## Chullin Daf 100a

###### Chullin 100a:1
[Chullin 100a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/100a:1)

בְּרִיָּה שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the sciatic nerve is a distinct **entity,** and therefore it **is different** in that it is not subject to nullification.


###### Chullin 100a:2
[Chullin 100a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/100a:2)

וְכֵן חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה [וְכוּ׳]. וְתִבְטֵיל בְּרוּבָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **And similarly,** in the case of **a piece of an animal carcass** or a piece of non-kosher fish that was cooked with similar pieces of kosher meat or fish, when one identifies the forbidden piece and removes it, the rest of the meat or fish is forbidden only if the forbidden piece was large enough to impart flavor to the entire mixture. And if he does not identify and remove the forbidden piece, all the pieces are forbidden, due to the possibility that each piece one selects might be the forbidden piece. The Gemara challenges: Even if the piece of an animal carcass was not removed, **let** it **be nullified by** a simple **majority,** as the majority of the pieces are kosher.


###### Chullin 100a:3
[Chullin 100a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/100a:3)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר, כֹּל שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִימָּנוֹת שָׁנִינוּ, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִימָּנוֹת שָׁנִינוּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? שָׁאנֵי חֲתִיכָה, הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיָה לְהִתְכַּבֵּד בָּהּ לִפְנֵי הָאוֹרְחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies its challenge. **This** ruling **works out well according to the one who said** that **we learned: Any** item **whose manner is to be counted,** i.e., that is sometimes sold by unit rather than by weight or volume, is considered significant and therefore is not subject to nullification. **But according to the one who said** that **we learned:** It is only an item **whose manner is** exclusively **to be counted,** i.e., that is always sold by unit, that is considered significant, and is therefore not subject to nullification, **what can be said?** Since pieces of meat or fish are not always sold by unit, they should be subject to nullification. The Gemara answers: **A piece** of meat or fish **is different, since it is suitable to give honor with it** by placing it **before guests.** Therefore, due to its significance it is not subject to nullification.


###### Chullin 100a:4
[Chullin 100a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/100a:4)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גִּיד – מִשּׁוּם דִּבְרִיָּה הִיא, אֲבָל חֲתִיכָה – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And** it was **necessary** for the mishna to teach both the *halakha* that the sciatic nerve is not nullified and the *halakha* that a piece of non-kosher meat or fish is not nullified, **as if** the mishna had **taught us** only the case of a sciatic **nerve,** one might think that it is not nullified **because it is** a distinct **entity, but** in the case of **a piece** of non-kosher meat, **say** it is **not** significant, and it is subject to nullification.


###### Chullin 100a:5
[Chullin 100a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/100a:5)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן חֲתִיכָה, הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיָה לְהִתְכַּבֵּד בָּהּ לִפְנֵי הָאוֹרְחִים, אֲבָל גִּיד – אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the mishna had **taught us** the *halakha* only in the case of **a piece** of non-kosher meat or fish, one might think that it is not nullified **since it is suitable to give honor with it** by placing it **before the guests. But** in the case of a sciatic **nerve, say** it is **not** significant, and it is subject to nullification. Therefore it was **necessary** for the mishna to teach both cases.


###### Chullin 100a:6
[Chullin 100a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/100a:6)

דָּרֵשׁ רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה וְשֶׁל דָּג טָמֵא אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, עַד שֶׁתִּתֵּן טַעַם בָּרוֹטֶב וּבַקֵּיפֶה וּבַחֲתִיכוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar bar Ḥana taught: A piece** of meat **of an unslaughtered carcass or of a non-kosher** species of **fish** that fell into a pot of kosher food **does not render** the contents of the pot **forbidden unless it imparts flavor to the broth and to the deposits** of food remaining in the pot **and to the** other **pieces** of food in the pot.


###### Chullin 100a:7
[Chullin 100a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/100a:7)

אוֹקֵי רַב אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ, וּדְרַשׁ: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן טַעַם בַּחֲתִיכָה – חֲתִיכָה עַצְמָהּ נַעֲשֵׂת נְבֵלָה, וְאוֹסֶרֶת כׇּל הַחֲתִיכוֹת כּוּלָּן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִינָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav** disagreed with Rabba bar bar Ḥana and **appointed a disseminator** to stand **before him** and teach his statement to a wider audience, **and** he **taught: Once** the non-kosher meat or fish **has imparted flavor to** another **piece** in the pot, that second **piece itself becomes non-kosher. And** this second piece **renders all the pieces** of meat or fish in the pot **forbidden, because they are** of the same **type;** therefore, nullification does not apply.


###### Chullin 100a:8
[Chullin 100a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/100a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְאַבָּיֵי: מִכְּדֵי רַב כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל. מַאי אִירְיָא כִּי נָתַן טַעַם? אֲפִילּוּ כִּי לֹא נָתַן טַעַם נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּשֶׁקָּדַם וְסִלְּקוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Safra said to Abaye: Now, in accordance with whose** opinion did **Rav say his statement?** It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **a type** of food mixed **with** food of **its** own **type is not nullified.** But if so, **why** does Rav state **specifically that** the non-kosher meat renders all the pieces forbidden only **when it** has **imparted flavor** to another piece? **Even if it did not impart flavor** to another piece it should render all the contents of the pot forbidden. Abaye **said to him: Here we are dealing with** a case **where he** cooked the non-kosher piece with one kosher piece and **first removed** the non-kosher piece before adding the other pieces. Consequently, the remaining pieces are forbidden only if the non-kosher piece imparted flavor to the piece it was cooked with.


###### Chullin 100a:9
[Chullin 100a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/100a:9)

רָבָא אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** an alternate answer to Rav Safra’s challenge of Rav’s statement: