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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.