be sold and eaten outside the Temple
- Sin offering (חַטָּאת) = a sacrifice brought for unintentional transgression of Torah prohibitions
- Disqualified (פְּסוּלָה) = rendered unfit for consumption
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא וברור
Challenging the logic of learning novelties
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּגָמְרִינַן מֵהַאיְךְ, לִיגְמַר מֵהַאי? חִדּוּשׁ הוּא, וּמֵחִדּוּשׁ לָא גָּמְרִינַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fundamental methodological principle emerges: a case that is חִדּוּשׁ (chiddush—a novelty or exception) cannot serve as the basis for deriving general halakhic rules. The nazirite’s ram’s foreleg is unusual because unlike most priestly gifts, it can be sold and its price used for other purposes. Because it occupies an exceptional category, we cannot extrapolate from it to establish rules that would apply broadly to all sacrificial foods.
Key Terms:
- Novelty (חִדּוּשׁ) = an exceptional or unique case that deviates from the standard pattern
- General principle (כְּלָל) = a rule that applies across multiple contexts
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Clarifying which stringencies apply
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, לְמֵאָה וְשִׁשִּׁים נָמֵי לָא לִיגְמַר? אַטּוּ אֲנַן לְקוּלָּא קָא גָמְרִינַן? לְחוּמְרָא קָא גָמְרִינַן, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרוּבָּא בָּטֵיל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies a crucial distinction: while the nazirite’s ram case is a novelty and cannot serve to derive general principles in a leniency (כְּלָל לְקוּלָּא), it can establish stringencies. The nazirite’s ram teaches us that we require sixty or one hundred times the volume for nullification—stringifying the law beyond the biblical default of simple majority (רוּבָּא). This is an important principle: a novelty can impose additional restrictions even if it cannot be used to derive broader permissive rules.
Key Terms:
- Stringency (חוּמְרָא) = a stricter interpretation of the law
- Leniency (קוּלָּא) = a more permissive interpretation
- Simple majority (רוּבָּא) = more than fifty percent; by biblical law, forbidden food mixed with permitted food in majority amounts is nullified
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא וברור
Ravina’s alternative explanation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ, דְּאָמַר: מְקוֹם חֲתָךְ בְּעָלְמָא אָסוּר, וְהָכָא שְׁרֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina offers an alternative lens: the special halakha regarding the nazirite’s foreleg doesn’t necessarily establish a general principle about nullification at all. Instead, it addresses a specific halakhic phenomenon called מְקוֹם חֲתָךְ (place of the cut). When you separate a forbidden item from a permitted one, the cut surface of the permitted item usually absorbs taste and becomes forbidden. But the Torah permits eating the nazirite’s foreleg even after separating it from the rest of the ram, showing that in this case, the cut place remains permitted. Ravina’s reading is narrower and doesn’t rely on generalizing from a novelty.
Key Terms:
- Place of the cut (מְקוֹם חֲתָךְ) = the surface where a separation is made between permitted and forbidden food
- Attached (דָּבוּק) = joined together
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Dimi teaching the halakha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי, וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shifts focus, noting that Rav Dimi was teaching the position of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak—that forbidden food requires a hundred-fold ratio for nullification, not just a simple majority. This introduces a new discussion where Abaye will challenge this stringent position.
Key Terms:
- Hundred-fold (מֵאָה) = a ratio where permitted food is at least one hundred times the volume of forbidden food
- Rav Dimi = an Amora of the fourth generation
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Abaye challenges with competing traditions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בְּמֵאָה? וְהָתְנַן: לָמָה אָמְרוּ כׇּל הַמְחַמֵּץ וּמְתַבֵּל וּמְדַמֵּעַ לְהַחְמִיר – מִין וּמִינוֹ, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחְמִיר – מִין וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye powerfully challenges the universal application of the hundred-fold rule by citing the mishna in Orla concerning teruma (priestly gifts). The mishna distinguishes between mixing foods of the same type versus different types, suggesting that different halakhic categories (not just a blanket hundred-fold rule) determine nullification. This indicates that the hundred-fold requirement is not universal but context-dependent.
Key Terms:
- Teruma (תְּרוּמָה) = the priestly gift separated from agricultural produce
- Leaven (שְׂאוֹר) = a leavening agent that causes dough to rise
- Same type (מִין וּמִינוֹ) = foods of the same category
- Different type (מִין וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ) = foods of different categories
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Orla mishna’s stricter ruling for different types
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna provides a concrete example: when split beans (a forbidden teruma) are cooked with lentils (permitted food of a different type), if the beans impart taste, the entire mixture is forbidden regardless of the ratio. This shows that flavor impartation—not just numerical ratios—determines the halakha for different types.
Key Terms:
- Impart flavor (בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם) = when the taste or quality of one food becomes evident in another
- Split beans (גְּרִיסִין) = a type of legume
- Lentils (עֲדָשִׁים) = a different type of legume
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Permissibility when no flavor is imparted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד – מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The converse principle: when no flavor is imparted, the mixture is permitted regardless of quantity. This underscores that the primary determinant is flavor impartation, not absolute numerical thresholds. The halakha prioritizes the empirical reality of whether taste actually transfers.
Key Terms:
- Permitted (מוּתָּר) = allowed for consumption
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Abaye’s challenge: implicit sixty-fold ratio
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, אֶלָּא בְּמַאי? לָאו בְּשִׁשִּׁים?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye’s acute observation: the Orla mishna seems to assume that when there is less than one hundred and one times the volume of permitted food, but the forbidden food doesn’t impart flavor, the mixture is still permitted. This implies a sixty-fold ratio is sufficient for nullification when no flavor is imparted—directly contradicting the hundred-fold requirement. The passage hints at the complexity of the halakha: different circumstances (flavor vs. no flavor) warrant different ratios.
Key Terms:
- Sixty-fold (שִׁשִּׁים) = a ratio where permitted food is at least sixty times the volume of forbidden food
Amud Bet (99b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Dimi’s distinction: one hundred, not one hundred and one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, בְּמֵאָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi’s answer pivots on a crucial verbal distinction: the mishna says “not enough to raise in one hundred and one” (לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד)—meaning exactly one hundred and one—but one hundred times (מֵאָה) is sufficient for nullification. The wordplay between “one hundred” and “one hundred and one” resolves the apparent contradiction with the hundred-fold rule.
Key Terms:
- Raise (הַעֲלוֹת) = to elevate in quantity or to render ineffective through overwhelming quantity
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Abaye’s further objection: contradiction within the same mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye tightens his challenge: if the first clause (dealing with same-type mixtures) requires a hundred-fold ratio, then the second clause (dealing with different types) must be referring to sixty-fold as the operative ratio. The two clauses of the same mishna seem to establish different standards, reinforcing his point that the hundred-fold rule is not universal.
Key Terms:
- First clause (רֵישָׁא) = the opening part of the mishna
- Latter clause (סֵיפָא) = the concluding part of the mishna
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The mishna’s ruling for same-type mixtures without flavor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין בּוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ, בֵּין אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ – אָסוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
When same-type foods are mixed and there is no one-hundred-and-one fold ratio, the mixture is forbidden regardless of whether leavening actually occurred. This is more stringent than the different-type case, which permits if there is no flavor impartation. Same-type foods have a stricter standard.
Key Terms:
- Forbidden (אָסוּר) = prohibited for consumption
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Reconciling the two clauses: different quantity thresholds
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְאָה? לָא, רֵישָׁא בִּמְאָה וְחַד, וְסֵיפָא בִּמְאָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi’s resolution is elegant: the first clause sets the scenario at precisely one hundred and one times, while the second clause sets it at one hundred times. The different thresholds explain why the same-type first clause stays forbidden (needing more than 100:1) while the different-type second clause becomes permitted at exactly 100:1.
Key Terms:
- First clause (רֵישָׁא) = the opening scenario
- Latter clause (סֵיפָא) = the concluding scenario
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Abaye’s further challenge: why isn’t flavor nullified?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ בִּמְאָה וְחַד, אַמַּאי לָא בְּטִיל? אִישְׁתִּיק.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye’s penetrating question exposes a logical problem: if one hundred and one times the volume is enough to nullify taste, why doesn’t it nullify the leavening effect? Leavening is a physical transformation, not just flavor. Rav Dimi’s silence indicates the complexity of the issue—perhaps leavening requires different considerations than flavor absorption.
Key Terms:
- Leavened (חִמּוּץ) = causing dough to rise through fermentation
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Distinguishing leaven’s potency from normal flavor nullification
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא שָׁנֵי שְׂאוֹר דְּחִימּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְכַּרְתַּן מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא כׇּל הַשִּׁיעוּרִין שָׁוִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי צִיר שִׁיעוּרוֹ קָרוֹב לְמָתַיִם. דִּתְנַן: דָּג טָמֵא צִירוֹ אָסוּר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רְבִיעִית בְּסָאתַיִם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye proposes that leaven is exceptional due to its potency—it can affect a large mixture even at a high ratio. Rav Dimi seizes on this insight and cites an authoritative principle from Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina: different forbidden substances require different nullification ratios based on their nature. Fish brine, for example, requires nearly two hundred times its volume because its flavor is particularly persistent. This principle explains why the standard hundred-fold rule doesn’t universally apply.
Key Terms:
- Potent/hard (קָשֶׁה) = difficult to nullify; possessing strong flavor or effect
- Fish brine (צִיר הדָּג) = the liquid in which non-kosher fish was preserved
- Se’a (סָאה) = a dry measure of volume
- Quarter-log (רְבִיעִית) = a liquid measure of volume
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא וברור
Resolving the apparent contradiction with Rabbi Yehuda’s rule on same-type
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל? שָׁנֵי צִיר, דְּזֵיעָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A potential contradiction surfaces: Rabbi Yehuda holds that same-type foods do not nullify each other—yet here he permits fish brine to be nullified. The resolution is that brine, though derived from fish, is not considered the same type as the fish itself because it is only זֵיעָה (sweat-like liquid), not actual flesh. This demonstrates the halakha’s fine distinctions about what constitutes “same type.”
Key Terms:
- Same type (מִין בְּמִינוֹ) = foods of the same category, which generally don’t nullify each other
- Sweat (זֵיעָה) = liquid exudation; a substance distinct from the primary material
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Measuring the sciatic nerve against meat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The passage shifts to a related topic: measuring whether a sciatic nerve affects a thigh. The standard method is to imagine the nerve as meat and the thigh as turnip, then determine if the meat would flavor the turnip. However, Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka holds a stricter view: sciatic nerves never impart flavor, so this measurement is unnecessary. This conflicting opinion foreshadows the halakhic resolution.
Key Terms:
- Sciatic nerve (גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה) = the forbidden nerve running along the hip
- Impart flavor (בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם) = transfer taste or quality
- Turnip (לָפוּת) = a vegetable used as a comparison
Segment 9
TYPE: אגדה וברור
Story of the man and the thigh: Yehuda bar Zevina’s intervention
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִינָא אַבָּבָא. כִּי נְפַק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֲמַר לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁרְיָא נִיהֲלֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A narrative illustrates the practical halakhic problem. A man seeks Rabbi Ḥanina’s ruling on whether a thigh cooked with its sciatic nerve is permissible. Rabbi Ḥanina permits it. Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina, overhearing and apparently disagreeing, follows up with the man to clarify what was said.
Key Terms:
- At the gate (אַבָּבָא) = at the entrance or threshold of the study hall
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדה וברור
Yehuda bar Zevina challenges the ruling and insists on clarification
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲדַר עַיְּילַיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: מַאן הַאי דְּקָא מְצַעַר לִי? זִיל אֵימָא לֵיהּ לְמַאן דְּיָתֵיב אַבָּבָא: אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina directs the man to bring the case back to Rabbi Ḥanina, suggesting the ruling may need clarification. Rabbi Ḥanina, somewhat annoyed at being troubled again, stands firm: sciatic nerves do not impart flavor. Therefore, the solution is simple—remove the nerve and the thigh is permitted. This clarifies that the permissibility is based on the absence of flavor impartation.
Key Terms:
- Bothering (מְצַעַר) = troubling or pestering
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדה וברור
Rabbi Ami’s approach: deferring to Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥalov’s leniency
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A more subtle approach emerges through Rabbi Ami’s practice. Though he disagrees with the lenient position, he directs questioners to Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥalov (who permits), attributing it to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s authority. This reflects the principle that when there is legitimate halakhic debate, one may refer someone to an authority who rules leniently rather than imposing stringency unilaterally. The passage concludes with the definitive ruling: sciatic nerves do not impart flavor.
Key Terms:
- Hold (סְבִירָא) = to maintain as one’s opinion
- Stringently (בחומרא) = with stringent/strict rulings
- Halakha (הִלְכְתָא) = the final practical law
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא וקושיא
Challenge to the mishna’s premise: sciatic nerve should be nullified by majority
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל. וְלִיבְטוֹל בְּרוּבָּא!
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The passage introduces another problem: if the mishna permits eating other sinews when the sciatic nerve is identified and removed, shouldn’t the sciatic nerve itself be nullified when it’s a minority of the sinews present? A simple majority of permitted sinews should nullify the forbidden sciatic nerve. This question suggests the mishna’s ruling may not align with the general principle of nullification by majority.
Key Terms:
- Sinews (גִּידִים) = connective tissue; the prohibitive sinew is the sciatic nerve
- Nullified by majority (בָּטֵל בְּרוּבָּא) = made permissible when in a minority proportion