Daf Yomi
Chullin 109
In another voice
Sugya Map
The sugya in Chullin 109a serves as the crucible for two of the most fundamental concepts in the laws of dietary mixtures (ta'aruvot): the mechanism of Chatichah Na'asit Neveilah (ChAN)—specifically through the prism of efshar lesochto (whether a forbidden substance can be completely extracted)—and the halakhic taxonomy of kachal (udder) and its retained milk.
- The Core Issues:
- The Metaphysics of Extraction (Efshar Lesochto): If a permitted substance (meat) absorbs a forbidden substance (milk), and the forbidden substance is subsequently extracted or diluted, does the permitted substance revert to its pristine state (efshar lesochto muttar), or does it retain its status as a prohibited entity (efshar lesochto asur)?
- The Status of Udder Milk (Chalav Kachal): Is the milk contained within an animal's udder at the time of slaughter classified as actual milk (chalav) or merely as meat-juice? Does cooking it without prior preparation (keri'ah) violate a biblical or rabbinic prohibition?
- Primary Nafka Minot (Halakhic Ramifications):
- B'di'avad (post facto) status of a piece of meat that absorbed milk but was subsequently cooked in a pot containing sixty times its volume of water or other meat.
- The requirement of keri'ah (tearing) for an udder before roasting versus before cooking in a pot.
- The permissibility of consuming food that mimics the taste of forbidden mixtures.
- Primary Sources:
- Chullin 108a (the Mishnah of the dropped milk-drop).
- Chullin 109a (the Gemara's analysis of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Yehuda, and the Rabbis).
- Chullin 109b (the Mishnah of kachal and Yalta's philosophical dialogue).
Listen to this lesson. Ask it questions.
Audio, a chevruta that cites its sources, Hebrew tools, and every daily cycle, in the app.
Text Snapshot
To appreciate the nuances of the Gemara's dialectic, we must examine the precise language used in the transition from the mechanics of stirring (ni'ur) to the debate over extraction:
"אלא, לא ניער בתחלה אלא בסוף, לא כיסה בתחלה אלא בסוף. מכלל דסברי רבנן אפשר לסוחטו מותר... ורב אחא מדפתי אמר ליה לרבינא: ממאי דבאפשר לסוחטו פליגי? דילמא באפשר לסוחטו כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסור, והכא במין במינו ודבר אחר פליגי..."[^1]
Philological and Lomdish Nuances
- "מכלל דסברי רבנן" (By inference, the Rabbis maintain): The Gemara does not possess an explicit statement from the Rabbis regarding efshar lesochto. Rather, it derives their position from the mechanics of ni'ur (stirring) and kisuy (covering). If the Rabbis permit the mixture when stirring occurred only at the end, they must hold that the milk originally absorbed by the first piece of meat was successfully "wrung out" (nischat) back into the pot and nullified by the sixty-fold volume of the other pieces.
- "אפשר לסוחטו" (Efshar Lesochto—Literally: "It is possible to wring it out"): Note the use of the passive/active verbal noun lesochto. The Gemara frames this not merely as a chemical diffusion, but as a conceptual squeezing. The meat acts as a sponge. The question is whether the cheftza (object) of the meat can be purified of its absorbed issur (prohibition), or if the absorption permanently mutates the meat's halakhic DNA.
- "כחל שבישלו בחלבו" (An udder that was cooked in its milk): The Gemara later contrasts this with the stomach (keivah). The choice of the word be-chalvo (in its milk) is highly precise. The milk of the kachal is referred to as its milk—implying it is an organic part of the animal's flesh, unlike the milk in a calf's stomach, which was ingested from an external source and is thus classified as collected (kinush) milk.^2
[^1]: Chullin 109a. [^2]: See Chullin 109a; Rashi s.v. "שלא כנסו בקדירה".
Readings
The debate over efshar lesochto and the status of kachal divides the Rishonim and Acharonim into distinct conceptual camps, each offering a different model for how physical absorption translates into halakhic status.
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ Is "Efshar Lesochto" │
│ permitted or forbidden? │
└───────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ Permitted (Muttar) │ │ Forbidden (Asur) │
│ - Squeezing purifies cheftza │ │ - Irreversible transformation │
│ - Purely physical absorption │ │ - Metaphysical mutation │
└────────┬────────────────────────┘ └────────┬────────────────────────┘
│ │
├─► Rashba (B'di'avad only) ├─► Rashi (Permanent ChAN)
│ │
└─► Rambam (Pure physical model) └─► Rabbeinu Tam (Severe ChAN)
1. Rashi vs. Rabbeinu Tam: The Metaphysics of Chatichah Na'asit Neveilah (ChAN)
The core dispute regarding efshar lesochto hinges on how we understand the mechanism of Chatichah Na'asit Neveilah (the piece itself becomes forbidden).
Rashi's View: The Physical Model
Rashi explains that if efshar lesochto muttar, then once the absorbed milk is discharged back into the pot and nullified in sixty times its volume, the original piece of meat is permitted.^3
[Permitted Meat] + [Milk Drop] ──► [Temporary Absorption] ──► [Milk Squeezed Out / Diluted] ──► [Meat Permitted Again]
For Rashi, the prohibition of basar be-chalav (meat and milk) inside the meat is entirely dependent on the presence of the milk's taste. The moment that taste is extracted or nullified through dilution, the meat returns to its status of absolute heter (permissibility). There is no lingering metaphysical "stamp" of prohibition left on the meat.
Rabbeinu Tam's View: The Ontological Mutation
Rabbeinu Tam strongly disagrees.^4 He argues that even if efshar lesochto muttar in general (e.g., in other areas of the Torah, such as a vessel that absorbed neveilah taste and was then purged), it cannot apply to basar be-chalav.
According to Rabbeinu Tam, the Torah created a unique mechanism by which meat and milk, when cooked together, undergo an ontological mutation. The meat doesn't merely contain forbidden milk; the meat itself becomes a new forbidden substance called basar be-chalav.
[Meat] + [Milk] ──(Cooking)──► [Ontological Mutation: Basar Be-Chalav] ──► [Extraction of Milk] ──► [Meat Remains Forbidden]
Even if you could physically wring out every single molecule of milk, the meat has already been transformed into a cheftza shel issur (an object of prohibition). Therefore, Rabbeinu Tam rules that even if the Rabbis hold efshar lesochto muttar as a general rule, the piece of meat itself remains permanently forbidden in a case of basar be-chalav.
[^3]: Rashi, Chullin 109a s.v. "שמא לא ניער תחלה יפה". [^4]: Tosafot, Chullin 108b s.v. "אמר רבי".
2. The Rambam vs. the Rashba: The Taxonomy of Chalav Kachal
The Gemara asserts that an udder cooked in its milk is permitted post facto. The Rishonim struggle to define the exact status of the milk residing inside the udder's ducts at the time of slaughter.
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ What is the status of │
│ udder milk (Kachal)? │
└───────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────────┐
│ Rambam: Chalav Shechutah │ │ Rashba: Redundant Blood │
│ - Rabbinically "Milk" │ │ - Meat-juice status │
│ - No biblical Basar Be-Chalav │ │ - Permitted by Torah law │
└───────────────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────────────┘
The Rambam's Position: Chalav Shechutah
The Rambam rules that the milk found in the udder of a slaughtered animal is classified as chalav shechutah (slaughtered milk).[Rambam, Ma'achalot Asurot 9:12] By Torah law, it is not considered "milk," because the Torah only prohibits milk that is drawn from a living animal (which can then be used for life-giving nourishment).
However, rabbinically, it is treated as milk. Therefore, if one cooks kachal without tearing it first, one does not receive lashes (stripes for violating a Torah law), but the act is rabbinically prohibited.
[Slaughtered Animal] ──► [Udder Milk] ──► [Classified as Chalav Shechutah] ──► [Torah: Permitted / Rabbinic: Prohibited]
If it was cooked post facto (b'di'avad), the Rambam permits the mixture only if the volume of the meat of the pot (including the udder itself) is sixty times the volume of the milk that was squeezed out.[Rambam, Ma'achalot Asurot 9:13]
The Rashba's Position: The "Blood-Like" Model
The Rashba, in his Torat HaBayit, takes a more lenient conceptual approach.^5 He argues that the milk inside the udder is not even rabbinically classified as true milk in terms of its ability to prohibit other pieces. Rather, it is treated similarly to the blood found in the liver.
Just as liver is packed with blood but may be roasted because the heat of the fire extracts the blood without causing the meat to absorb it, so too may the udder be roasted directly over the fire. The fire draws out the milk, and we do not worry that the udder absorbs its own discharged milk during the roasting process.
According to the Rashba, the requirement to "tear" (keri'ah) the udder is only a rabbinic stringency to ensure that no visible milk remains to confuse onlookers (mar'it ayin), but the substance itself never possesses the full halakhic weight of issur.
[^5]: Rashba, Torat HaBayit, Bayit 3, Shaar 4 (82a).
3. Acharonim: Rav Shimon Shkop and the Tzofnat Paneach
Rav Shimon Shkop: The Physics of Ta'am vs. Cheftza
In his magnum opus, Sha'arei Yosher, Rav Shimon Shkop analyzes the root of the debate between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam regarding efshar lesochto.^6 Rav Shimon asks: Is the status of ta'am ke-ikkar (the taste of a forbidden food is treated like the food itself) a law of identity or a law of presence?
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ Ta'am Ke-Ikkar: │
│ Identity vs. Presence │
└───────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────────┐
│ Identity (Rabbeinu Tam) │ │ Presence (Rashi) │
│ - Meat becomes "Neveilah" │ │ - Permitted meat contains taste │
│ - Irreversible status change │ │ - Remove taste, remove prohibition│
└───────────────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────────────┘
- The Identity Model (Rabbeinu Tam): When meat absorbs milk, the meat becomes the forbidden entity of basar be-chalav. Even if the milk is later extracted, the identity of the meat has been permanently altered.
- The Presence Model (Rashi): The meat remains permitted meat; it merely contains a foreign forbidden presence (the milk's taste). If you can extract that presence (via efshar lesochto), there is no longer any reason to prohibit the meat.
Rav Shimon uses this to explain the Gemara's discussion on Chullin 109a. When the Gemara suggests that the Rabbis permit a piece of meat that absorbed milk if it was subsequently stirred at the end, it is because the Rabbis hold the Presence Model. Once the milk's taste is dispersed and diluted throughout the entire pot, the individual piece no longer possesses a concentration of forbidden taste, and is therefore permitted.
The Rogatchover Gaon: The Metaphysics of Yalta's Permitted Counterparts
In his commentary Tzofnat Paneach, the Rogatchover Gaon examines the philosophical statement of Yalta:^7
"כל דאסר רחמנא שרא לן כוותיה" (For everything the Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us a similar item).
[Torah Prohibition] ◄────────────────(Conceptual Symmetry)────────────────► [Torah Permission]
(e.g., Blood) (e.g., Liver)
The Rogatchover explains that this is not merely a psychological comfort provided by the Torah, but a fundamental principle in the structure of creation. Every spiritual "impurity" (tumah or issur) must have a corresponding physical manifestation in the realm of "purity" (taharah or heter).
The physical world is built on a system of conceptual symmetry. If the Torah prohibits dam (blood), there must exist a physical entity—chaved (liver)—that possesses the exact physical properties and taste of blood but remains halakhically permitted. This proves that the prohibition of blood is not based on its physical taste or chemical makeup, but on a metaphysical decree (gezeirat hakatuv).
By providing a permitted counterpart for every prohibition, the Torah demonstrates that holiness is achieved not through ascetic denial of physical sensations, but through the submission of the human will to the divine classification of physical matter.
[^6]: Sha'arei Yosher, Sha'ar 5, Perek 12. [^7]: Tzofnat Paneach on Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 9:12.
Friction
The sugya presents several intense textual and conceptual contradictions that require resolution.
Kushya 1: The Paradox of Yalta's Craving and Rav Nachman's Spit
The Gemara records that Yalta desired to experience the taste of meat cooked in milk (basar be-chalav). In response, Rav Nachman instructed his cooks: "Roast udders on a spit for her."[Chullin 109b]
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Yalta's Dilemma: Wants taste of "Meat cooked in Milk" │
└────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Rav Nachman's Solution: Roast Udder on Spit │
└────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌──────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐
│ If milk is drained: │ │ If milk is retained: │
│ No taste of meat/milk │ │ Rabbinical prohibition │
│ (Unsatisfied craving) │ │ (Violates Halakha) │
└──────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────┘
The Contradiction:
This directive seems to land Rav Nachman in a logical trap:
- If the milk is completely drained during the roasting process (as the Gemara asserts: miflet plet—the fire extracts the milk), then the udder should no longer taste like meat cooked in milk! It will simply taste like dry meat. How did this satisfy Yalta's specific craving?
- If the milk is not completely drained, and the udder retains enough milk to taste like basar be-chalav, how was Rav Nachman permitted to serve it to her ab initio (l'chatchilah) without tearing it first? The Mishnah explicitly states that one must tear the udder to remove its milk!
Terutz: The Dual Nature of Udder Milk
The Tofes Yosef and the Maharsha resolve this by reframing the physical action of roasting.^8 Roasting on a spit performs two simultaneous functions:
- It drains the free-flowing milk from the major ducts of the udder, preventing any rabbinic violation of cooking meat in actual, pooled milk.
- However, it cannot extract the absorbed milk within the cellular walls of the meat fibers.
This remaining, deeply embedded milk is cooked into the meat by the heat of the fire. Because this milk was never separated from the meat, it does not fall under the rabbinic prohibition of basar be-chalav when roasted.
Thus, Rav Nachman successfully navigated the halakhic boundaries: he served Yalta a dish that was completely permitted l'chatchilah (as the free milk was drained by the spit), yet still retained the authentic, rich taste of meat cooked in milk (due to the embedded milk cooked into the meat fibers).
[^8]: Maharsha, Chullin 109b s.v. "שפו לה כחלי".
Kushya 2: The Rabbis' Self-Contradiction on Efshar Lesochto
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ The "Efshar Lesochto" Conflict │
└────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Chullin 108a (Mishnah): │ │ Chullin 109a (Gemara): │
│ - Milk drop falls on meat │ │ - Permitted if stirred at end │
│ - Piece itself becomes forbidden │ │ - Extracted milk is nullified │
│ - Implies Efshar Lesochto ASUR │ │ - Implies Efshar Lesochto MUTTAR │
└───────────────────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────────────────┘
The Contradiction:
In Chullin 108a, the Mishnah states that if a drop of milk falls on a piece of meat in a pot, and the piece absorbs the milk and gains its flavor, that specific piece becomes forbidden (Chatichah Na'asit Neveilah). It then requires sixty times the volume of that entire piece (not just the drop of milk) to permit the rest of the pot. This clearly operates on the assumption that efshar lesochto asur (the piece remains permanently forbidden, and cannot be salvaged by the milk discharging back into the pot).
Yet, on Chullin 109a, the Gemara infers that the Rabbis hold efshar lesochto muttar, because they permit the pot when the chef stirs it at the end. If the Rabbis hold efshar lesochto muttar, why does the Mishnah in 108a rule that the individual piece becomes forbidden?
Terutz: The Distinction Between Basar Be-Chalav and Other Prohibitions
To resolve this contradiction, we must look to the classic resolution of the Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher) and the Rashba.^9
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ The Rashba's Resolution │
└───────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ The Case of Chullin 108a │ │ The Case of Chullin 109a │
│ - No stirring or covering │ │ - Stirring or covering occurred │
│ - Milk remains concentrated │ │ - Milk is instantly distributed │
│ - Ontological status of ChAN │ │ - No local concentration of taste │
│ - Permanently forbidden │ │ - Piece never becomes ChAN │
└───────────────────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────────────────┘
The Rashba explains that the Rabbis only apply the rule of efshar lesochto muttar when the milk is instantly distributed throughout the pot before it has time to establish a permanent, concentrated "foothold" of taste in the first piece.
- In Chullin 108a, where no stirring or covering occurred at the moment of impact, the milk concentrated within the single piece of meat for long enough to trigger the ontological status of ChAN. Once that status is triggered, even the Rabbis agree that the piece is permanently forbidden, because the meat itself has been transformed into neveilah.
- In Chullin 109a, however, where stirring or covering occurred, the milk was immediately dispersed. The first piece never had the opportunity to become a concentrated cheftza of issur. Therefore, the Rabbis rule it is permitted, as the physical taste was never locked into the meat's identity.
[^9]: Rosh, Chullin Perek 8, Siman 27; Rashba, Chullin 108b s.v. "הא דאמר רב".
Intertext
To fully appreciate how our sugya fits into the broader halakhic landscape, we must examine its parallels in biblical theology and the codification of practical law in the Shulchan Aruch.
1. The Theological Parallel: The Concept of Klei HaSared and Permitted Counterparts
Yalta's list of permitted counterparts is not merely an isolated homiletic insight. It reflects a deep biblical and midrashic structure.
┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ Torah Prohibition │ │ Permitted Counterpart │
├─────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────┤
│ Blood (Dam) │ ◄─────────────► │ Liver (Chaved) │
│ Menstruant (Niddah) │ ◄─────────────► │ Pure Blood (Dam Tohar) │
│ Forbidden Fat (Chelev) │ ◄─────────────► │ Wild Animal Fat (Shuman Chayah) │
│ Pork (Chazir) │ ◄─────────────► │ Shibuta Fish Brain │
│ Married Woman (Eshet Ish) │ ◄─────────────► │ Divorced Woman │
│ Brother's Wife (Eshet Ach) │ ◄─────────────► │ Yevama (Levirate Marriage) │
│ Gentile Woman (Goyah) │ ◄─────────────► │ Beautiful Captive (Yefat Toar) │
└─────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────┘
This list demonstrates a profound theological concept: The physical world is neutral; holiness is defined by relationship and divine command.
The Torah does not view physical matter (such as pork or blood) as inherently evil or toxic. If pork were physically or spiritually toxic in its essence, the Creator would not have placed its exact taste in the brain of the shibuta fish.
By creating a permitted counterpart for every prohibition, God reveals that the purpose of the commandments is the sanctification of human desire through boundaries, rather than the destruction of desire through asceticism.
2. The Halakhic Codification: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 92 & 97
The debate between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam regarding efshar lesochto, and the Rambam and Rashba regarding kachal, is codified as a major point of divergence between Sephardic and Ashkenazic practice.
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ Halakhic Codification │
│ (Yoreh Deah 92 & 97) │
└───────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────────┐
│ Mechaber (Rabbi Yosef Karo) │ │ Rema (Ashkenaz) │
│ - Follows Rambam/Rashba │ │ - Follows Rabbeinu Tam │
│ - Efshar lesochto is MUTTAR │ │ - Efshar lesochto is ASUR │
│ - ChAN only applies to milk/meat│ │ - ChAN applies to all mixtures │
└───────────────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────────────┘
On Efshar Lesochto and ChAN:
- The Mechaber Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 92:4: Rules in accordance with the Rambam and Rashba. If a forbidden taste is absorbed into a piece of meat, and then discharged and nullified in sixty times its volume, the original piece of meat is permitted. Efshar lesochto muttar, and ChAN only applies to the biblical mixture of meat and milk.
- The Rema Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 92:4: Rules in accordance with Rabbeinu Tam. We hold efshar lesochto asur. Once a piece of meat absorbs a forbidden taste, it becomes neveilah (ChAN) and remains permanently forbidden, even if the forbidden taste is subsequently diluted or extracted. Furthermore, the Rema extends the rule of ChAN to all dietary prohibitions, not just meat and milk.
On Kachal (Udder):
- The Mechaber Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 97:1: Permits the roasting of an udder l'chatchilah on a spit without tearing it, as long as it is placed over the fire so the milk can drain freely.
- The Rema Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 97:1: Notes that the custom in Ashkenazic communities is to be stringent. Even for roasting, we require the udder to be torn lengthwise and widthwise (sheti va'erev) and smeared against a wall to remove all visible milk before it touches the fire.
Psak/Practice
Modern Industrial Kitchens and Food Technology
The principles derived from Chullin 109a are highly relevant to modern food technology, particularly regarding the kosher certification of shared equipment and the development of synthetic meat and dairy.
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ Modern Food Technology │
│ Applications │
└───────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Equipment Koshering (Hag'alah) │ │ Synthetic Meat and Dairy │
│ - Based on Efshar Lesochto │ │ - Yalta's Rule of Equivalents │
│ - Heat extracts absorbed taste │ │ - Permitted synthetic "pork" │
│ - Water nullifies the taste │ │ and "meat cooked in milk" │
└───────────────────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────────────────┘
1. Koshering Equipment (Hag'alah):
The entire concept of purging a vessel of its absorbed taste (hag'alah) is built on the foundation of efshar lesochto. When we boil a pot that has absorbed non-kosher taste, we rely on the principle that the heat of the water will extract (nischat) the taste from the walls of the vessel, and the water will then nullify that taste.
If we held that the vessel's walls underwent an irreversible ontological mutation (similar to Rabbeinu Tam's view of ChAN in meat and milk), purging would be impossible, and we would have to discard any vessel that absorbed a forbidden substance.
2. Synthetic Meat and Dairy:
With the advent of lab-grown meat and plant-based dairy alternatives (such as almond milk or soy milk), Yalta’s principle serves as a guiding light for modern poskim (halakhic authorities).
- Mar'it Ayin Concerns: If one cooks real beef in almond milk, the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 87:3 requires placing almonds near the pot to avoid the appearance of violating the prohibition of basar be-chalav.
- The Modern Permitted Counterpart: Lab-grown "beef" (derived from non-animal stem cells) cooked with plant-based milk represents the ultimate realization of Yalta's desire. It provides the exact taste and culinary experience of meat cooked in milk, while remaining 100% kosher and parve. Contemporary authorities utilize Yalta's sugya to validate the production and marketing of these synthetic equivalents, proving that the Torah desires the physical enjoyment of these tastes within the framework of halakhic permission.
Takeaway
The debate over efshar lesochto reveals that halakha is not merely a system of physical cleanup, but a grand metaphysical taxonomy where the status of an object is determined by its identity, not just its chemical composition. For everything the Torah prohibits, it provides a path of sanctification—proving that holiness is found not in the denial of taste, but in the boundaries of its consumption.
Read this page at another depth
Tomorrow's lesson, already explained.
Today's is done. Tomorrow morning's arrives the same way: one short, source-cited email on the day's page. Every day of the cycle has one.
derekhlearning.com