Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 15, 2019 | 讞壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 108

If聽a forbidden item gives flavor to a permitted mixture but the actual item is no longer there (just the taste), is the mixture forbidden by Torah law or only by rabbinical decree? If milk fell into meat and the meat cooked with other meat and the milk came out of the original piece of meat, is that first piece of meat still forbidden?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讻诇 讛住专讬拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜住专讬拽讬 讘讬讬转讜住 诪讜转专讬谉 讛转诐 讛讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讝讜专讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜

All the Syrian cakes are prohibited, but the Syrian cakes of Baitos are permitted? The Gemara responds: With regard to the case there, Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: His belt is proof for him, as in those days people commonly had one belt, which was worn over the shirt. If a person had more than one shirt, then whenever he laundered one he would remove the belt and wear it over the second. If one saw a shirt being washed with its belt, he would know that the owner had only one shirt.

诪转谞讬壮 讟讬驻转 讞诇讘 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇 讛讞转讬讻讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘讗讜转讛 讞转讬讻讛 讗住讜专 谞讬注专 讗转 讛拽讚专讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘讗讜转讛 拽讚专讛 讗住讜专

MISHNA: In the case of a drop of milk that fell on a piece of meat, if the drop contains enough milk to impart flavor to that piece of meat, i.e., the meat is less than sixty times the size of the drop, the meat is forbidden. If one stirred the contents of the pot and the piece was submerged in the gravy before it absorbed the milk, if the drop contains enough milk to impart flavor to the contents of that entire pot, the contents of the entire pot are forbidden.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讟注诪讜 讜诇讗 诪诪砖讜 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

GEMARA: Abaye said: The principle that the flavor of a forbidden food renders prohibited the substance in which it is absorbed, and it is not necessary for there to be actual forbidden substance, applies by Torah law in general, and not just to the prohibition of meat cooked in milk.

讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 诪讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗讬 讞讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 谞诪讬

As, if it enters your mind that the principle applies to other prohibited foods by rabbinic law, one can claim: What is the reason that we do not learn that it applies by Torah law from the analogous case of meat cooked in milk? It must be because the prohibition of meat cooked in milk is a novelty that is not derived through logical reasoning, as each substance is separately permitted, and they are prohibited only when cooked together. No analogies can be drawn to a novelty. But if the prohibition is a novelty, then even if there is not enough milk to impart flavor, the meat and milk should also be prohibited. Since the measure of the prohibition follows the standard principles of mixtures, the prohibition itself is apparently not a novelty. One may therefore draw an analogy to other mixtures, inferring that this measure applies to them by Torah law as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚专讱 讘砖讜诇 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

Rava said to Abaye: This is not a valid proof. The prohibition of meat cooked in milk is in fact a novelty and differs from other prohibited mixtures. Nevertheless, its measure is the imparting of flavor only because the action the Torah prohibited is in the manner of cooking, and cooking involves the imparting of flavor.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 讟注诐 讘讞转讬讻讛 讞转讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 谞注砖讬转 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讜住专转 讻诇 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬谞讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if the piece of meat acquires the flavor of milk, it is forbidden. Rav says: Once the milk imparts flavor to the piece of meat, the piece itself becomes non-kosher meat in its own right. And therefore, if one did not immediately remove the piece from the pot, it renders all the pieces of meat in the pot forbidden, even if they are together more than sixty times the size of that forbidden piece. This is because they are the same type as the forbidden piece, and as a rule, a substance in contact with the same type of substance cannot be nullified.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讻讚讬 专讘 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘讗

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: Now consider, in accordance with whose opinion did Rav say his halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. If so, shall we say that Rav disagrees with Rava鈥檚 interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion?

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 住诇拽 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 专讘讛 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讜

As Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds with regard to any tripartite mixture consisting of a forbidden type of food, a permitted food of the same type, and another food item that is permitted, one disregards the permitted food that is its own type as though it were not there, and if the permitted food that is not of its own type is more than the forbidden food, the permitted food nullifies the forbidden food. In the case Rav describes, although the other pieces of meat are of the same type as the piece that has become forbidden, the gravy in the pot is not of the same type, and it should nullify the forbidden piece. Since Rav does not mention this principle, he apparently disagrees with it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚谞驻诇 讘专讜讟讘 专讻讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞驻诇 讘专讜讟讘 注讘讛

Ravina said to him: If the forbidden substance fell into thin gravy, Rav would concede that the gravy would indeed nullify the piece of meat, since the two substances are of different types. But here we are dealing with a case where it fell into thick gravy, which is composed of meat residue. Since the gravy is of the same substance as the meat, the forbidden piece is not nullified.

讜诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 诪讜转专 讞转讬讻讛 讗诪讗讬 谞注砖讬转 谞讘诇讛 讗诇讗 拽住讘专 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara returns to Rav鈥檚 statement that the piece of meat upon which the milk fell is considered a non-kosher item in its own right. And what does Rav maintain in this regard? If he maintains that an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance it contains becomes permitted again after wringing, then it follows that only the absorbed substance is truly forbidden. If so, why should this piece of meat itself become non-kosher? Once it has been mixed into the stew, the milk it has absorbed should be evenly distributed throughout the pot and be nullified. Rather, Rav must maintain that even an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is forbidden.

讚讗讬转诪专 专讘 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara elaborates: As it was stated: Rav and Rabbi 岣nina and Rabbi Yo岣nan say that even an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is forbidden, whereas Shmuel, and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Reish Lakish say: An item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is permitted.

讜住讘专 专讘 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讜讛讗讬转诪专 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讬讜专讛 砖诇 讞诇讘 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖专 讗住讜专 讜讞诇讘 诪讜转专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: And does Rav really maintain that an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is forbidden? But wasn鈥檛 it stated: If an olive-bulk of meat fell into a pot of milk so large that the meat did not impart flavor to it, Rav says: The meat is forbidden, as it absorbed the taste of the milk, but the milk is permitted, since it did not absorb the taste of the meat. But if it enters your mind that according to Rav an item that can be wrung is forbidden,

讞诇讘 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讛讜讗

why is the milk permitted? All the milk that the meat absorbed is rendered non-kosher milk in and of itself. When it seeps back out of the meat, it cannot be nullified by the rest of the milk, which is the same substance, as Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. Therefore, the whole pot of milk should be prohibited.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 专讘 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讙讚讬 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讘

The Gemara answers: Rav actually maintains that an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is prohibited, and there, the pot of milk mentioned above is different, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). The verse teaches that the Torah prohibits only the kid, i.e., the meat, that was cooked in milk, but not the milk that was cooked in meat. The milk is not itself rendered non-kosher.

讜住讘专 专讘 讙讚讬 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讘 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞诇讘 砖讘砖诇谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讙讚讬 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讘 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讜拽讛 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges: And does Rav really maintain that the Torah prohibits only the kid but not the milk cooked with it? But isn鈥檛 it stated: If half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk were cooked together, Rav says: One is flogged for consuming the combined olive-bulk, as he has eaten a whole olive-bulk of forbidden food. But he is not flogged for cooking the two half olive-bulks, as he did not cook items of the minimum size. And if it should enter your mind that Rav holds that the Torah prohibits only the kid but not the milk, why is this individual flogged for consuming only half an olive-bulk of meat? It is only half the prohibited measure.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 专讘 讞诇讘 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讬讜专讛 专讜转讞转 讚诪讘诇注 讘诇注 诪驻诇讟 诇讗 驻诇讟

Rather, Rav actually maintains that milk cooked in meat is also prohibited, and the reason Rav permits the pot of milk mentioned above is that here we are dealing with a case where the olive-bulk of meat fell into a boiling pot of milk. In such a case the meat absorbs milk, but it does not expel it, and therefore the prohibited milk does not mix with the rest.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 谞讬讬讞 讛讚专 驻诇讬讟 讻砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽讜

The Gemara challenges: Ultimately, when the pot cools from boiling, the meat then expels the prohibited milk. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he first removed the meat before the pot cooled.

讙讜驻讗 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞诇讘 砖讘砖诇谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讘砖讜诇讜 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗讘砖讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讬诇拽讬 讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗讗讻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬诇拽讬

The Gemara turns to the matter itself mentioned above: If half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk were cooked together, Rav says: One is flogged for consuming the mixture, but he is not flogged for cooking it. The Gemara objects: Whichever way you look at it, this ruling is problematic. If these two halves of olive-bulks combine to form the requisite measure, then let him be flogged for cooking them as well. And if they do not combine, then let him not be flogged for their consumption either.

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讜讘讘讗 诪讬讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk do not combine to form the requisite measure, and when Rav says that one is flogged for consuming them, he is referring to a case where they come from a large pot, in which a sizable amount of meat and cheese had been cooked. The mixture is now considered a single prohibited entity, such that half an olive-bulk of the cheese and the meat can combine to constitute the requisite measure to be held liable for consumption.

讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗祝 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻砖诐 砖诇讜拽讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讻讱 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讘讗讬 讝讛 讘砖讜诇 讗诪专讜 讘讘砖讜诇 砖讗讞专讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞诪转 讘砖讜诇讜

And Levi disagrees with Rav on this matter, and says: Half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk can combine to form the requisite measure, and therefore one is also flogged for cooking the mixture. And so Levi teaches in his collection of baraitot: Just as one is flogged for consuming it, so too he is flogged for cooking it. And for what degree of cooking did they say that one is liable to be flogged? It is for a degree of cooking that produces food that others, gentiles, would eat due to its cooking, i.e., cooking that renders it fit for consumption.

讜讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 注爪诪讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讟驻转 讞诇讘 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇 讛讞转讬讻讛 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谞讛 讟注诐 讘讞转讬讻讛 讛讞转讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 谞注砖转 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讜住专转 讻诇 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the issue previously discussed: And the case of an item that can be wrung to remove an absorbed prohibited substance is itself the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: If a drop of milk fell onto a piece of meat, once it imparts flavor to the piece, the piece itself is rendered non-kosher in its own right. And it therefore renders all the other pieces of meat in the pot prohibited, even if they combine to more than sixty times its size; this is because they are of the same type, and a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖转转谉 讟注诐 讘专讜讟讘 讜讘拽讬驻讛 讜讘讞转讬讻讜转

And the Rabbis say that even the original piece of meat is not prohibited unless there is enough milk to impart flavor even to the gravy and to the spices and to the other pieces of meat in the pot, since the milk is assumed to diffuse from the first piece until it is evenly distributed throughout the pot.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诇讗 谞讬注专 讜砖诇讗 讻住讛 讜讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖谞讬注专 讜讻住讛

With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in a case where one did not stir the contents of the pot and where he did not cover it, both of which would promote the diffusion of the milk throughout the pot. And the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in a case where one stirred the contents of the pot and covered it.

诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讬注专 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 谞讬注专 讻诇诇 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讻诇诇 诪讘诇注 讘诇注 诪驻诇讟 诇讗 驻诇讟

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: Where one did not stir the pot and did not cover it? If we say that he did not stir the contents of the pot at all and did not cover it at all, in this case the piece of meat onto which the milk fell absorbs the drop of milk but does not expel it. Therefore, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there is no reason to prohibit the other pieces of meat.

讜讗诇讗 诇讗 谞讬注专 讘转讞诇讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讘转讞诇讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讘诇注 讜讛讗 驻诇讟

And if you say rather that he did not not stir the contents of the pot at the beginning, immediately after the milk fell in, but stirred at the end, afterward, and likewise he did not cover the pot at the beginning but at the end, one must ask: Why are all the pieces in the pot prohibited? The same milk that the piece absorbs it subsequently expels, and once the milk diffuses throughout the pot it should be nullified.

拽住讘专 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara responds: Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that an item that can be wrung remains prohibited. Once the first piece of meat absorbs the milk, it is considered non-kosher in its own right, and even after the milk itself is nullified, the flavor of the forbidden meat renders the rest of the pieces prohibited. The flavor of the meat cannot be nullified by the other meat in the pot, since a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 108

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 108

讻诇 讛住专讬拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜住专讬拽讬 讘讬讬转讜住 诪讜转专讬谉 讛转诐 讛讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讝讜专讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜

All the Syrian cakes are prohibited, but the Syrian cakes of Baitos are permitted? The Gemara responds: With regard to the case there, Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: His belt is proof for him, as in those days people commonly had one belt, which was worn over the shirt. If a person had more than one shirt, then whenever he laundered one he would remove the belt and wear it over the second. If one saw a shirt being washed with its belt, he would know that the owner had only one shirt.

诪转谞讬壮 讟讬驻转 讞诇讘 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇 讛讞转讬讻讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘讗讜转讛 讞转讬讻讛 讗住讜专 谞讬注专 讗转 讛拽讚专讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘讗讜转讛 拽讚专讛 讗住讜专

MISHNA: In the case of a drop of milk that fell on a piece of meat, if the drop contains enough milk to impart flavor to that piece of meat, i.e., the meat is less than sixty times the size of the drop, the meat is forbidden. If one stirred the contents of the pot and the piece was submerged in the gravy before it absorbed the milk, if the drop contains enough milk to impart flavor to the contents of that entire pot, the contents of the entire pot are forbidden.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讟注诪讜 讜诇讗 诪诪砖讜 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

GEMARA: Abaye said: The principle that the flavor of a forbidden food renders prohibited the substance in which it is absorbed, and it is not necessary for there to be actual forbidden substance, applies by Torah law in general, and not just to the prohibition of meat cooked in milk.

讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 诪讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗讬 讞讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 谞诪讬

As, if it enters your mind that the principle applies to other prohibited foods by rabbinic law, one can claim: What is the reason that we do not learn that it applies by Torah law from the analogous case of meat cooked in milk? It must be because the prohibition of meat cooked in milk is a novelty that is not derived through logical reasoning, as each substance is separately permitted, and they are prohibited only when cooked together. No analogies can be drawn to a novelty. But if the prohibition is a novelty, then even if there is not enough milk to impart flavor, the meat and milk should also be prohibited. Since the measure of the prohibition follows the standard principles of mixtures, the prohibition itself is apparently not a novelty. One may therefore draw an analogy to other mixtures, inferring that this measure applies to them by Torah law as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚专讱 讘砖讜诇 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

Rava said to Abaye: This is not a valid proof. The prohibition of meat cooked in milk is in fact a novelty and differs from other prohibited mixtures. Nevertheless, its measure is the imparting of flavor only because the action the Torah prohibited is in the manner of cooking, and cooking involves the imparting of flavor.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 讟注诐 讘讞转讬讻讛 讞转讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 谞注砖讬转 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讜住专转 讻诇 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬谞讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if the piece of meat acquires the flavor of milk, it is forbidden. Rav says: Once the milk imparts flavor to the piece of meat, the piece itself becomes non-kosher meat in its own right. And therefore, if one did not immediately remove the piece from the pot, it renders all the pieces of meat in the pot forbidden, even if they are together more than sixty times the size of that forbidden piece. This is because they are the same type as the forbidden piece, and as a rule, a substance in contact with the same type of substance cannot be nullified.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讻讚讬 专讘 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘讗

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: Now consider, in accordance with whose opinion did Rav say his halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. If so, shall we say that Rav disagrees with Rava鈥檚 interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion?

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 住诇拽 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 专讘讛 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讜

As Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds with regard to any tripartite mixture consisting of a forbidden type of food, a permitted food of the same type, and another food item that is permitted, one disregards the permitted food that is its own type as though it were not there, and if the permitted food that is not of its own type is more than the forbidden food, the permitted food nullifies the forbidden food. In the case Rav describes, although the other pieces of meat are of the same type as the piece that has become forbidden, the gravy in the pot is not of the same type, and it should nullify the forbidden piece. Since Rav does not mention this principle, he apparently disagrees with it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚谞驻诇 讘专讜讟讘 专讻讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞驻诇 讘专讜讟讘 注讘讛

Ravina said to him: If the forbidden substance fell into thin gravy, Rav would concede that the gravy would indeed nullify the piece of meat, since the two substances are of different types. But here we are dealing with a case where it fell into thick gravy, which is composed of meat residue. Since the gravy is of the same substance as the meat, the forbidden piece is not nullified.

讜诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 诪讜转专 讞转讬讻讛 讗诪讗讬 谞注砖讬转 谞讘诇讛 讗诇讗 拽住讘专 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara returns to Rav鈥檚 statement that the piece of meat upon which the milk fell is considered a non-kosher item in its own right. And what does Rav maintain in this regard? If he maintains that an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance it contains becomes permitted again after wringing, then it follows that only the absorbed substance is truly forbidden. If so, why should this piece of meat itself become non-kosher? Once it has been mixed into the stew, the milk it has absorbed should be evenly distributed throughout the pot and be nullified. Rather, Rav must maintain that even an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is forbidden.

讚讗讬转诪专 专讘 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara elaborates: As it was stated: Rav and Rabbi 岣nina and Rabbi Yo岣nan say that even an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is forbidden, whereas Shmuel, and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Reish Lakish say: An item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is permitted.

讜住讘专 专讘 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讜讛讗讬转诪专 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讬讜专讛 砖诇 讞诇讘 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖专 讗住讜专 讜讞诇讘 诪讜转专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: And does Rav really maintain that an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is forbidden? But wasn鈥檛 it stated: If an olive-bulk of meat fell into a pot of milk so large that the meat did not impart flavor to it, Rav says: The meat is forbidden, as it absorbed the taste of the milk, but the milk is permitted, since it did not absorb the taste of the meat. But if it enters your mind that according to Rav an item that can be wrung is forbidden,

讞诇讘 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讛讜讗

why is the milk permitted? All the milk that the meat absorbed is rendered non-kosher milk in and of itself. When it seeps back out of the meat, it cannot be nullified by the rest of the milk, which is the same substance, as Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. Therefore, the whole pot of milk should be prohibited.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 专讘 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讙讚讬 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讘

The Gemara answers: Rav actually maintains that an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is prohibited, and there, the pot of milk mentioned above is different, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). The verse teaches that the Torah prohibits only the kid, i.e., the meat, that was cooked in milk, but not the milk that was cooked in meat. The milk is not itself rendered non-kosher.

讜住讘专 专讘 讙讚讬 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讘 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞诇讘 砖讘砖诇谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讙讚讬 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讘 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讜拽讛 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges: And does Rav really maintain that the Torah prohibits only the kid but not the milk cooked with it? But isn鈥檛 it stated: If half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk were cooked together, Rav says: One is flogged for consuming the combined olive-bulk, as he has eaten a whole olive-bulk of forbidden food. But he is not flogged for cooking the two half olive-bulks, as he did not cook items of the minimum size. And if it should enter your mind that Rav holds that the Torah prohibits only the kid but not the milk, why is this individual flogged for consuming only half an olive-bulk of meat? It is only half the prohibited measure.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 专讘 讞诇讘 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讬讜专讛 专讜转讞转 讚诪讘诇注 讘诇注 诪驻诇讟 诇讗 驻诇讟

Rather, Rav actually maintains that milk cooked in meat is also prohibited, and the reason Rav permits the pot of milk mentioned above is that here we are dealing with a case where the olive-bulk of meat fell into a boiling pot of milk. In such a case the meat absorbs milk, but it does not expel it, and therefore the prohibited milk does not mix with the rest.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 谞讬讬讞 讛讚专 驻诇讬讟 讻砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽讜

The Gemara challenges: Ultimately, when the pot cools from boiling, the meat then expels the prohibited milk. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he first removed the meat before the pot cooled.

讙讜驻讗 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞诇讘 砖讘砖诇谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讘砖讜诇讜 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗讘砖讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讬诇拽讬 讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗讗讻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬诇拽讬

The Gemara turns to the matter itself mentioned above: If half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk were cooked together, Rav says: One is flogged for consuming the mixture, but he is not flogged for cooking it. The Gemara objects: Whichever way you look at it, this ruling is problematic. If these two halves of olive-bulks combine to form the requisite measure, then let him be flogged for cooking them as well. And if they do not combine, then let him not be flogged for their consumption either.

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讜讘讘讗 诪讬讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk do not combine to form the requisite measure, and when Rav says that one is flogged for consuming them, he is referring to a case where they come from a large pot, in which a sizable amount of meat and cheese had been cooked. The mixture is now considered a single prohibited entity, such that half an olive-bulk of the cheese and the meat can combine to constitute the requisite measure to be held liable for consumption.

讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗祝 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻砖诐 砖诇讜拽讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讻讱 诇讜拽讛 注诇 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讘讗讬 讝讛 讘砖讜诇 讗诪专讜 讘讘砖讜诇 砖讗讞专讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞诪转 讘砖讜诇讜

And Levi disagrees with Rav on this matter, and says: Half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk can combine to form the requisite measure, and therefore one is also flogged for cooking the mixture. And so Levi teaches in his collection of baraitot: Just as one is flogged for consuming it, so too he is flogged for cooking it. And for what degree of cooking did they say that one is liable to be flogged? It is for a degree of cooking that produces food that others, gentiles, would eat due to its cooking, i.e., cooking that renders it fit for consumption.

讜讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 注爪诪讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讟驻转 讞诇讘 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇 讛讞转讬讻讛 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谞讛 讟注诐 讘讞转讬讻讛 讛讞转讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 谞注砖转 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讜住专转 讻诇 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the issue previously discussed: And the case of an item that can be wrung to remove an absorbed prohibited substance is itself the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: If a drop of milk fell onto a piece of meat, once it imparts flavor to the piece, the piece itself is rendered non-kosher in its own right. And it therefore renders all the other pieces of meat in the pot prohibited, even if they combine to more than sixty times its size; this is because they are of the same type, and a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖转转谉 讟注诐 讘专讜讟讘 讜讘拽讬驻讛 讜讘讞转讬讻讜转

And the Rabbis say that even the original piece of meat is not prohibited unless there is enough milk to impart flavor even to the gravy and to the spices and to the other pieces of meat in the pot, since the milk is assumed to diffuse from the first piece until it is evenly distributed throughout the pot.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诇讗 谞讬注专 讜砖诇讗 讻住讛 讜讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖谞讬注专 讜讻住讛

With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in a case where one did not stir the contents of the pot and where he did not cover it, both of which would promote the diffusion of the milk throughout the pot. And the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in a case where one stirred the contents of the pot and covered it.

诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讬注专 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 谞讬注专 讻诇诇 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讻诇诇 诪讘诇注 讘诇注 诪驻诇讟 诇讗 驻诇讟

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: Where one did not stir the pot and did not cover it? If we say that he did not stir the contents of the pot at all and did not cover it at all, in this case the piece of meat onto which the milk fell absorbs the drop of milk but does not expel it. Therefore, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there is no reason to prohibit the other pieces of meat.

讜讗诇讗 诇讗 谞讬注专 讘转讞诇讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讘转讞诇讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讘诇注 讜讛讗 驻诇讟

And if you say rather that he did not not stir the contents of the pot at the beginning, immediately after the milk fell in, but stirred at the end, afterward, and likewise he did not cover the pot at the beginning but at the end, one must ask: Why are all the pieces in the pot prohibited? The same milk that the piece absorbs it subsequently expels, and once the milk diffuses throughout the pot it should be nullified.

拽住讘专 讗驻砖专 诇住讜讞讟讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara responds: Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that an item that can be wrung remains prohibited. Once the first piece of meat absorbs the milk, it is considered non-kosher in its own right, and even after the milk itself is nullified, the flavor of the forbidden meat renders the rest of the pieces prohibited. The flavor of the meat cannot be nullified by the other meat in the pot, since a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

Scroll To Top