Chulin 112
Summary
- The שיעור learns מסכת חולין דף קי"ב, beginning from דף קי"א עמוד ב' near the words רב הונא, and centers on the famous סוגיא of נותן טעם בר נותן טעם (נט בר נט) that begins with איתמר דגים שעלו בקערה. Rav forbids fish that were placed hot on a meat plate from being eaten with כותח because he treats transferred taste as full איסור even when it is twice removed, while Shmuel permits it because he treats the taste as weakened when it comes through a second transfer. The שיעור follows the גמרא’s stories and הלכות that develop this distinction, then applies it to sharp foods cut with a meat knife, to placement of salt and vinegar near כותח, to a salted bird that fell into כותח, to bread cut under meat juices, to when one may collect dripping fat during roasting, and finally to salting fish together with fowl where timing of פליטה and בליעה becomes decisive.
- Today's learning returns to איתמר דגים שעלו בקערה, where hot roasted fish placed on a meat plate create a question of eating them with כותח. Rav rules אסור because the meat taste transferred into the plate and then into the fish remains prohibitive and does not diminish even when it is twice removed. Shmuel rules מותר because the taste is נותן טעם בר נותן טעם, diluted through two transfers, and the fish are not considered meat so they may be eaten with כותח.
- The גמרא describes רב הונא and רב חייא בר אשי sitting on opposite sides of the crossing at סורא, with the river between them. One is served דגים שעלו בקערה and eats them with כותח, while the other is served תאינים וענבים בתוך הסעודה and eats without a separate ברכה before or after. Each calls the other יתמא and challenges whether his רב acted כך, and each defends his action by aligning with a recognized שיטה.
- The one who omits a ברכה says אנא כרבי חייא (or כרבי חייא בר אבא in תוספות’ גרסא) סבירא לי, citing the ברייתא in ברכות that פת פוטרת כל מיני מאכל and יין פוטר כל מיני משקין. Rashi explains that תאינים וענבים are לא אתו לליפתא and are among דברים הבאים לאחר סעודה that require ברכה לפניו ולאחריו even if brought בתוך סעודה, because אין הפת פוטרתן. Tosafos cites that אין הלכה כן like רבי חייא בר אבא and states the הלכה follows כיצד מברכין, with a ברכה ראשונה required but no ברכה אחרונה because ברכת המזון פוטרת, while רבי חייא בר אבא holds no ברכה is required at all.
- Chizkiya in the name of Abaye rules הלכתא that דגים שעלו בקערה מותר לאכלן בכותח, establishing the הלכה like Shmuel in נט בר נט. The מאירי cites a rejected דיוק that “בכותח” would limit היתר to a dairy mixture and not to milk itself, but the שיעור states the accepted הלכה allows it even with חלב. The ש"ך and ט"ז in יורה דעה סימן צה read “שעלו” as indicating בדיעבד, and they reject planning לכתחילה to create נט בר נט in order to eat with dairy.
- Tosafos quotes the רב"ן בשם רש"י that דוקא עלו is permitted, while נתבשלו in a meat pot would be אסור because cooking makes the transferred taste strong like טעם ראשון. Tosafos and רוב ראשונים disagree and allow even בישול as נט בר נט. The מחבר in סימן צה סעיף ב פוסק like Tosafos that it is permitted even by בישול, while the רמ"א is מחמיר like רש"י לכתחילה and allows בדיעבד reliance on Tosafos, especially when the pot is אינו בן יומו where the רמ"א permits even לכתחילה.
- Chizkiya adds a second הלכה that צנון שחתכה בסכין שחתך בו בשר אסור לאכלו בכותח. The גמרא limits this to צנון because דאגב חורפיה בלע, and the שיעור explains that חריפות makes absorption act like heat and upgrades a would-be נט בר נט into כחד טעמא like טעם ראשון. Rashi adds that דוחקא דסכינא contributes by forcing the absorbed taste out of the knife, and Tosafos formulates the result as חשוב כחד טעמא.
- The גמרא contrasts kashu’ot by ruling that קישות גורר לבי פסקיה ואכל, so one scrapes the cut area and then may eat it with כותח. Rashi explains קישות מתוקי היא and does not absorb within, so only surface שמנונית remains at the מקום החתך and גרירה removes it. The רשב"א and הרא"ש state that by קלחי דלפתא שרי one still requires הדחה to remove surface שמנונית, and the ר"ן and רשב"א explain that washing kashu’ot is avoided because they are רכין ולחין and washing would drive the taste inward, so scraping is the remedy.
- Rashi distinguishes קערה from סכין by stating סתם קערה מקנחן להו משומן הקערה שלפניה משום מיאוס, so people wipe plates clean of fat, while knives may carry unseen קרוש שמנונית. Rashi treats knife-fat as נותן טעם הבא מן הממש, not merely absorbed taste, and therefore the radish becomes problematic beyond ordinary נט בר נט. Rashi then adds that even without visible fat, חריפות plus דוחקא דסכינא causes the knife to expel absorbed taste and the radish to absorb it strongly.
- The שיעור records that the רא"ש requires removing a קליפה, and the ר"ן defines קליפה as גסה קצת so it can be removed כאחת. The רשב"א holds the entire צנון becomes permeated and is prohibited. The מחבר in סימן צ"ו סעיף א פוסק like the ראב"ד that one needs כדי נטילה, while the רמ"א is מחמיר לכתחילה like the רשב"א and rules בדיעבד like the ראב"ד.
- The גמרא rules that דסילקא behaves like צנון as a דבר חריף and is אסור with כותח when cut by a meat knife, and the מחבר in סימן צ"ו applies צנון’s rules to סילקא. The גמרא adds that if one first cuts דלפתא and then cuts סילקא, the case is שפיר דמי because the turnip’s טעם משונה removes the meat taste from the knife. The מחבר applies the same היתר to cutting צנון after cutting לפתא.
- Rav Dimi asks Rav Nachman whether one may place a salt jug near a jar of כותח, and Rav Nachman answers אסור due to concern that thick כותח may fall on the salt and remain unnoticed for later use with meat. Rav Dimi asks about vinegar and receives the answer שרי, and Rav Nachman explains the difference as האי איתיה בעיניה והאי ליתיה בעיניה, since כותח in salt is noticeable while in vinegar it becomes diluted and בטל, with the מאירי adding it is בטל בשישים. Rav Nachman’s phrase לכי תכל עלה כורא דמלחא appears, with Rashi in שבת giving two explanations, and the שיעור attributes to רב משה קפלן זצ"ל a comparison to the שערי יושר about serving a teacher to recognize the depth of the teacher’s distinctions.
- Tosafos understands the concern here as specific to salt and allows placing meat and dairy near each other because people are careful. The ריטב"א allows uncovered proximity only for איסור next to היתר, but forbids meat next to milk because both are permitted independently and people are less careful. The מחבר in סימן צה סעיף ו permits keeping jars of meat and dairy together, the רמ"א cites מחמירים לכתחילה, and the ש"ך limits the stringency to cases of מגולה and requires coverings in a refrigerator לכתחילה.
- A raw young pigeon that was salted falls into a jar of כותח, and Rav Chinnana brei d’Rav m’Bei Pesharoni permits it after rinsing. Rava praises the היתר and attributes it to the view that Shmuel’s מליח הרי הוא כרותח applies only when the salting makes it inedible, while here the salted item is still נאכל מחמת מלחו. Rashi reads this as referring to the saltiness of the כותח, while Rabbeinu Gershom’s גרסא reads it as referring to the pigeon’s salting.
- The גמרא limits the earlier היתר to חי, but rules that if the bird is צלי then בעי קליפה, and if it has פילי then כולה אסור because כותח penetrates the cracks. The גמרא adds that if it is seasoned with תבלין then כולה אסור because spices soften the meat and allow penetration throughout.
- Shmuel rules that כיכר שחתך עליה בשר is אסור לאכלה when the liquid is red, passes through, and the bread is thick, while a thin bread is permitted. The שיעור explains that the liquid is not true blood after roasting or partial cooking, and the restrictions are due to מראית עין. Shmuel gives such bread to dogs, Rav Huna gives it to his attendant, and the גמרא resolves that Rav Huna holds it is permitted but refrains because he is ניינא דעתיה. Rava eats it and calls the liquid חמר בשר, and Rav Yonasan Steif זצ"ל is cited as explaining that the phrase publicizes permissibility to avoid מראית עין.
- Shmuel’s rule forbids placing a receptacle under roasting meat until all redness disappears from the drippings to prevent blood mixing with fat. Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Papa gives the סימן of משתעלה תמרתו, with Rashi explaining it either as smoke from the meat or from the coals. Rav Ashi objects that the bottom may have finished while the top still bleeds, and he concludes there is no remedy except to place תרתי גללי מלחא so blood is drawn to the salt and the fat can be poured off. Rashi בשם בה"ג warns that adding more salt would thin the blood and cause it to mix with the fat again.
- Rav Acha brei d’Rav Ika challenges the harmony of Shmuel’s rulings, since roasting is assumed to remove blood while Shmuel still forbids bread cut under meat juices. The גמרא answers that cutting differs because דאגב דוחקא דסכינא פליט, and knife pressure expels remaining דם איברים שלא פירש that would otherwise remain permitted inside the meat. The roasting drippings after redness ceases are treated as שומן, but knife pressure can force out blood and create the earlier bread prohibition.
- Rav Nachman אמר שמואל rules that fish and fowl salted together make the fish אסורין, and the גמרא frames the case in a כלי מנוקב. The גמרא explains that fish are דרפי קרימייהו and expel quickly, while fowl are קמיטי and expel slowly, so once fish finish פליטה they can later absorb blood from fowl while the fowl are still פולט. Rashi states the principle that when both pieces share the same cycle, כל זמן שהתחתון טרוד בפליטה אינו בולע, but fish become vulnerable after their פליטה ends.
- Rashi adds that “עופות” is not exclusive and that regular meat, being harder and emitting more, would certainly prohibit fish when salted together. The שיעור closes by applying איידי דטריד למיפלט לא בלע as a דבר השקפה that one who is occupied in being משפיע on others is less susceptible to absorb negative outside influences.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions