## Chullin Daf 98b

###### Chullin 98b:1
[Chullin 98b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:1)

אֵין ״בְּשֵׁלָה״ אֶלָּא שְׁלֵימָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵין ״בְּשֵׁלָה״ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלָה עִם הָאַיִל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
and the term **“cooked”** indicates that the verse is referring **only** to a foreleg that is **whole. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai** disagrees and **says:** The term **“cooked”** indicates that the verse is referring **only** to a foreleg **that is cooked with the** entire **ram.**


###### Chullin 98b:2
[Chullin 98b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:2)

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בַּהֲדֵי אַיִל מְבַשֵּׁל לַהּ, מָר סָבַר: מְחַתֵּךְ לַהּ וַהֲדַר מְבַשֵּׁל לַהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: מְבַשֵּׁל לַהּ וַהֲדַר מְחַתֵּךְ לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies their dispute: **Everyone** agrees that **one cooks** the foreleg **with the** rest of the **ram.** But one **Sage holds** that one first **cuts** the foreleg off the animal **and then cooks it** along with the rest of the animal. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, **holds** that one first **cooks** the entire ram **and then cuts** off the foreleg.


###### Chullin 98b:3
[Chullin 98b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:3)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מְחַתֵּךְ לַהּ וַהֲדַר מְבַשֵּׁל לַהּ, מִיהוּ מָר סָבַר: בַּהֲדֵי אַיִל מְבַשֵּׁל לַהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: בִּקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת מְבַשֵּׁל לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say that everyone** agrees that one first **cuts** off the foreleg **and then cooks it. But** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, **holds** that one **cooks** the foreleg **with** the rest of **the ram, and** one **Sage holds** that he **cooks** the foreleg **in another pot,** separate from the rest of the ram.


###### Chullin 98b:4
[Chullin 98b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:4)

לְלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא – אַלִּיבָּא דְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, לְלִישָּׁנָא בָּתְרָא – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The foreleg of the nazirite’s ram is permitted to be eaten only by a priest, whereas the rest of the ram is eaten by the nazirite even if he is not a priest. Consequently, **according to the first formulation, all agree** that the principle of nullification may be derived from here, since all agree that the foreleg is cooked together with the rest of the ram, and yet it does not cause the rest of the ram to be forbidden to a non-priest. **According to the latter formulation,** the principle of nullification may be derived from here **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai,** who says that the foreleg is cooked together with the rest of the ram. But according to the latter formulation the first *tanna* holds that the foreleg is not cooked with the rest of the ram, in which case the principle of nullification cannot be derived from here.


###### Chullin 98b:5
[Chullin 98b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:5)

מַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשִׁשִּׁים, סָבַר: בָּשָׂר וַעֲצָמוֹת בַּהֲדֵי בָּשָׂר וַעֲצָמוֹת מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ בְּשִׁשִּׁים. מַאן דְּאָמַר בְּמֵאָה, סָבַר: בָּשָׂר בַּהֲדֵי בָּשָׂר מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ בְּמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now returns to the dispute about whether non-kosher food is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of kosher food, and explains how each opinion is derived from the *halakha* of the foreleg of the nazirite’s ram. **The one who said** that non-kosher food is nullified **in sixty** times its volume of kosher food **holds** that **we assess** the ratio of **meat and bones** of the foreleg **to** the **meat and bones** of the rest of the ram, **and this is** a ratio of one to **sixty. The one who said** that non-kosher food is nullified **in one hundred** times its volume of kosher food **holds** that **we assess** only the volume of the **meat** of the foreleg **to** the **meat** of the rest of the ram, **and this is** a ratio of one **to one hundred.**


###### Chullin 98b:6
[Chullin 98b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:6)

וּמִי יָלְפִינַן מִינַּהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: זֶהוּ הֶיתֵּר הַבָּא מִכְּלַל אִיסּוּר, ״זֶהוּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And do we derive** the principles of nullification **from** the case of the nazirite’s ram? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the nazirite’s ram, which absorbs the flavor of the foreleg with which it was cooked: **This is** a case of **permitted** meat **that comes from the category** of **forbidden** food, i.e., it is permitted despite the fact that it was cooked with forbidden food. The Gemara infers: **What** does the expression: **This is,** in the *baraita* serve **to exclude?** Does it **not** serve **to exclude all** the other **forbidden** foods **that are in the Torah?** This indicates that only the cooked foreleg of the nazirite’s ram is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of permitted food, but other prohibited foods are not subject to the principle of nullification.


###### Chullin 98b:7
[Chullin 98b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּהָכָא בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Abaye said:** This emphasis **is necessary only according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that in general, **a type** of food mixed **with** food of **its** own **type is not nullified.** Therefore the *baraita* **teaches us that here,** the flavor imparted by the foreleg to the rest of the nazirite’s ram is **nullified.**


###### Chullin 98b:8
[Chullin 98b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:8)

וְלִיגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ? גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר״, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ וְלָא בָּטְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Let** Rabbi Yehuda **learn from this** case that all forbidden food can be nullified when it is mixed with permitted food of its own type. The Gemara explains: **The Merciful One revealed** in the Torah: **“And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat** and put it upon the corners of the altar round about” (Leviticus 16:18). **Both of** these two bloods **are** mixed **with each other, and** although a bull has more blood than a goat has, the verse makes reference to the blood of the goat, indicating that it maintains its own identity and is **not nullified.**


###### Chullin 98b:9
[Chullin 98b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:9)

וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּגָמְרִינַן מֵהַאיְךְ, לִיגְמַר מֵהַאי? חִדּוּשׁ הוּא, וּמֵחִדּוּשׁ לָא גָּמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to Rabbi Yehuda, **what did you see that** caused **you** to **derive** a principle **from that** verse with regard to the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat? **Derive** a principle **from this** verse about the foreleg of the nazirite’s ram. The Gemara answers: The case of the nazirite’s ram **is a novelty,** because even when nullification does apply one may not nullify a forbidden food *ab initio*, whereas here one is supposed to cook the foreleg together with the rest of the ram; **and we do not learn** principles **from a novelty.**


###### Chullin 98b:10
[Chullin 98b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:10)

אִי הָכִי, לְמֵאָה וְשִׁשִּׁים נָמֵי לָא לִיגְמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** if Rabbi Yehuda does not consider the case of the nazirite’s ram a viable precedent for general halakhic principles, then **let him 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 each based on the case of the nazirite’s ram.


###### Chullin 98b:11
[Chullin 98b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:11)

אַטּוּ אֲנַן לְקוּלָּא גָּמְרִינַן? לְחוּמְרָא גָּמְרִינַן, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרוּבָּא בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **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, we would say that **by Torah law** forbidden food **is nullified in** a mixture in which there is a simple **majority** of permitted food.


###### Chullin 98b:12
[Chullin 98b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/98b:12)

רָבָא אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְטַעַם כְּעִיקָּר, דִּבְקָדָשִׁים אָסוּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּהָכָא שָׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava stated** an alternative explanation of the term: This is, which appears in the *baraita* with regard to the nazirite’s ram: This limitation **is necessary only for** the principle that the halakhic status of the **flavor** of forbidden food is **like** that of its **substance.** If the flavor of **sacrificial** food is absorbed into another food, it renders that food **forbidden,** i.e., it is not nullified. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us that here,** in the case of the nazirite’s ram, the rest of the ram is **permitted** even to non-priests.