Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Chullin 109
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: כִּי נִיעֵר מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף וְכִסָּה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – אָסוּר, אַמַּאי? הָא לָא בָּלַע כְּלָל!
The Gemara objects: From Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s acceptance of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion only when one did not stir or cover the pot, one can conclude by inference that Rabbi Yehuda himself maintains that even when one stirred the contents of the pot continuously from beginning to end, i.e., before and after the drop of milk was absorbed, or covered the pot continuously from beginning to end, all the contents of the pot are prohibited. But why should this be so? The first piece of meat did not absorb any more milk than the others. Since the milk definitely diffused evenly through the pot immediately, it should be nullified, assuming that the pot’s contents amount to more than sixty times the milk.
אֵימָא: לֹא נִיעֵר יָפֶה יָפֶה, וְלֹא כִּסָּה יָפֶה יָפֶה.
The Gemara responds: Say that Rabbi Yehuda is stringent because one might not have stirred thoroughly, or he might not have covered the pot thoroughly, and therefore initially the milk might have been absorbed only by the first piece, rendering it prohibited. Afterward, when he does stir thoroughly, that piece of meat renders the other pieces prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not share this concern.
אָמַר מָר, וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כְּשֶׁנִּיעֵר וְכִסָּה. מַאי ״נִיעֵר״ וּמַאי ״כִּסָּה״? אִילֵּימָא נִיעֵר בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא נִיעֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה, וְכִסָּה בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא כִּסָּה בַּתְּחִלָּה – הָאָמְרַתְּ נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהָא! אֶלָּא נִיעֵר מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְכִסָּה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף.
§ The Gemara returns to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: The Master said above: And the statement of the Rabbis appears correct in a case where one stirred the pot and covered it. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Stirred, and what is the meaning of the term: Covered? If we say that he stirred at the end, after the first piece absorbed the milk, and did not stir at the beginning, beforehand, and likewise he covered at the end and did not cover at the beginning, one may respond: Didn’t you already say on the previous amud that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in this case? Rather, it must be a case where he stirred continuously from beginning to end or covered the pot continuously from beginning to end.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: נִיעֵר בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא נִיעֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה, כִּסָּה בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא כִּסָּה בַּתְּחִלָּה – מוּתָּר.
If so, one can conclude by inference from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s qualified acceptance of the Rabbis’ opinion that the Rabbis themselves maintain that even when one stirred only at the end and did not stir at the beginning, and similarly if he covered the pot only at the end and did not cover at the beginning, all the contents of the pot are permitted. Even the first piece is permitted, as they hold that the milk it absorbed diffused out of it and throughout the pot.
אַלְמָא קָסָבְרִי אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ מוּתָּר.
Evidently, the Rabbis maintain that an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is permitted. This illustrates that tanna’im dispute this issue, as according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is prohibited.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: מִמַּאי דִּבְאֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ פְּלִיגִי? דִּלְמָא אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל, וְרַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּאָמְרִי: מִין בְּמִינוֹ בָּטֵיל!
Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: From where is it derived that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to an item that can be wrung? Perhaps even if an item can be wrung, everyone agrees that it remains prohibited, and here they disagree with regard to whether a type of food mixed with food of its own type can be nullified. And Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said that a type of food mixed with food of its own type cannot be nullified. And likewise, the Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they said that a type of food mixed with food of its own type can be nullified. This is why they maintain that all the meat in the pot is permitted.
הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבָּנַן בְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ הָכָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לְהוּ, וּבְאֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ פְּלִיגִי – הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהָא, וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים בְּהָא.
Ravina responded: What is this reasoning? Granted, if you say that the Rabbis here hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the issue of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, and they disagree with regard to an item that can be wrung, that is why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in this case, when one did not initially stir or cover the pot, and the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in that case, when one did initially stir or cover it, since the issue of when one stirred or covered the pot is relevant to the dispute, as explained above.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי – הַאי נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְאֵין נִרְאִין מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, וְתוּ לָא מִידִּי.
But if you say: Everyone agrees that an item that can be wrung is prohibited, and here they disagree only with regard to a type of food mixed with food of its own type, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should not phrase his statement as a qualified acceptance of both opinions, which seems arbitrary. Rather, he should have said this: I accept that a type of food is not nullified by a food of its own type. Therefore, the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct where one did not stir initially, as the flavor of the prohibited first piece cannot be nullified; but it does not appear correct where one stirred immediately, since in that case, even the first piece is not prohibited, and I do not share Rabbi Yehuda’s concern that perhaps one did not stir thoroughly. And nothing more need be said.
מַתְנִי׳ הַכְּחָל – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ. לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הַלֵּב – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.
MISHNA: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk, and only then is it permitted to cook it. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive lashes for it, as the halakhic status of the milk in the udder is not that of milk. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, and only then may he cook and eat it. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition against consuming blood and is not liable to receive karet for it.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו וּמוּתָּר. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו – מִיעְבָּר הוּא דְּלָא עָבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one did not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it he does not violate the biblical prohibition against eating meat and milk. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: He does not violate the prohibition, and it is altogether permitted to eat the cooked product ab initio. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: He does not violate the prohibition, i.e., he is not held liable after the fact. One can infer from here as follows: He does not violate a prohibition by Torah law, but there is nevertheless a prohibition ab initio by rabbinic law.
בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי לֵיכָּא, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא: הַלֵּב קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הָתָם מִיעְבָּר הוּא דְּלָא עָבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, תְּנָא נָמֵי רֵישָׁא אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.
The Gemara explains: By right the mishna should have taught that there is no prohibition here by rabbinic law either. But the tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach in the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition. There it is true that although he does not violate a prohibition by Torah law there is a prohibition by rabbinic law. To preserve linguistic symmetry, he teaches the first clause in this manner as well, stating: He does not violate the prohibition.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַכְּחָל – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הַלֵּב – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – קוֹרְעוֹ לְאַחַר בִּשּׁוּלוֹ וּמוּתָּר. לֵב הוּא דְּבָעֵי קְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל לָא בָּעֵי קְרִיעָה.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports this opinion: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive lashes for it. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita that it is only the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was not torn beforehand. But the udder does not require tearing after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.
דִּלְמָא לֵב הוּא דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל – לָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה.
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite, that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. But tearing after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, וְאָסוּר. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: ״אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״ – מִיעְבָּר הוּא דְּלָא עָבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא.
And some say a different version of the above exchange, based on a different version of Rav’s statement: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: If one does not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it, he does not violate the Torah prohibition, but it is prohibited to eat the cooked product by rabbinic law. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports this opinion, as it states: He does not violate the prohibition, indicating that although he does not violate a Torah prohibition and is not flogged, there is nevertheless a prohibition by rabbinic law.
בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי לֵיכָּא, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא: הַלֵּב קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, דְּהָתָם מִיעְבָּר הוּא דְּלָא עָבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, תְּנָא נָמֵי רֵישָׁא ״אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״.
The Gemara responds: By right the mishna should have taught that there is not even a prohibition by rabbinic law. But the tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition for it. There, it is true that although he does not violate a Torah prohibition there is a prohibition by rabbinic law. He therefore teaches in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: He does not violate the prohibition for it.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַכְּחָל – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הַלֵּב – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – קוֹרְעוֹ לְאַחַר בִּשּׁוּלוֹ, וּמוּתָּר. לֵב הוּא דְּבָעֵי קְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל – לָא בָּעֵי קְרִיעָה!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition for it. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita that it is only the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was not torn beforehand, but the udder does not require tearing after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.
דִּלְמָא לֵב הוּא דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל לָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה.
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite, that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. But tearing it after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk. This concludes the second version of the Gemara’s discussion.
תַּנְיָא כְּלִישְׁנָא קַמָּא דְּרַב: כְּחָל שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ בַּחֲלָבוֹ – מוּתָּר, קֵבָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ בַּחֲלָבָהּ – אָסוּר.
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the first version of Rav’s statement: An udder that one cooked, i.e., roasted, in its milk is permitted. By contrast, the stomach of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked, i.e., roasted, together with the milk it contains is prohibited for consumption.
וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה? זֶה כָּנוּס בְּמֵעָיו, וְזֶה אֵין כָּנוּס בְּמֵעָיו.
The baraita explains: And what is the distinction between this stomach and that udder? The milk this calf suckled was considered milk the moment it left the mother’s teat, and it was merely collected in the calf’s innards. But that milk in the udder is not defined as milk, since it was never collected in the animal’s innards from outside but is found in the flesh. Consequently, this meat of the udder is not prohibited if it is roasted with the milk it contains, although one should still tear it by rabbinic law ab initio.
כֵּיצַד קוֹרְעוֹ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: קוֹרְעוֹ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב, וְטָחוֹ בַּכּוֹתֶל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: קְרַע לִי, וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? מַתְנִיתִין הִיא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב וְטָחוֹ בַּכּוֹתֶל.
§ The Gemara inquires: How must one tear an udder before cooking it? Rav Yehuda says: One tears it lengthwise and widthwise [sheti va’erev] and smears it against a wall to remove all the milk. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar said to his attendant: Tear an udder for me before you roast it, and I will eat it. The Gemara asks: What is this episode teaching us? It is explicitly stated in the mishna that one must do this. The Gemara answers: This story teaches us that according to Rabbi Elazar we do not require one to tear it lengthwise and widthwise and smear it against a wall. Rather, it is enough simply to tear it once, either lengthwise or widthwise.
אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ יַלְתָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מִכְּדֵי, כֹּל דַּאֲסַר לַן רַחֲמָנָא שְׁרָא לַן כְּוָותֵיהּ, אֲסַר לַן דְּמָא – שְׁרָא לַן כַּבְדָּא, נִדָּה – דַּם טוֹהַר.
§ Yalta said to her husband Rav Naḥman: Now as a rule, for any item that the Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us a similar item. He prohibited to us the consumption of blood, yet He permitted to us the consumption of liver, which is filled with blood and retains the taste of blood. Likewise, God prohibited sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, but permitted sexual intercourse with one’s wife while she discharges the blood of purity. During a particular period after giving birth, even if she experiences a flow of blood she is not rendered ritually impure and remains permitted to her husband by Torah law.
חֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה – חֵלֶב חַיָּה, חֲזִיר – מוֹחָא דְּשִׁיבּוּטָא, גֵּירוּתָא – לִישָּׁנָא דִּכְוָורָא.
Furthermore, the Torah prohibits the consumption of the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, but permitted the fat of an undomesticated animal, which has the same flavor. It is prohibited to eat pork, but one may eat the brain of a shibuta fish, which has a similar taste. One may not eat giruta, a non-kosher fish, but one may eat the tongue of a fish, which tastes similar.
אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ – גְּרוּשָׁה בְּחַיֵּי בַעְלָהּ, אֵשֶׁת אָח – יְבָמָה, גּוֹיָה – יְפַת תֹּאַר, בָּעֵינַן לְמֵיכַל בִּשְׂרָא בַּחֲלָבָא.
Likewise, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with the wife of another man but permitted one to marry a divorced woman in her previous husband’s lifetime. The Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with one’s brother’s wife, and yet it permits one to marry his yevama, i.e., his brother’s widow when the brother dies childless. Finally, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with a gentile woman but permitted one to marry a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war (see Deuteronomy 21:10–14). Yalta concluded: The Torah prohibits the consumption of meat cooked in milk; I wish to eat a dish that tastes like meat cooked in milk.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן לְטַבָּחֵי: זַוִּיקוּ לַהּ כַּחְלֵי. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: קוֹרְעוֹ! הָהוּא לִקְדֵרָה.
Upon hearing this, Rav Naḥman said to his cooks: Roast udders on a spit for her. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one must tear the udder first? Rav Naḥman did not tell his cooks to tear the udders. The Gemara answers: That requirement was stated only with regard to cooking in a pot, not roasting.
וְהָא קָתָנֵי: שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא? הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא קֵבָה
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the baraita cited above: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted? This indicates that after the fact, yes, it is permitted, but one may not roast it ab initio without tearing it. The Gemara answers: The same is true even of roasting ab initio, i.e., it is permitted, and the tanna of the baraita uses this language since he wants to teach in the latter clause: A stomach
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Chullin Daf 105-110-Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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.
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
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
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
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, 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
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, 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
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Raanana, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Chullin 109
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: כִּי נִיעֵר מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף וְכִסָּה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – אָסוּר, אַמַּאי? הָא לָא בָּלַע כְּלָל!
The Gemara objects: From Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s acceptance of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion only when one did not stir or cover the pot, one can conclude by inference that Rabbi Yehuda himself maintains that even when one stirred the contents of the pot continuously from beginning to end, i.e., before and after the drop of milk was absorbed, or covered the pot continuously from beginning to end, all the contents of the pot are prohibited. But why should this be so? The first piece of meat did not absorb any more milk than the others. Since the milk definitely diffused evenly through the pot immediately, it should be nullified, assuming that the pot’s contents amount to more than sixty times the milk.
אֵימָא: לֹא נִיעֵר יָפֶה יָפֶה, וְלֹא כִּסָּה יָפֶה יָפֶה.
The Gemara responds: Say that Rabbi Yehuda is stringent because one might not have stirred thoroughly, or he might not have covered the pot thoroughly, and therefore initially the milk might have been absorbed only by the first piece, rendering it prohibited. Afterward, when he does stir thoroughly, that piece of meat renders the other pieces prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not share this concern.
אָמַר מָר, וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כְּשֶׁנִּיעֵר וְכִסָּה. מַאי ״נִיעֵר״ וּמַאי ״כִּסָּה״? אִילֵּימָא נִיעֵר בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא נִיעֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה, וְכִסָּה בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא כִּסָּה בַּתְּחִלָּה – הָאָמְרַתְּ נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהָא! אֶלָּא נִיעֵר מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְכִסָּה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף.
§ The Gemara returns to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: The Master said above: And the statement of the Rabbis appears correct in a case where one stirred the pot and covered it. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Stirred, and what is the meaning of the term: Covered? If we say that he stirred at the end, after the first piece absorbed the milk, and did not stir at the beginning, beforehand, and likewise he covered at the end and did not cover at the beginning, one may respond: Didn’t you already say on the previous amud that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in this case? Rather, it must be a case where he stirred continuously from beginning to end or covered the pot continuously from beginning to end.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: נִיעֵר בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא נִיעֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה, כִּסָּה בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא כִּסָּה בַּתְּחִלָּה – מוּתָּר.
If so, one can conclude by inference from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s qualified acceptance of the Rabbis’ opinion that the Rabbis themselves maintain that even when one stirred only at the end and did not stir at the beginning, and similarly if he covered the pot only at the end and did not cover at the beginning, all the contents of the pot are permitted. Even the first piece is permitted, as they hold that the milk it absorbed diffused out of it and throughout the pot.
אַלְמָא קָסָבְרִי אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ מוּתָּר.
Evidently, the Rabbis maintain that an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is permitted. This illustrates that tanna’im dispute this issue, as according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is prohibited.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: מִמַּאי דִּבְאֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ פְּלִיגִי? דִּלְמָא אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל, וְרַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּאָמְרִי: מִין בְּמִינוֹ בָּטֵיל!
Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: From where is it derived that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to an item that can be wrung? Perhaps even if an item can be wrung, everyone agrees that it remains prohibited, and here they disagree with regard to whether a type of food mixed with food of its own type can be nullified. And Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said that a type of food mixed with food of its own type cannot be nullified. And likewise, the Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they said that a type of food mixed with food of its own type can be nullified. This is why they maintain that all the meat in the pot is permitted.
הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבָּנַן בְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ הָכָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לְהוּ, וּבְאֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ פְּלִיגִי – הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהָא, וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים בְּהָא.
Ravina responded: What is this reasoning? Granted, if you say that the Rabbis here hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the issue of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, and they disagree with regard to an item that can be wrung, that is why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in this case, when one did not initially stir or cover the pot, and the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in that case, when one did initially stir or cover it, since the issue of when one stirred or covered the pot is relevant to the dispute, as explained above.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי – הַאי נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְאֵין נִרְאִין מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, וְתוּ לָא מִידִּי.
But if you say: Everyone agrees that an item that can be wrung is prohibited, and here they disagree only with regard to a type of food mixed with food of its own type, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should not phrase his statement as a qualified acceptance of both opinions, which seems arbitrary. Rather, he should have said this: I accept that a type of food is not nullified by a food of its own type. Therefore, the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct where one did not stir initially, as the flavor of the prohibited first piece cannot be nullified; but it does not appear correct where one stirred immediately, since in that case, even the first piece is not prohibited, and I do not share Rabbi Yehuda’s concern that perhaps one did not stir thoroughly. And nothing more need be said.
מַתְנִי׳ הַכְּחָל – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ. לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הַלֵּב – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.
MISHNA: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk, and only then is it permitted to cook it. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive lashes for it, as the halakhic status of the milk in the udder is not that of milk. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, and only then may he cook and eat it. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition against consuming blood and is not liable to receive karet for it.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו וּמוּתָּר. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו – מִיעְבָּר הוּא דְּלָא עָבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one did not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it he does not violate the biblical prohibition against eating meat and milk. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: He does not violate the prohibition, and it is altogether permitted to eat the cooked product ab initio. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: He does not violate the prohibition, i.e., he is not held liable after the fact. One can infer from here as follows: He does not violate a prohibition by Torah law, but there is nevertheless a prohibition ab initio by rabbinic law.
בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי לֵיכָּא, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא: הַלֵּב קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הָתָם מִיעְבָּר הוּא דְּלָא עָבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, תְּנָא נָמֵי רֵישָׁא אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.
The Gemara explains: By right the mishna should have taught that there is no prohibition here by rabbinic law either. But the tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach in the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition. There it is true that although he does not violate a prohibition by Torah law there is a prohibition by rabbinic law. To preserve linguistic symmetry, he teaches the first clause in this manner as well, stating: He does not violate the prohibition.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַכְּחָל – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הַלֵּב – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – קוֹרְעוֹ לְאַחַר בִּשּׁוּלוֹ וּמוּתָּר. לֵב הוּא דְּבָעֵי קְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל לָא בָּעֵי קְרִיעָה.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports this opinion: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive lashes for it. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita that it is only the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was not torn beforehand. But the udder does not require tearing after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.
דִּלְמָא לֵב הוּא דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל – לָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה.
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite, that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. But tearing after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, וְאָסוּר. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: ״אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״ – מִיעְבָּר הוּא דְּלָא עָבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא.
And some say a different version of the above exchange, based on a different version of Rav’s statement: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: If one does not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it, he does not violate the Torah prohibition, but it is prohibited to eat the cooked product by rabbinic law. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports this opinion, as it states: He does not violate the prohibition, indicating that although he does not violate a Torah prohibition and is not flogged, there is nevertheless a prohibition by rabbinic law.
בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי לֵיכָּא, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא: הַלֵּב קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, דְּהָתָם מִיעְבָּר הוּא דְּלָא עָבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, תְּנָא נָמֵי רֵישָׁא ״אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״.
The Gemara responds: By right the mishna should have taught that there is not even a prohibition by rabbinic law. But the tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition for it. There, it is true that although he does not violate a Torah prohibition there is a prohibition by rabbinic law. He therefore teaches in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: He does not violate the prohibition for it.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַכְּחָל – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הַלֵּב – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – קוֹרְעוֹ לְאַחַר בִּשּׁוּלוֹ, וּמוּתָּר. לֵב הוּא דְּבָעֵי קְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל – לָא בָּעֵי קְרִיעָה!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition for it. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita that it is only the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was not torn beforehand, but the udder does not require tearing after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.
דִּלְמָא לֵב הוּא דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל לָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה.
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite, that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. But tearing it after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk. This concludes the second version of the Gemara’s discussion.
תַּנְיָא כְּלִישְׁנָא קַמָּא דְּרַב: כְּחָל שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ בַּחֲלָבוֹ – מוּתָּר, קֵבָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ בַּחֲלָבָהּ – אָסוּר.
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the first version of Rav’s statement: An udder that one cooked, i.e., roasted, in its milk is permitted. By contrast, the stomach of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked, i.e., roasted, together with the milk it contains is prohibited for consumption.
וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה? זֶה כָּנוּס בְּמֵעָיו, וְזֶה אֵין כָּנוּס בְּמֵעָיו.
The baraita explains: And what is the distinction between this stomach and that udder? The milk this calf suckled was considered milk the moment it left the mother’s teat, and it was merely collected in the calf’s innards. But that milk in the udder is not defined as milk, since it was never collected in the animal’s innards from outside but is found in the flesh. Consequently, this meat of the udder is not prohibited if it is roasted with the milk it contains, although one should still tear it by rabbinic law ab initio.
כֵּיצַד קוֹרְעוֹ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: קוֹרְעוֹ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב, וְטָחוֹ בַּכּוֹתֶל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: קְרַע לִי, וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? מַתְנִיתִין הִיא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב וְטָחוֹ בַּכּוֹתֶל.
§ The Gemara inquires: How must one tear an udder before cooking it? Rav Yehuda says: One tears it lengthwise and widthwise [sheti va’erev] and smears it against a wall to remove all the milk. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar said to his attendant: Tear an udder for me before you roast it, and I will eat it. The Gemara asks: What is this episode teaching us? It is explicitly stated in the mishna that one must do this. The Gemara answers: This story teaches us that according to Rabbi Elazar we do not require one to tear it lengthwise and widthwise and smear it against a wall. Rather, it is enough simply to tear it once, either lengthwise or widthwise.
אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ יַלְתָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מִכְּדֵי, כֹּל דַּאֲסַר לַן רַחֲמָנָא שְׁרָא לַן כְּוָותֵיהּ, אֲסַר לַן דְּמָא – שְׁרָא לַן כַּבְדָּא, נִדָּה – דַּם טוֹהַר.
§ Yalta said to her husband Rav Naḥman: Now as a rule, for any item that the Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us a similar item. He prohibited to us the consumption of blood, yet He permitted to us the consumption of liver, which is filled with blood and retains the taste of blood. Likewise, God prohibited sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, but permitted sexual intercourse with one’s wife while she discharges the blood of purity. During a particular period after giving birth, even if she experiences a flow of blood she is not rendered ritually impure and remains permitted to her husband by Torah law.
חֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה – חֵלֶב חַיָּה, חֲזִיר – מוֹחָא דְּשִׁיבּוּטָא, גֵּירוּתָא – לִישָּׁנָא דִּכְוָורָא.
Furthermore, the Torah prohibits the consumption of the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, but permitted the fat of an undomesticated animal, which has the same flavor. It is prohibited to eat pork, but one may eat the brain of a shibuta fish, which has a similar taste. One may not eat giruta, a non-kosher fish, but one may eat the tongue of a fish, which tastes similar.
אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ – גְּרוּשָׁה בְּחַיֵּי בַעְלָהּ, אֵשֶׁת אָח – יְבָמָה, גּוֹיָה – יְפַת תֹּאַר, בָּעֵינַן לְמֵיכַל בִּשְׂרָא בַּחֲלָבָא.
Likewise, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with the wife of another man but permitted one to marry a divorced woman in her previous husband’s lifetime. The Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with one’s brother’s wife, and yet it permits one to marry his yevama, i.e., his brother’s widow when the brother dies childless. Finally, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with a gentile woman but permitted one to marry a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war (see Deuteronomy 21:10–14). Yalta concluded: The Torah prohibits the consumption of meat cooked in milk; I wish to eat a dish that tastes like meat cooked in milk.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן לְטַבָּחֵי: זַוִּיקוּ לַהּ כַּחְלֵי. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: קוֹרְעוֹ! הָהוּא לִקְדֵרָה.
Upon hearing this, Rav Naḥman said to his cooks: Roast udders on a spit for her. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one must tear the udder first? Rav Naḥman did not tell his cooks to tear the udders. The Gemara answers: That requirement was stated only with regard to cooking in a pot, not roasting.
וְהָא קָתָנֵי: שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא? הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא קֵבָה
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the baraita cited above: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted? This indicates that after the fact, yes, it is permitted, but one may not roast it ab initio without tearing it. The Gemara answers: The same is true even of roasting ab initio, i.e., it is permitted, and the tanna of the baraita uses this language since he wants to teach in the latter clause: A stomach
