Chulin 109
Summary
- Today's *shiur* on Chullin 109 begins from 108b with the principles of *chaticha na’aseit neveila* and whether *efshar lesochto* remains *asur* even if the milk could be squeezed out, and it frames the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim about a drop of milk falling on meat as hinging on that issue. Rabbi is presented as a *machria* who aligns with Rabbi Yehuda when there was no immediate *ni’ur* and *kisui* and with the Chachamim when there was immediate stirring and covering, and the Gemara rejects an alternative that the dispute is only about *min b’mino*. The next Mishnah shifts to the *k’chal* and the heart, explains the requirement of *keri’ah* to remove milk or blood, presents differing approaches of Rashi and Tosafot to blood cooked in the heart, and brings versions of Rav about whether an un-torn *k’chal* is permitted or *asur mid’rabbanan*. The sugya concludes with Yalta’s principle that for each Torah prohibition there is a permitted analogue, and Rav Nachman’s instruction to roast *k’chalim* to provide a permitted taste of *basar b’chalav*, followed by later comments attributed to the Sefat Emet and the Chida about Hashem’s leniencies and the status of “taste” without the forbidden substance.
- Today's *shiur* restates that when a drop of milk falls onto a piece of meat and gives *ta’am*, the piece becomes *neveila* under *chaticha na’aseit neveila*, and even if the milk could later be removed the meat remains *asur* according to the position that *efshar lesochto asur*. The text presents the opposing view that *efshar lesochto mutar* allows the meat to revert to being *mutar* once the milk is separated. The Gemara raises that this may be a *machloket Tanna’im*.
- The *baraita* states that a drop of milk that falls on meat renders the entire piece *neveila* once it gives *ta’am*, and Rabbi Yehuda says it then forbids all pieces in the pot because they are *mimino*. The Chachamim say the drop must give *ta’am* in the gravy, foam, and pieces, and the assessment uses all contents of the pot such that if there is *shishim* the mixture is *mutar*. Rabbi says, “*nir’in divrei Rabbi Yehuda*” when the pot was not stirred and not covered, and “*divrei Chachamim*” when it was stirred and covered.
- The text explains that some *Rishonim* treat *kisui* as functionally like *ni’ur* because boiling brings liquid up and back down, while other *Rishonim* explain *kisui* as steam rising and returning, and the *mefarshim* say this is relevant *ba’halacha lema’aseh*. The Rivash is cited that steam is treated as *asur*, and the text applies this to cognac produced from steam of cooking grapes and the question of *stam yeinam*, concluding from this approach that steam is treated like liquid and therefore would be *asur*.
- The Gemara rejects that “did not stir and did not cover” means no stirring at all, because then only the top piece absorbs and nothing else should become *asur*. The Gemara explains it as not stirring or covering at first but doing so later, and it asks why the milk expelled later is not *batel* in the rest of the pot. The Gemara infers that Rabbi holds *efshar lesochto asur*, so once the milk enters the meat it remains *asur* and therefore the pot is forbidden if there was delay. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda can still forbid even if stirring began immediately because of the concern that one did not stir and cover “*yafeh yafeh*,” while Rabbi does not share that stringency when stirring was immediate.
- The Gemara clarifies that Rabbi agrees with the Chachamim when there was stirring and covering from the beginning through the end, and it infers that the Chachamim are even more lenient and permit even if stirring and covering occurred only at the end. The text explains that this leniency implies the Chachamim hold *efshar lesochto mutar*, because once the milk separates it becomes *batel* in the mixture. Rav Acha mi’Deftai challenges that perhaps everyone holds *efshar lesochto asur* and the dispute is only *min b’mino*, and Rashi is presented as channeling the dispute into whether the forbidden piece can be nullified among same-kind pieces, with *Acharonim* explaining why Rashi frames it to avoid splitting the *baraita* into two independent disputes. The Gemara rejects the *min b’mino* framing because it makes Rabbi’s language “I agree with Rabbi Yehuda here and the Chachamim there” incoherent, and it concludes “*tu lo midi*” that the dispute is indeed about *efshar lesochto*.
- Rashi is quoted as deriving practical rulings that *chaticha na’aseit neveila* is the *psak*, that *efshar lesochto* is *asur*, and that *issur davuk* applies when milk is attached to meat and cooked so that if the meat is not sixty times the milk the entire piece becomes *neveila*, requiring *shishim* against that piece if it later falls into another pot.
- The next Mishnah centers on two organs with unique rules: the *k’chal* (udder), which may contain milk after *shechita*, and the heart, which contains blood. The text states that milk in the *k’chal* is not *basar b’chalav de’oraita* because “*lo tevashel gedi bachalev imo*” refers to milk that was milked, and it describes the milk in the *k’chal* as *chelev shechuta* and “even less” because it remains in the udder, yet the Mishnah requires tearing it to remove the milk. The Mishnah states that if one did not tear it open, “*eino over alav*,” and similarly for the heart one should tear it and remove its blood, and if one did not tear it open, “*eino over alav*.”
- Rashi distinguishes between the blood itself and the *ta’am* of blood absorbed into the heart meat, and he explains the Mishnah’s “*eino over alav*” as referring to a bird heart with too little blood for a full *shiur* so there is no punishment because it is *chatzi shiur*. Rashi also explains that heart meat is smooth and therefore “*lo bala’ei dam*.” Tosafot argues differently and says “*dam shebishlo*” is not *asur*, so the issue is the meat absorbing blood, and the text notes that Rashi rejects Tosafot by limiting any heter of cooked blood to the case of *korban chatat penimit* where the Torah explicitly permits it.
- One version states Rav teaches that if one did not tear open the *k’chal* he is not *over* and it is even *mutar mid’rabbanan*, and Rashi explains Rav as speaking about roasting where extraction is complete, analogizing to roasting liver for *kashering*. Tosafot, as presented, reads Rashi to mean that if one cooked the *k’chal* without *shishim* against it there is concern for *meitz d’k’chal*, and if there is *shishim* in the liquid it can be *batel*, while other meat in the pot could become *asur* from the milk. Tosafot is cited as holding it is permitted whether cooked or roasted because the *k’chal* always had milk in it. The Gemara challenges Rav from the Mishnah’s “*eino over alav*” that sounds like there is still an *issur*, answers that in truth there is no *issur* and the phrasing mirrors the heart case, and the text reports *Rishonim* asking why the Gemara does not instead distinguish cooking from roasting and giving answers that the Mishnah would have stated such a split and that Rav is interpreting the Mishnah directly.
- A *baraita* says the *k’chal* is torn and its milk is squeezed, and if not torn “*eino over alav*,” while the heart is torn and its blood is squeezed, and if not torn one may tear it after its “*bishul*” and it is *mutar*. The text explains that according to Rashi, post-cooking tearing works because the heart meat is not *balua*, while according to Tosafot the phrase must mean roasting because otherwise the meat would already have absorbed blood. Tosafot objects that “*eino over alav*” might still imply an *issur derabbanan* and answers that the Gemara reads the baraita like the Mishnah where the *k’chal* is completely *mutar* in that case, and the Gemara also raises and leaves open alternative readings that would not support Rav. An *ikka de’amrei* version states Rav holds it is not *de’oraita* but is *asur mid’rabbanan*, and the Gemara again explains that the Mishnah’s wording is not a conclusive support because it may have used parallel phrasing due to the heart’s case of *chatzi shiur*.
- A *baraita* is cited “*koleshna kama d’Rav*” that *k’chal* cooked in its milk is *mutar* while a stomach (*keiva*) cooked with its milk is *asur* because the stomach milk is real external milk “*kanus b’me’av*” whereas the *k’chal* milk is not. Rav Yehuda instructs to tear the udder “*shtei va’erev*” and press it against a wall, and Rabbi Elazar tells his attendant “tear it for me and I will eat,” and the Gemara explains this teaches that one does not require the full procedure. Rashi limits the adequacy of a simple tear to roasting because roasting draws everything out.
- Yalta tells Rav Nachman that “*kol d’asar lan rachmana shara lan k’vateih*,” and she lists pairs: blood is forbidden but liver is permitted, *niddah* is forbidden but *dam tohar* is permitted *mid’oraita*, *chelev beheima* is forbidden but *chelev chaya* is permitted, pig is forbidden but “*mocha d’shibuta*” tastes like it and is permitted, *geiruta* is forbidden but “*lishna d’kuvara*” tastes like it, *eshet ish* is forbidden but “*gerusha b’chayei ba’alah*” is permitted, *eshet ach* is forbidden but *yibum* is permitted, and a non-Jewish woman is forbidden but *yefat to’ar* exists. Yalta asks to eat *basar b’chalav*, and Rav Nachman tells his cook to roast *k’chalim*, and the Gemara answers that the requirement to tear is for a pot (*lek’deira*) whereas roasting does not require tearing. The Gemara reads a formulation “*shebishlo*” as phrasing driven by the contrast to *keiva* where even *bedi’eved* does not help.
- The Sefat Emet is quoted that “אין המקום מכבד את האדם אלא אדם מכבד את המקום” reflects that Hashem does not make *Yiddishkeit* too difficult and that a person should not make it hard for Hashem to be kind. The Chida is quoted that since the Gemara shows permitted analogues and that “taste” of an *issur* is not automatically a problem, the *man* in the desert could perhaps taste like pig without issue. The text cites a question attributed to Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein about producing kosher foods that taste like non-kosher items such as seafood or bacon, and it reports that Rav Elyashiv takes a stricter view while many *poskim* are *meikil* based on this Gemara’s presentation that the Torah provides permitted counterparts for forbidden tastes.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions