Parallel
חולין 108:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
why is the milk permitted? Is not the milk as nebelah? — I still maintain, that Rab holds that even when it can be considered extracted it is still forbidden, but there it is exceptional, for the verse states: Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk, whence it is clear that the Torah forbade the kid only and not the milk. But does Rab hold that the Torah forbade the kid only and not the milk? But it has been reported: If a person cooked half an olive's bulk of flesh with half an olive's bulk of milk, he suffers stripes, says Rab, if he eats it, but does not suffer stripes for cooking it. Now if you maintain that [Rab contends that] the Torah forbade the kid only and not the milk, why should he suffer stripes for eating it? There was only half the [minimum] quantity! Rather we must say that Rab holds the view that the milk is also forbidden, but in this case we must suppose that [the olive's bulk of flesh] fell into a boiling pot, in which case it will absorb all the time and not discharge at all. But eventually when [the boiling] subsides it will discharge [the milk which it had absorbed]! — By then he had already removed it. The text [stated above]: ‘If a person cooked half an olive's bulk of flesh with half an olive's bulk of milk, he suffers stripes, says Rab, if he eats it, but does not suffer stripes for cooking it’. But say what you will. If the two combine [to make the prohibition], then he should also suffer stripes for cooking it; and if they do not combine, then he should not suffer stripes even if he ate it! — Really they do not combine, but this is a case where each [half an olive's bulk] came from a large pot. Levi, however, said: He also suffers stripes for cooking it. Moreover, Levi taught so in a Baraitha: Just as he suffers stripes for eating it he suffers stripes for cooking it. And of what kind of cooking did they speak? Of such cooking as others would eat thereof. With regard to the law where the forbidden essence is considered extracted, there is a dispute between Tannaim. For it was taught: If a drop of milk fell on a piece of flesh, as soon as it imparted a flavour to the piece, the piece itself is forbidden as nebelah, and it will in turn render all the pieces [in the pot] forbidden, for they are of like kind: so R. Judah. But the Sages say. [It is not forbidden at all] until it imparts a flavour to the broth, the sediments and the pieces. Said Rabbi: The words of R. Judah are acceptable in the case where he neither stirred nor covered [the pot], and the words of the Sages in the case where he either stirred it or covered it. Now what is meant by ‘neither stirred nor covered’? Should you say it means that he did not stir it at all, or that he did not cover it at all, then this piece will indeed have absorbed [the drop of milk] but will not at any time have given it out; [wherefore then are the other pieces forbidden?] And if it means that he did not stir it straightway but only later on, or that he did not cover it straightway but only later on, wherefore [are any of the pieces forbidden]? True, this piece had absorbed [the drop of milk] but it has also given it out! — He is of the opinion that even when the forbidden substance can be considered extracted it is still forbidden. 17
—