Chullin — Daf 109b

אמר רבי זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ומותר והא אנן תנן אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא

בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו התם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו

לימא מסייע ליה הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה

דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה

ואיכא דאמרי א"ר זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ואסור לימא מסייע ליה אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא

בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו דהתם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו

ת"ש הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה

דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה

תניא כלישנא קמא דרב כחל שבשלו בחלבו מותר קבה שבשלה בחלבה אסור

ומה הפרש בין זה לזה זה כנוס במעיו וזה אין כנוס במעיו

כיצד קורעו אמר רב יהודה קורעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל א"ל ר' אלעזר לשמעיה קרע לי ואנא איכול מאי קמ"ל מתניתין היא הא קמ"ל דלא בעינן שתי וערב וטחו בכותל

אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן מכדי כל דאסר לן רחמנא שרא לן כוותיה אסר לן דמא שרא לן כבדא נדה דם טוהר

חלב בהמה חלב חיה חזיר מוחא דשיבוטא גירותא לישנא דכורא

אשת איש גרושה בחיי בעלה אשת אח יבמה כותית יפת תאר בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא

אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי זויקו לה כחלי והאנן תנן קורעו ההוא לקדרה

והא קתני שבשלו דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא ה"ה דאפי' לכתחלה ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא קבה

GEMARA. R. Zera said in the name of Rab: He has [not only] not transgressed the law on account thereof, but it is even permitted.1 But have we not learnt: HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF, which implies that there is no transgression of the law but that it is forbidden?Strictly it is not forbidden at all, but only because the second clause reads: THE HEART MUST BE CUT OPEN AND EMPTIED OF ITS BLOOD; IF HE DID NOT CUT IT OPEN HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF, in which case it is true that there is no transgression of the law but clearly it is forbidden,2 the Tanna also stated in the first clause, HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF. Shall we say that the following teaching supports him? It was taught: The udder must be cut open and emptied of its milk; if he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on account thereof. The heart must be cut open and emptied of its blood; if he did not cut it open he must cut it open after it had been cooked and it is permitted [to be eaten]. Now it is only the heart that must be cut open [after the cooking], but the udder need not be cut open at all! — Perhaps the inference is: only for the heart does the cutting open [after the cooking] suffice, but for the udder the cutting open [after the cooking] would not be sufficient.3 Others report the passage thus: R. Zera said in the name of Rab: He has not transgressed the law on account thereof, but it is forbidden [to be eaten]. Shall we say that [our Mishnah] supports him? It reads: HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF, which implies, no doubt, that there Is no transgression of the law but that it is forbidden! — Strictly it is not even forbidden, but only because the second clause reads: THE HEART MUST BE CUT OPEN AND EMPTIED OF ITS BLOOD; IF HE DID NOT CUT IT OPEN HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF, in which case there is no transgression of the law but clearly it is forbidden, the Tanna also stated in the first clause, HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF. Come and hear: The udder must be cut open and emptied of its milk; if he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on account thereof. The heart must be cut open and emptied of its blood; if he did not cut it open, he must cut it open after it had been cooked and it is permitted [to be eaten]. Now only the heart must be cut open [after the cooking] but the udder need not be cut open at all! — Perhaps the inference is: only for the heart does the cutting open [after the cooking] suffice, but for the udder the cutting open [after the cooking] would not be sufficient. It was taught in agreement with the first version of Rab's view: If the udder was cooked with its milk it is permitted; if the stomach [of a sucking calf] was cooked with its milk it is forbidden. And wherein lies the distinction between the two? In the one the milk is collected inside, in the other it is not collected inside.4 How should one cut it5 open? — Rab Judah replied. One must cut it lengthwise and breadthwise and press it against the wall. R. Eleazar once said to his attendant, ‘Cut it up for me6 and I will eat it’. What does he teach us? Is it not [a clear statement in] our Mishnah? — He teaches us that it is not necessary to cut it both lengthwise and breadthwise.7 Or [he teaches us that this would be sufficient even for cooking] in a pot.8 Yaltha9 once said to R. Nahman: ‘Observe, for everything that the Divine Law has forbidden us it has permitted us an equivalent: it has forbidden us blood but it has permitted us liver; it has forbidden us intercourse during menstruation but it has permitted us the blood of purification;10 it has forbidden us the fat of cattle but it has permitted us the fat of wild beasts; it has forbidden us swine's flesh but it has permitted us the brain of the shibbuta;11 it has forbidden us the girutha12 but it has permitted us the tongue of fish;13 it has forbidden us the married woman but it has permitted us the divorcee during the lifetime of her former husband; it has forbidden us the brother's wife but it has permitted us the levirate marriage;14 it has forbidden us the non-Jewess but it has permitted us the beautiful woman15 [taken in war]. I wish to eat flesh in milk, [where is its equivalent?]’ Thereupon R. Nahman said to the butchers, ‘Give her roasted Udders’.16 But have we not learnt, [THE UDDER] MUST BE CUT OPEN? — That is only when [it is to be cooked] in a pot.17 But does it not state [in the Baraitha above]. ‘If [the udder was] cooked’,18 which implies that only after the act it is permitted but not in the first instance?19 — Indeed, it is even permitted in the first instance, but only because [the Tanna of the cited Baraitha] desired to state the second clause viz., If the stomach by the Rabbis only, and here since the milk was absorbed and confined within the udder there is not even a Rabbinic injunction against eating it. stated, namely that it is less than an olive's bulk, there nevertheless lies a prohibition even where there is less than an olive's bulk, and it would certainly not be permitted to be eaten. penetrate into it; the udder, on the other hand, is soft and spongy, and in cooking, the milk would Penetrate into it, and it would be impossible to remove it. prohibition of ‘flesh in milk’ applies, whereas the milk in the udder cannot be said to be collected inside but is absorbed in every part of the udder and therefore the prohibition of ‘flesh in milk’ does not apply. together with other meat. The text adopted is as found in MS.M.. Alfasi, R. Gershom and others. In cur. edd., in place of ‘or in a pot’ are the words ‘and to press it against the wall’. V. Glos. of Bah. be suffering from a discharge of blood. Moreover, the blood of virginity is permitted which is the equivalent of the blood of menstruation. according to others the sturgeon. cooked without having been cut open. expression in II Chron. XXXV, 13: And they cooked the passover.