מכלל דר' יהודה סבר כי ניער מתחלה ועד סוף וכסה מתחלה ועד סוף אסור אמאי הא לא בלע כלל 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.
אימא לא ניער יפה יפה ולא כסה יפה יפה 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.
אמר מר ודברי חכמים כשניער וכסה מאי ניער ומאי כסה אילימא ניער בסוף ולא ניער בתחלה וכסה בסוף ולא כסה בתחלה האמרת נראין דברי ר' יהודה בהא אלא ניער מתחלה ועד סוף וכסה מתחלה ועד סוף § 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.
מכלל דרבנן סברי ניער בסוף ולא ניער בתחלה כסה בסוף ולא כסה בתחלה מותר 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.
אלמא קסברי אפשר לסוחטו מותר 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.
א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא ממאי דבאפשר לסוחטו פליגי דלמא אפשר לסוחטו דברי הכל אסור והכא במין במינו קא מיפלגי ורבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר מין במינו לא בטיל ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי מין במינו בטיל 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.
האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא דרבנן במין במינו הכא כרבי יהודה סבירא להו ובאפשר לסוחטו פליגי היינו דקאמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה בהא ודברי חכמים בהא 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.
אלא אי אמרת אפשר לסוחטו דברי הכל אסור והכא במין במינו קמיפלגי האי נראין דברי ר' יהודה ואין נראין מבעי ליה ותו לא מידי: 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.
מתני׳ הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו: גמ׳ 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.