חולין קיב

חולין קיב

דְּאַגַּב חוּרְפֵּיהּ בָּלַע, אֲבָל קִישּׁוּת – גָּרֵיר לְבֵי פְסָקֵיהּ וְאָכֵיל.

as due to its sharpness it absorbs the fat on the knife. But if one cut a cucumber with the same knife, it does not absorb the fat to the same extent. One may therefore simply scrape the place of the cut to remove any fat residue, and then one may eat the cucumber with kutaḥ.

קִילְחֵי דְּלִיפְתָּא – שְׁרֵי, דְּסִילְקָא – אֲסִירי, וְאִי פְּתַךְ בְּהוּ דְּלִיפְתָּא – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

Likewise, turnip stalks cut with such a knife are permitted for consumption with kutaḥ. But chard cut with such a knife is prohibited for consumption with kutaḥ, as it absorbs flavor from the knife. And if one alternated between cutting chard and turnip stalks it is permitted, as the turnip stalks nullify the taste of the meat in the knife.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב דִּימִי מֵרַב נַחְמָן: מַהוּ לְאַנּוֹחֵי כַּדָּא דְמִלְחָא גַּבֵּי כַּדָּא דְכַמְכָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָסוּר. דְּחַלָּא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁרֵי.

§ Rav Dimi inquired of Rav Naḥman: What is the halakha with regard to placing a jug of salt, used to salt meat, alongside a jug of kamka, i.e., kutaḥ, a milk dish? Need one be concerned lest some of the kutaḥ fall on the salt without his knowledge and ultimately contaminate his meat? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is prohibited to place the two jugs next to each other. Rav Dimi further inquired: What is the halakha with regard to a similar case involving a jug of vinegar used to season meat? Need one be concerned lest the kutaḥ fall into the vinegar? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is permitted to place these two jugs next to each other.

וּמַאי שְׁנָא לְכִי תֵּיכוּל עֲלַהּ כּוֹרָא דְמִלְחָא? מַאי טַעְמָא? הַאי – אִיתֵיהּ (איסורא) [לְאִיסּוּרָא] בְּעֵינֵיהּ, וְהַאי – לֵיתֵיהּ (איסורא) [לְאִיסּוּרָא] בְּעֵינֵיהּ.

Rav Dimi asked: And what is different about the vinegar? Rav Naḥman responded: When you have thought about it long enough to eat a kor of salt, you will know the reason. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason then? In this case of the salt, the prohibited substance is substantive, as the traces of kutaḥ are discernible and not nullified by the salt. But in that case of the vinegar, the prohibited substance is not substantive, since the kutaḥ melts away in the vinegar and will no longer impart flavor.

הָהוּא בַּר גּוֹזָלָא דִּנְפַל לְכַדָּא דְּכַמְכָּא, שַׁרְיֵיהּ רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן חַכִּים לְמִישְׁרֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא, אִי לָאו רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא? קָסָבַר: כִּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל ״מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ״, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ, אֲבָל הַאי כּוּתָּחָא הֲרֵי נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain young bird that fell into a jug of kamka, i.e., kutaḥ. Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava of the city of Pashronya, permitted the bird. Rava said about this: Who is wise enough to discern reasons to permit the food in difficult cases like this, if not Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava of Pashronya? He maintains that when Shmuel said that a salted food imparts flavor like a boiling food, that statement applies only to a food so salty that it is not eaten due to its salt, but this kutaḥ can still be eaten due to, i.e., despite, its salt. Therefore, it is as if both foods are cold and unsalted, and they do not impart flavor to one another, provided one rinses the area of contact.

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי חַי, אֲבָל צָלִי – בָּעֵי קְלִיפָה, וְאִי אִית בֵּיהּ פִּילֵי – כּוּלֵּיהּ אָסוּר, וְאִי מְתַבַּל בְּתַבְלִין – כּוּלֵּיהּ אָסוּר.

The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only if the bird is raw, but if it is roasted, it requires peeling to remove the outer layer, since roasting softens the meat and causes it to absorb more flavor. And if it has cracks [pilei], it is entirely forbidden, because the milk is absorbed into the cracks. And if it has been flavored with spices it is likewise entirely forbidden, because the spices soften the meat and render it absorbent.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כִּכָּר שֶׁחָתַךְ עָלֶיהָ בָּשָׂר – אָסוּר לְאׇכְלָהּ, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַסְמֵיק, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַבְרְיֵהּ, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַסְמְכֵיהּ, אֲבָל קְלִישְׁתָּא – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel says: It is prohibited to eat a loaf of bread upon which one cut unsalted roasted meat, since the blood expelled from the roasted meat is absorbed in the loaf. The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only if the meat is ruddy from the blood it contains. And furthermore, this statement applies only if so much blood was absorbed in the loaf that it passed through from one side of the loaf to the other and was visible from both sides. And furthermore, this statement applies only if the liquid emitted by the roasted meat is viscous. But if it is runny, we have no problem with it, i.e., the loaf is permitted.

שְׁמוּאֵל שָׁדֵי לֵיהּ לְכַלְבֵּיהּ, רַב הוּנָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי שְׁרֵי – לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא שְׁרֵי, אִי אֲסִיר – לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֲסִיר! שָׁאנֵי רַב הוּנָא דַּאֲנִינָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ. רָבָא אָכֵיל לֵיהּ, וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ ״חֲמַר בָּשָׂר״.

The Gemara relates: Shmuel would throw to his dog such a loaf of bread that he held was prohibited. Rav Huna would not eat the loaf himself but would rather give it to his attendant. The Gemara objects: Whichever way you look at it, Rav Huna’s behavior is problematic: If the loaf is permitted, it is permitted for everyone, including Rav Huna himself. And if it is prohibited, then it is prohibited for everyone, and he should not give it to his attendant. The Gemara explains: In fact, the loaf is permitted for consumption, and Rav Huna is different, as he is of delicate constitution and did not want to eat the loaf himself. The Gemara further relates: Rava would eat a loaf of this type, and he would call the red liquid meat wine.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין מַנִּיחִין כְּלִי תַּחַת בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה כׇּל מַרְאֵה אַדְמוּמִית שֶׁבּוֹ. מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מִשֶּׁתַּעֲלֶה תִּימְרָתוֹ.

Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: One may not place a vessel under roasting meat to catch the drippings of fat until all the ruddiness of the meat’s appearance has dissipated. Beforehand, though, one must be concerned that blood will fall with the drippings into the vessel, rendering the mixture and the vessel prohibited. The Gemara asks: How do we know when all the meat’s redness has disappeared? Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: As soon as its smoke rises, one can be sure that all the blood has been expelled from the meat.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא תַּתָּאָה מְטָא, עִילָּאָה לָא מְטָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא, אֶלָּא מִשְׁדֵּא בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי גַּלְלֵי מִלְחָא,

Rav Ashi objects to this: But perhaps the underside of the meat, which is closest to the coals, has been fully roasted, but its upper part is still not roasted and still expels blood at this stage. Rather, Rav Ashi said: One who wishes to collect the drippings has no remedy except to place two lumps of salt in it, i.e., one in the receptacle under the meat and one on top, in the meat itself.

וּמִשְׁפְּיֵיהּ.

Doing this will allow the blood dripping from the meat to stick to the salt on the sides of the vessel, while the fat will float to the top. And when emptying the receptacle, he should tilt it gently to pour the fat into another vessel without it mixing with the blood.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כִּכָּר שֶׁחָתַךְ עָלֶיהָ בָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְאׇכְלָהּ! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאַגַּב דּוּחְקָא דְסַכִּינָא פָּלֵיט.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said to Rav Ashi: And did Shmuel really say this, that once the meat’s ruddiness has dissipated it is permitted to place a receptacle underneath it? But didn’t Shmuel say: It is prohibited to eat a loaf of bread upon which one cut roasted meat? Apparently he holds that meat contains blood even after it has finished roasting. Rav Ashi replied: Shmuel holds that the meat no longer emits blood after its ruddiness has dissipated. And as for his ruling with regard to a loaf of bread, it is different there, as due to the pressure of the knife the meat expels more blood.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת שֶׁמְּלָחָן זֶה עִם זֶה – אֲסוּרִין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי בִּכְלִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְנוּקָּב – אֲפִילּוּ עוֹפוֹת וְעוֹפוֹת נָמֵי אֲסִירִי, אִי בִּכְלִי מְנוּקָּב – אֲפִילּוּ דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת נָמֵי שְׁרֵי.

§ Rav Naḥman says: If one salted fish and birds together, the fish are prohibited for consumption due to the blood they absorb from the birds. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this ruling? If they were placed in an unperforated vessel, in which the blood emitted by the birds will pool, then even if one salted a bird and another bird together they should be prohibited, as the blood expelled from one bird will be absorbed by the other. And if the case involves a perforated vessel, out of which the blood can flow, then even if fish are salted with birds the fish should be permitted.

לְעוֹלָם בִּכְלִי מְנוּקָּב, וְדָגִים מִשּׁוּם דִּרְפוּ קְרָמַיְיהוּ קָדְמִי וּפָלְטִי, וְעוֹפוֹת קְמִיטִי, בָּתַר דְּנָיְחִי דָּגִים פָּלְיטִי עוֹפוֹת, וַהֲדַר בָּלְעִי מִינֵּיהּ.

The Gemara answers: Actually, the ruling is referring to a perforated vessel. And the fish are prohibited because their skin is soft, and therefore when they are salted they expel their blood first, whereas the skin of birds is hard. After the fish finish expelling their blood, the birds continue to expel their blood, and then the fish absorb blood from them. If one salts two birds together, they expel their blood simultaneously, and neither will absorb blood from outside while expelling its own.

רַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל אִימְּלַח לֵיהּ בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה בַּהֲדֵי בְּשַׂר טְרֵפָה, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא.

The Gemara relates: Meat of a slaughtered animal was salted for Rav Mari bar Raḥel together with prohibited meat of an animal that had a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [tereifa], in a perforated vessel, as meat is generally salted. He came before Rava to ask whether the kosher meat was prohibited, as perhaps it would not have absorbed flavor from the non-kosher meat while itself expelling blood.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ – לֶאֱסוֹר צִירָן, וְרוֹטְבָן, וְקֵיפֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן.

Rava said to him: When the verse states, with regard to forbidden foods: “These are the unclean to you” (Leviticus 11:31), the added definite article serves to prohibit not only their flesh but also their juice emitted by salting, and their gravy, and their spices with which they are cooked. Even while the kosher meat is emitting its blood, it still absorbs the juices of the non-kosher meat, which are absorbed more easily than blood.