Chullin 97
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 97
שָׁאנֵי חֵלֶב, דִּמְפַעְפַּע.
The Gemara answers: Forbidden fat is different from the sciatic nerve, because its flavor permeates throughout the animal, unlike that of the sciatic nerve.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא תְּרוּמָה, טָעֵים לַהּ כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב – מַאן טָעֵים לֵיהּ? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סָמְכִינַן אַקַּפִּילָא אֲרַמָּאָה, הָכָא נָמֵי סָמְכִינַן אַקַּפִּילָא אֲרַמָּאָה.
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.
דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּטַעְמָא, וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּקַפִּילָא,
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,
וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּשִׁשִּׁים. הִלְכָּךְ, מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא – בְּטַעְמָא, דְּאִיסּוּרָא – בְּקַפִּילָא.
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.
וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ, דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵיקַם אַטַּעְמָא, אִי נָמֵי מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ דְּאִיסּוּרָא, דְּלֵיכָּא קַפִּילָא – בְּשִׁשִּׁים.
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.
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.
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב לְרָבִינָא: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ, כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל.
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.
וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ, אֲבָל נִצְלָה בָּהּ – קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַגִּיד.
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.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, מַאי כְּרוֹתֵחַ דְּקָאָמַר? כְּרוֹתֵחַ דִּמְבוּשָּׁל! וְהָא מִדְּקָאָמַר כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל, מִכְּלָל דְּרוֹתֵחַ דְּצָלִי קָאָמַר. קַשְׁיָא.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּשֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִין, מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּרוֹטֶב וּבַקֵּיפֶה וּבַחֲתִיכוֹת וּבִקְדֵרָה. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּקְדֵרָה עַצְמָהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּמַאי דְּבָלְעָה קְדֵרָה.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה (מְשַׁעֲרִינַן) [מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתָן] כְּאִילּוּ הֵן בָּצָל וְקַפְלוֹט.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וּלְשַׁעֲרִינְהוּ בְּפִלְפְּלִין וְתַבְלִין, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶלֶף לֹא בְּטֵלִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים דְּאֵין נוֹתֵן טַעַם בְּאִיסּוּרִין יוֹתֵר מִבָּצָל וְקַפְלוֹט.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: גִּיד בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְאֵין גִּיד מִן הַמִּנְיָן; כְּחָל בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וּכְחָל מִן הַמִּנְיָן; בֵּיצָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְאֵין בֵּיצָה מִן הַמִּנְיָן.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וּכְחָל עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר, וְאִי נָפַל לִקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת – אוֹסֵר.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, אִיבַּעְיָא לַן: כִּי מְשַׁעֲרִינַן בְּדִידֵיהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, אוֹ בְּמַאי דִּנְפַק מִינֵּיהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן?
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?
פְּשִׁיטָא דִּבְדִידֵיהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, דְּאִי בְּמָה דִּנְפַק מִינֵּיהּ – מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, נָפַל לִקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת – לֹא יֶאֱסֹר?
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.
כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וּכְחָל עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר, שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כַּחֲתִיכָה דִּנְבֵלָה.
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.
בֵּיצָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְאֵין בֵּיצָה מִן הַמִּנְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין לְאַבָּיֵי: לְמֵימְרָא דְּיָהֲבָה טַעְמָא? וְהָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: כִּי מַיָּא דְּבֵיעֵי בְּעָלְמָא!
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן?
Abaye said to him: Here we are dealing with
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Chullin 97
שָׁאנֵי חֵלֶב, דִּמְפַעְפַּע.
The Gemara answers: Forbidden fat is different from the sciatic nerve, because its flavor permeates throughout the animal, unlike that of the sciatic nerve.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא תְּרוּמָה, טָעֵים לַהּ כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב – מַאן טָעֵים לֵיהּ? הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סָמְכִינַן אַקַּפִּילָא אֲרַמָּאָה, הָכָא נָמֵי סָמְכִינַן אַקַּפִּילָא אֲרַמָּאָה.
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.
דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּטַעְמָא, וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּקַפִּילָא,
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,
וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּשִׁשִּׁים. הִלְכָּךְ, מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא – בְּטַעְמָא, דְּאִיסּוּרָא – בְּקַפִּילָא.
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.
וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ, דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵיקַם אַטַּעְמָא, אִי נָמֵי מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ דְּאִיסּוּרָא, דְּלֵיכָּא קַפִּילָא – בְּשִׁשִּׁים.
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.
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.
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב לְרָבִינָא: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ, כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל.
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.
וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ, אֲבָל נִצְלָה בָּהּ – קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַגִּיד.
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.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, מַאי כְּרוֹתֵחַ דְּקָאָמַר? כְּרוֹתֵחַ דִּמְבוּשָּׁל! וְהָא מִדְּקָאָמַר כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל, מִכְּלָל דְּרוֹתֵחַ דְּצָלִי קָאָמַר. קַשְׁיָא.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּשֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִין, מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּרוֹטֶב וּבַקֵּיפֶה וּבַחֲתִיכוֹת וּבִקְדֵרָה. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּקְדֵרָה עַצְמָהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּמַאי דְּבָלְעָה קְדֵרָה.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה (מְשַׁעֲרִינַן) [מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתָן] כְּאִילּוּ הֵן בָּצָל וְקַפְלוֹט.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וּלְשַׁעֲרִינְהוּ בְּפִלְפְּלִין וְתַבְלִין, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶלֶף לֹא בְּטֵלִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים דְּאֵין נוֹתֵן טַעַם בְּאִיסּוּרִין יוֹתֵר מִבָּצָל וְקַפְלוֹט.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: גִּיד בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְאֵין גִּיד מִן הַמִּנְיָן; כְּחָל בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וּכְחָל מִן הַמִּנְיָן; בֵּיצָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְאֵין בֵּיצָה מִן הַמִּנְיָן.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וּכְחָל עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר, וְאִי נָפַל לִקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת – אוֹסֵר.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, אִיבַּעְיָא לַן: כִּי מְשַׁעֲרִינַן בְּדִידֵיהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, אוֹ בְּמַאי דִּנְפַק מִינֵּיהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן?
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?
פְּשִׁיטָא דִּבְדִידֵיהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, דְּאִי בְּמָה דִּנְפַק מִינֵּיהּ – מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, נָפַל לִקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת – לֹא יֶאֱסֹר?
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.
כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וּכְחָל עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר, שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כַּחֲתִיכָה דִּנְבֵלָה.
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.
בֵּיצָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְאֵין בֵּיצָה מִן הַמִּנְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין לְאַבָּיֵי: לְמֵימְרָא דְּיָהֲבָה טַעְמָא? וְהָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: כִּי מַיָּא דְּבֵיעֵי בְּעָלְמָא!
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן?
Abaye said to him: Here we are dealing with
