Chullin 109bחולין ק״ט ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 109b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
109bק״ט ב

אמר רבי זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ומותר והא אנן תנן אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא

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.

בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו התם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו

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.

לימא מסייע ליה הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה

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.

דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה

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.

ואיכא דאמרי א"ר זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ואסור לימא מסייע ליה אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא

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.

בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו דהתם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו

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.

ת"ש הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה

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.

דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה

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.

תניא כלישנא קמא דרב כחל שבשלו בחלבו מותר קבה שבשלה בחלבה אסור

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.

ומה הפרש בין זה לזה זה כנוס במעיו וזה אין כנוס במעיו

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.

כיצד קורעו אמר רב יהודה קורעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל א"ל ר' אלעזר לשמעיה קרע לי ואנא איכול מאי קמ"ל מתניתין היא הא קמ"ל דלא בעינן שתי וערב וטחו בכותל

§ 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.

אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן מכדי כל דאסר לן רחמנא שרא לן כוותיה אסר לן דמא שרא לן כבדא נדה דם טוהר

§ 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.

חלב בהמה חלב חיה חזיר מוחא דשיבוטא גירותא לישנא דכורא

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.

אשת איש גרושה בחיי בעלה אשת אח יבמה כותית יפת תאר בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא

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.

אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי זויקו לה כחלי והאנן תנן קורעו ההוא לקדרה

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.

והא קתני שבשלו דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא ה"ה דאפי' לכתחלה ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא קבה

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