Chullin 108bחולין ק״ח ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chullin 108b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
108bק״ח ב

חלב אמאי מותר חלב נבלה הוא

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.

לעולם קסבר רב אפשר לסוחטו אסור ושאני התם דאמר קרא (שמות כג, יט) לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו גדי אסרה תורה ולא חלב

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: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (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.

וסבר רב גדי אסרה תורה ולא חלב והא איתמר חצי זית בשר וחצי זית חלב שבשלן זה עם זה אמר רב לוקה על אכילתו ואינו לוקה על בשולו ואי ס"ד גדי אסרה תורה ולא חלב אאכילה אמאי לוקה חצי שיעור הוא

The Gemara challenges: And does Rav really maintain that the Torah prohibits only the kid but not the milk cooked with it? But isn’t 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.

אלא לעולם קסבר רב חלב נמי אסור והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנפל לתוך יורה רותחת דמבלע בלע מפלט לא פלט

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.

סוף סוף כי נייח הדר פליט כשקדם וסילקו

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.

גופא חצי זית בשר וחצי זית חלב שבשלן זה עם זה אמר רב לוקה על אכילתו ואינו לוקה על בשולו מה נפשך אי מצטרפין אבשול נמי לילקי אי לא מצטרפין אאכילה נמי לא לילקי

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.

לעולם לא מצטרפי ובבא מיורה גדולה

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.

ולוי אמר אף לוקה על בשולו וכן תני לוי במתניתין כשם שלוקה על אכילתו כך לוקה על בשולו ובאי זה בשול אמרו בבשול שאחרים אוכלין אותו מחמת בשולו

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.

ואפשר לסוחטו עצמו תנאי היא דתניא טפת חלב שנפלה על החתיכה כיון שנתנה טעם בחתיכה החתיכה עצמה נעשת נבלה ואוסרת כל החתיכות כולן מפני שהן מינה דברי ר' יהודה

§ 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’im, 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.

וחכ"א עד שתתן טעם ברוטב ובקיפה ובחתיכות

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.

אמר רבי נראין דברי ר' יהודה בשלא ניער ושלא כסה ודברי חכמים בשניער וכסה

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.

מאי לא ניער ולא כסה אילימא לא ניער כלל ולא כסה כלל מבלע בלע מפלט לא פלט

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.

ואלא לא ניער בתחלה אלא בסוף ולא כסה בתחלה אלא בסוף אמאי הא בלע והא פלט

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.

קסבר אפשר לסוחטו אסור

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.