Chulin 108
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* learns מסכת חולין דף ק"ח עמוד א from the משנה of טיפת חלב שנפל על החתיכה through the גמרא’s analysis of בשר בחלב, *noten ta’am*, ששים versus קפילא, חתיכה נעשית נבילה, מין במינו, and אפשר לסוחטו. The משנה establishes that a drop of milk falling on hot meat can prohibit the piece and sometimes the whole pot depending on when and how it is mixed, and the *shiur* frames key disputes among רש"י, תוספות, the רמ״א, and the שלחן ערוך, plus אביי versus רבא on whether טעם כעיקר is דאורייתא. The גמרא then develops רב’s position that once the meat gets *noten ta’am* it becomes a new forbidden entity that can prohibit other pieces because of מין במינו, limits that when the mixture is considered מין במינו versus when there is a “דבר אחר,” and ties this to the debate over whether absorbed איסור can ever be “squeezed out” and render the original item permitted.
- Today's שיעור begins with the משנה of טיפת חלב שנפל על החתיכה in a case that is not deliberate, because nobody permits placing even a tiny amount of milk onto meat. The *mefarshim* read the word טיפת חלב to teach that as long as there is a combined כזית of meat and milk, even a drop can create בשר בחלב מדאורייתא according to לוי and only דרבנן according to רב. The meat must be hot enough for בליעה, certainly at least *yad soledet*, and בליעה is definite in a כלי ראשון even off the fire, while the status outside כלי ראשון raises a question whether it is an איסור דאורייתא at that heat.
- The משנה assumes the בליעה spreads through the entire piece of meat, and the *shiur* brings explanations that milk is always דבר שומן, or meat is inherently דבר שומן, or כלי ראשון heat causes full penetration, or meat’s cracks allow deep penetration, or a cooked piece with spices absorbs more deeply. The משנה rules that if there is בנותן טעם in that piece then that piece is אסור.
- Rashi explains the case as a piece partially submerged in the pot with milk falling on the part above the liquid, while Tosafot rejects that because meat still in the pot is not treated as a separate piece and instead explains that one piece lies on top of the others and the milk falls on that top piece. The *shiur* presents a fundamental dispute reflected in the רמ״א versus the שלחן ערוך on measuring *noten ta’am*. The רמ״א requires ששים as the standard measure to avoid concern for taste, while the שלחן ערוך rules like the רמב״ם that one may rely on a קפילא, a non-Jewish expert tasting under strict conditions such as expertise and מסיח לפי תומו.
- The *shiur* explains that if there is no שישים in the piece against the milk then that piece is certainly אסור, and one may not stir to create a saving ביטול because אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה. The משנה’s next clause is read with the ערוך השולחן as a case where one mixed immediately before the piece became אסור, so the measurement becomes the entire pot versus the drop. The *shiur* adds that if the mixing is not immediate, then once the piece becomes אסור the requirement shifts to שישים against the piece itself rather than against the drop, because of חנ״ן, and the ערוך השולחן defines “immediate” as הכל לפי עיני ראות המורה.
- The *shiur* defines טעם כעיקר through the example of meat removed from milk where nothing tangible remains yet the milk is still אסור because the taste is treated as the substance. Abaye states טעם ולא ממשו בעלמא דאורייתא and argues that if one claims it is only דרבנן elsewhere, one should learn it from בשר בחלב, and the response is that בשר בחלב is a חידוש. Rashi defines the חידוש as two items that are each כשר becoming אסור in combination, while Tosafot rejects that as not unique because כלאים also combines permitted items into prohibition and locates the חידוש of בשר בחלב differently as established earlier in the chapter.
- Abaye argues that if בשר בחלב were an unlearnable חידוש, then it would imply prohibition even בלי נותן טעם, and therefore Abaye concludes that טעם כעיקר must apply beyond this one area.
- The *shiur* recalls זרוע בשלה from the prior chapter about a נזיר’s איל לשלמים whose זרוע goes to כהנים while the rest is eaten by ישראלים even though cooked together, and the גמרא’s answer there invokes ביטול in 60 or 100 to show taste matters. The *mefarshim* reject using it as the source for טעם כעיקר because it is מין במינו and does not establish מין בשאינו מינו, and because it demonstrates permissibility rather than deriving an איסור from it.
- Rava argues that בשר בחלב proves nothing for the rest of Torah because דרך בישול אסרה תורה, and cooking is the mechanism of taste transfer. Rashi understands Rava to mean that only by בשר בחלב is טעם כעיקר דאורייתא and elsewhere it is דרבנן. Tosafot understands Rava to mean only that one cannot learn the rule from בשר בחלב, while still holding טעם כעיקר בכל התורה כולה מדאורייתא from the laws of *kashering*, where absorbed taste without tangible substance still requires הכשרה מדאורייתא learned from כלי מדין.
- Rav explains the משנה’s אסור by ruling that once the milk gives taste, the piece becomes חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה and then prohibits all other pieces because they are מינה. The *shiur* states Rav’s first principle that the absorbed-milk meat is no longer “meat with milk” but a new forbidden entity with the status of נבילה. The *shiur* adds Rav’s second principle that following רבי יהודה, מין במינו לא בטל, and reviews the proof from Yom Kippur blood where ונתן מדם הפר ומדם השעיר preserves the identity of דם השעיר despite its smaller quantity because it is blood with blood.
- The גמרא asks whether Rav conflicts with Rava’s rule that in a mixture of מין במינו plus a third אינו מינו, one removes the “מינו” from consideration and the אינו מינו can be מרבה ומבטלו. The *shiur* records explanations why מין במינו is treated as a special גזירת הכתוב limited to the Torah’s model case, and quotes Rav Elyashiv that מין במינו is treated like דבר חשוב that fails to be בטל only when it stands alone. The *shiur* also cites an explanation relating it to זה וזה גורם.
- The גמרא answers that if the milk fell into thin liquid רוטב, Rav would agree with Rava, and the משנה’s case is where it fell into רוטב עבה, which is treated like meat so the mixture remains purely מין במינו.
- The גמרא probes the basis of Rav’s חתיכה נעשית נבילה through the concept אפשר לסוחטו, the hypothetical ability to squeeze out absorbed milk. The *shiur* presents the approach that Rav’s חתיכה נעשית נבילה corresponds to holding אפשר לסוחטו אסור, so even extracting does not revert the meat because it became אסור at the moment of absorption. The *shiur* reports that the ר"ן and רשב"א question treating the two as fully synonymous, and brings other *mefarshim* who cite רבינו אפרים that חתיכה נעשית נבילה applies only to בשר בחלב, while אפשר לסוחטו applies to all איסורים, making them distinct categories in the sugya.
- The גמרא records the dispute that רב, רב חנינא, רבי יוחנן hold אפשר לסוחטו אסור, while שמואל, רבי שמעון ברבי, and ריש לקיש hold אפשר לסוחטו מותר. The *shiur* notes a dispute among ראשונים about whether “מותר” would mean the meat could be eaten if all milk were removed, with some allowing it at least מדאורייתא while still forbidding מדרבנן, and additional views that limit the היתר or איסור specifically to בשר בחלב due to its חידוש.
- The גמרא challenges whether Rav truly holds אפשר לסוחטו אסור based on Rav’s ruling that when a כזית of meat falls into a pot of milk, בשר אסור וחלב מותר. The challenge claims that if the absorbed milk is treated as נבילה and Rav also holds מין במינו לא בטל, expelled milk should prohibit the whole pot. The גמרא briefly answers from the verse לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו as a לימוד of גדי אסרה תורה ולא חלב, and the *shiur* presents the Chatam Sofer’s reading that the verse’s grammar implies only one side is targeted and the Tzlach’s reading that the meat absorbs milk while the milk remains a separate entity.
- The גמרא rejects that as Rav’s final position using Rav’s statement that חצי זית בשר וחצי זית חלב cooked together yields מלקות for eating, because if only the meat were prohibited then eating would be only חצי שיעור. The *shiur* explains the resolution that the Chatam Sofer is defended by saying the verse’s wording ultimately teaches that only a real בישול creates the איסור בישול, not that only the meat is prohibited.
- The גמרא then explains why the milk pot remains permitted in Rav’s case by limiting it to meat falling into a יורה רותחת, where דמבלע בלע ומפלט לא פלט. Tosafot explains this does not deny that boiling causes absorption and emission generally, but denies that the milk can both enter the meat and then re-exit into the pot during that boiling phase. The גמרא adds that once it stops boiling it would expel, and the case is where one removed the meat while it was still boiling.
- Rav rules that one receives מלקות for eating a mixture of חצי זית בשר and חצי זית חלב cooked together but not for cooking it, and the *shiur* raises how milk is measured as a כזית and answers by displacement. The *shiur* records the question why liquids are generally measured by רביעית and gives two approaches in the *acharonim*: that the baseline even for liquids is כזית unless specified, or that uniformity is used here because a joint שיעור is needed.
- The גמרא resolves Rav’s statement by saying the halves do not combine for the cooking liability and the case involves a large pot, and Rashi explains the liability for eating as taking a half-ke-zayit of each from a larger cooked mixture. Rabbeinu Gershom gives a different approach involving whether it is בישול אחד or בישול אחר בישול. Levi rules that one is liable even for cooking the half-and-half mixture, and Levi teaches that just as one is lashed for eating, כך לוקה על בישולו, defining the prohibited cooking as a בישול that others eat because of its cooking, which most ראשונים align with מאכל בן דרוסאי, while noting the standards of בישול for בשר בחלב differ from שבת.
- A ברייתא parallels the משנה and attributes to רבי יהודה that once there is *noten ta’am* the piece becomes נבילה and prohibits all pieces because they are מינה, while חכמים require taste in the רוטב, קיפה, and חתיכות. רבי states that רבי יהודה is correct when one did not stir and did not cover, and חכמים are correct when one stirred and covered.
- The גמרא rejects understanding “did not stir or cover at all” because then nothing would spread, and instead reads it as not stirring initially but doing so later, and not covering initially but doing so later. The sugya’s flow treats the dispute as hinging on the quality of mixing, and the conclusion presented is that רבי is stringent because of concern that one did not mix well or cover well, leaving the prohibition concentrated in the struck piece even though the חכמים treat immediate mixing as shifting the measurement to the whole pot.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions