Study Chullin folio 98B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
and the term “cooked” indicates that the verse is referring only to a foreleg that is whole. R' 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.
The Talmud 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, R' Shimon bar Yoḥai, holds that one first cooks the entire r
And if you wish, say that everyone agrees that one first cuts off the foreleg and then cooks it. But one Sage, R' 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.
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 Talmud now returns to the dispute about whether non-kosher food is nullified in 60 or 100 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 60 times its volume of