Chulin 113
Summary
- Today’s שיעור on מסכת חולין דף קיג begins on דף קיד עמוד ב at רמרי בר רחל and develops the recurring rule that while meat is *polet* blood it cannot be *bole’a*, then sharpens the question of whether that protection extends to *tzיר* and gravy, and how *melichah* functions as cooking-like transfer. The שיעור brings the case of kosher and non-kosher meat salted together, Rava’s derivation from הטמאים, and the differing readings of Rashi, Rashba, and Tosafos, then tests the rule from a ברייתא about fish and clarifies why it does not resolve the issue. The שיעור then moves into practical הלכות מליחה and הדחה from Shmuel, the dispute about rinsing before salting, the סוגיא of thick versus thin salt, and the דין of *bnei me’ayim*, and it closes with the משנה and גמרא on בשר בחלב, including תנאים’ positions on חיה ועוף, דרשות from גדי בחלב אמו, and Shmuel’s use of the three “גדי” verses with the broader question of *issur chal al issur*.
- Today’s שיעור opens with רמרי בר רחל, who is called by his mother’s name because he is conceived before איסור גיורא’s conversion and born after, described as הורתו שלא בקדושה and born when his father is already Jewish. The גמרא presents that רמרי בר רחל salts kosher שחוטה meat together with טריפה meat in a כלי מנוקב and asks whether the kosher meat becomes אסור. The concern is framed not as absorbing blood during *polet* but as absorbing *tzיר*, the juice of the non-kosher meat, while blood is being expelled.
- Rava answers by citing the תורה’s phrase הטמאים, read to forbid צירן ורוטבן וקיפון, with Tosafos defining *tzיר* as juice, *rotav* as gravy, and *kיפון* as sediment with small pieces and spices. Rashi explains that the proof establishes that *tzיר* is אסור and that *tzיר* is absorbed more readily than blood, so kosher meat salted alongside non-kosher meat becomes אסור from absorbing the *tzיר* even while expelling blood. The Rashba challenges Rashi’s premise that the question is whether non-kosher meat juice is אסור, and instead says the question is whether juice behaves like blood regarding non-absorption during expulsion. The Rashba reads Rava’s proof as showing that *tzיר* is singled out to teach that unlike blood, *tzיר* can be absorbed even during blood expulsion, because otherwise *tzיר* would simply be included under *rotav*.
- Tosafos asks why a פסוק is needed to forbid *rotav* when טעם כעיקר should already make it אסור because the gravy carries the taste of the meat. The שיעור explains that this question does not begin according to Rashi because Rashi holds טעם כעיקר is דאורייתא only by בשר בחלב, so a separate לימוד is needed here. Tosafos holds, following Rava, that טעם כעיקר is דאורייתא by all איסורין, and therefore offers two answers: the פסוק primarily teaches the דין of *tzיר* and includes *rotav* alongside it, or the פסוק teaches that liquids like gravy are אסור and not limited to standard “eating” categories.
- The גמרא asks why Rava does not answer from Shmuel’s rule מליח הרי הוא כרותח and כבוש הרי הוא כמבושל, which would make salting akin to cooking and seemingly render the mixture אסור. The ראשונים explain that a ברייתא is preferred only when it is explicit, and here the ברייתא is indirect while Shmuel’s statement appears more directly on point. The גמרא answers that Shmuel’s statement could have been understood as limited to blood reabsorption in a כלי שאינו מנוקב, while the question here is specifically about absorption of *tzיר* and gravy, so the ברייתא is brought as the necessary source.
- A ברייתא is raised that if a דג טמא is salted together with a דג טהור it is מותר, and the גמרא first suggests it may be a case of both being salted and still permitted. The גמרא rejects this and initially reads it as a case where the kosher fish is salted and the non-kosher fish is not, and the ראשונים address how two fish in the same כלי can avoid mutual salting by proposing that they do not touch, that the contact spot lacks salt, that there was not enough time for שיעור מליחה, or that only heavy salting produces transfer of *tzיר*. The שיעור notes a מחלוקת ראשונים whether the general כלל of תתאה גבר applies in salted contexts. The גמרא then argues from the ברייתא’s own סיפא and a third case that distinguishes טהור מליח וטמא תפל from טמא מליח וטהור תפל, and ultimately shows that the structure can be read in multiple ways, including פירושי קמפרש, leaving the ברייתא without conclusive proof about both being salted.
- Shmuel states that meat does not leave its blood unless it is salted יפה יפה and rinsed יפה יפה, and the ראשונים debate what יפה יפה means. Some explain it as a lot of salt, some as salting every spot, and the accepted practical reading in the שיעור is the רמ"א’s understanding tied to salting both sides. The שולחן ערוך in סימן ס"ט סעיף ד' requires salting every spot and both sides, but rules בדיעבד that salting one side is מותר, while the רמ"א writes יש אוסרים אפילו בדיעבד וכן המנהג, and the נקודת הכסף interprets this as requiring both sides even בדיעבד. The שיעור connects the phrase עולה יפה יפה in a שידוך custom to the רמב"ן’s understanding that יפה יפה means “twice,” so a match is considered successful when both sides are satisfied.
- The שיעור notes that Shmuel’s line does not specify how long meat must sit in salt, yet the מפרשים assume he agrees that time is required and record a מחלוקת ראשונים between an hour as מנהג and *derekh mil* of 18–24/25 minutes. The רמב"ן explains מדיחו יפה יפה as two rinses, one while still in the כלי מנוקב and a second after transferring to a regular vessel. The Rosh explains the two washings as first removing blood from the meat and then removing the bloody water, while other ראשונים and the בית יוסף cite a view that one thorough rinse suffices.
- The גמרא records Rav Huna as requiring salting and then rinsing, while the teaching attributed to the משנה requires rinsing first, then salting, then rinsing. The ראשונים explain the first rinse as softening the meat to accept salt, or as removing surface blood, or as preventing salt from driving surface blood into the meat where it will never leave. The practical נפקא מינה is whether salting without an initial rinse can be corrected by restarting the process, or whether it renders the meat unable to be made kosher. The גמרא resolves that there is no dispute because the case requiring a first rinse is when the butcher has not already rinsed the meat, while if it was rinsed by the butcher no additional pre-rinse is needed, and the פרישה adds that a butcher’s immediate rinse may be less intensive while later rinsing requires greater thoroughness.
- Rav Dimi of Nehardea salts with thick salt and shakes it off, and the ראשונים dispute what is learned from this. Rashi reads it as permission to use any salt, with the detail that thick salt should be shaken off, while the Rambam reads it as requiring thick salt because thin salt is absorbed and fails to expel blood. The Raavad allows both and distinguishes the washing requirements depending on the salt used, and the Shulchan Aruch rules not to use too thick or too thin, while the רמ"א permits thin salt when necessary. The שיעור cites הלכות גדולות that sugar can substitute for salt, and the דברי חיים limits that statement to the דין of על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח, not to *melichah* for expelling blood where only salt works.
- Rav Mesharshiya teaches that אין מחזיקין דם בבני מעיים, defined as אכרכשא מייא והדרא דכנתא. Rashi reads this as not presuming blood there but still requiring salting לכתחילה, with בדיעבד leniency if not salted, while the Ramban reads it as no need to salt unless the intestines appear red. Tosafos ties this to whether bnei me’ayim may be salted together with other meat, because if they do not expel blood they might absorb blood expelled by adjacent meat, and Tosafos answers that blood is not absorbed quickly and the main concern of rapid absorption is *tzיר*. Some ראשונים still advise not salting bnei me’ayim together with other meat due to the absorption concern.
- Shmuel states that salted meat should be placed only in a כלי מנוקב to prevent reabsorption. Rav Sheshet salts each piece individually out of concern that blood from one will enter another, and the גמרא challenges that this logic would equally imply concern about blood crossing within a single piece from side to side. The גמרא concludes that there is no distinction because the governing principle holds that while meat is expelling blood it does not absorb blood.
- Shmuel בשם רב חייא warns that one who breaks an animal’s neck immediately after שחיטה, before it fully dies, מכביד את הבשר וגוזל את הבריות and causes מבליע דם באיברים by preventing full discharge of blood. The גמרא questions whether the concern is only theft when selling heavier blood-filled meat, making it permissible for personal use, or whether it is forbidden even for oneself because the blood remains in the limbs beyond what מליחה can remove. The גמרא leaves this question as תיקו.
- The משנה states that placing poultry with cheese on a table does not violate a לא תעשה, and the גמרא rejects the inference that eating poultry with milk is דאורייתא by explaining the phrase as אינו בא לידי לא תעשה because poultry with milk lacks a דאורייתא prohibition. The משנה teaches that בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה is אסור לבשל ואסור בהנאה, grounded in the three repetitions of לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו for cooking, eating, and benefit. The שיעור notes explanations for why אכילה is not explicitly listed, including that איסור הנאה already excludes eating, or that the phrasing serves to contrast kosher-kosher versus kosher-non-kosher combinations where cooking and benefit differ.
- The משנה states that בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טמאה is permitted to cook and eat according to the תנא קמא, understood by Rashi as limiting the דאורייתא of בשר בחלב to kosher meat with kosher milk. The שיעור presents that many ראשונים understand the תנא קמא to include חיה טהורה and עוף טהור in the same basic category as בהמה טהורה, while noting a minority possibility that the תנא קמא does not disagree with רבי עקיבא on that point. רבי עקיבא rules that חיה ועוף אינם מן התורה, excluding them along with בהמה טמאה from the threefold גדי verse. רבי יוסי הגלילי derives that what is אסור משום נבלה is אסור לבשל בחלב, includes חיה as דאורייתא, and excludes עוף with the phrase בחלב אמו because עוף שאין לו חלב אם, and the שיעור states that this yields a split where רבי יוסי הגלילי exempts poultry even מדרבנן while רבי עקיבא treats both חיה ועוף as מדרבנן.
- The גמרא asks how “גדי” includes more than a goat and רבי אלעזר answers from וישלח יהודה את גדי העזים that where the תורה specifies “גדי עזים” it is goat, but “גדי” סתם can mean even פר ורחל. The גמרא asks why not learn that “גדי” always means goat, and the שיעור brings explanations that the inference is not necessarily a *gezeirah shavah* learned independently, or that the גמרא assumes a received linkage and is locating its application. A second verse, את עורות גדיי העזים, creates שני כתובים הבאים כאחד and supports the rule that they do not teach beyond those contexts, and the גמרא further addresses the view that such verses can teach by emphasizing that the repeated העזים functions as multiple exclusions. Tosafos and the Ritva explain that for the mechanism of שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, the verses must be structurally identical, requiring both to read גדי העזים.
- Shmuel derives from the three “גדי” terms inclusions of חלב, מתה, and שליל, and exclusions of דם, שליא, and בהמה טמאה, and he further derives from בחלב אמו exclusions of בחלב זכר, בחלב שחוטה, and בחלב טמאה, with the שיעור noting that most ראשונים treat male milk as not דאורייתא but אסור מדרבנן. The גמרא challenges how six דרשות emerge from only three “גדי” terms, and answers that Shmuel uses the principle of איסור חל על איסור to compress derivations, while treating דם as not within “גדי” and שליא as פירשא בעלמא. The גמרא then questions whether Shmuel indeed holds איסור חל על איסור by citing his attribution to רבי אלעזר that a כהן טמא who eats תרומה טמאה is not liable to death because it is already מחוללת, and it answers through three routes: that generally Shmuel holds איסור חל על איסור but here a פסוק excludes, or that generally he holds אין איסור חל על איסור but here the תורה’s ריבוי of גדי changes it, or that the exclusion reflects רבי אלעזר’s view while Shmuel’s own view differs.
- Rav Ada bar Ami asks Rav about cooking in the milk of a mother animal that never nursed, and Rav answers that the exclusion of בחלב זכר shows that only a male is excluded because he never can become a mother. Rav rules that a female that is בת חלבא, even if she never nursed yet, falls under the דאורייתא of בשר בחלב.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions