## Chullin Daf 99a

###### Chullin 99a:1
[Chullin 99a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/99a:1)

וְלִיגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ? גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חַטָּאת: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יִקְדָּשׁ״, לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהָ – שֶׁאִם פְּסוּלָה תִּפָּסֵל, וְאִם כְּשֵׁרָה תֵּאָכֵל כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 99a:2
[Chullin 99a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/99a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 99a:3
[Chullin 99a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/99a:3)

אִי הָכִי, לְמֵאָה וְשִׁשִּׁים נָמֵי לָא לִיגְמַר? אַטּוּ אֲנַן לְקוּלָּא קָא גָמְרִינַן? לְחוּמְרָא קָא גָמְרִינַן, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרוּבָּא בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 99a:4
[Chullin 99a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/99a:4)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ, דְּאָמַר: מְקוֹם חֲתָךְ בְּעָלְמָא אָסוּר, וְהָכָא שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 99a:5
[Chullin 99a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/99a:5)

יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי, וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*.**


###### Chullin 99a:6
[Chullin 99a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/99a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בְּמֵאָה? וְהָתְנַן: לָמָה אָמְרוּ כׇּל הַמְחַמֵּץ וּמְתַבֵּל וּמְדַמֵּעַ לְהַחְמִיר – מִין וּמִינוֹ, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחְמִיר – מִין וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 99a:7
[Chullin 99a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/99a:7)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 99a:8
[Chullin 99a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/99a:8)

אֵין בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, בֵּין אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד – מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 99a:9
[Chullin 99a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/99a:9)

אֵין בָּהֶן לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד, אֶלָּא בְּמַאי? לָאו בְּשִׁשִּׁים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.