Chullin — Daf 116b

אם יש בנותן טעם הרי זו אסורה כשרה שינקה מן הטרפה קבתה אסורה טרפה שינקה מן הכשרה קבתה מותרת מפני שכנוס במעיה:

גמ׳ אטו קבת עובד כוכבים לאו נבלה היא אמר רב הונא הכא בלוקח גדי מן העובד כוכבים עסקינן וחיישינן שמא ינק מן הטרפה

ומי חיישינן שמא ינק מן הטרפה והתנן לוקחים ביצים מן העובדי כוכבים ואין חוששין לא משום נבלה ולא משום טרפה אלא אימא חיישינן שמא ינק מן הטמאה

ומאי שנא טרפה דלא חיישינן ומאי שנא טמאה דחיישינן טרפה לא שכיחא טמאה שכיחא

אי שכיחא אפילו גבי דידן ניחוש אנן דבדלינן מינייהו וכי חזינן להו מפרשינן להו לא גזרו בהו רבנן אינהו דלא בדילי מינייהו וכי חזו להו לא מפרשי להו גזרו בהו רבנן

ושמואל אמר חדא קתני קבת שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה

ומי אמר שמואל הכי והאמר שמואל מפני מה אסרו גבינת העובדי כוכבים מפני שמעמידין אותה בעור קבת נבלה הא קבה גופה שריא

לא קשיא כאן קודם חזרה כאן לאחר חזרה:

כשרה שינקה מן הטרפה [וכו']: והא קתני רישא קבת עובד כוכבים ושל נבלה הרי זו אסורה

אמר רב חסדא רישא נראה כאוכל נבלות הכא איכא שחיטה

א"ל רבא ולאו כל דכן הוא ומה נבלה דמאיסה דאי שרית ליה קבתה לא אתי למיכל מינה אמרת לא טרפה שחוטה דאי שרית אתי למיכל מינה לא כ"ש

אלא אמר רב יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן לא קשיא כאן קודם חזרה כאן לאחר חזרה ומשנה לא זזה ממקומה

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן מעמידין בקבת נבלות ואין מעמידין בקבת שחיטת עובד כוכבים אמר לפניו רבי שמעון בר אבא כמאן כרבי אליעזר דאמר סתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים

א"ל ואלא כמאן

כי אתא רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן מעמידין בין בקבת נבלה בין בקבת שחיטת עובד כוכבים שלא לחוש לדברי רבי אליעזר

והלכתא אין מעמידין בעור קבת נבלה אבל מעמידין בקבת נבלה ובקבת שחיטת עובד כוכבים (ובקבת כשרה שינקה מן הטרפה וכ"ש בקבת טרפה שינקה מן הכשרה מ"ט חלב המכונס בה פירשא בעלמא הוא):

מתני׳ חומר בחלב מבדם וחומר בדם מבחלב חומר בחלב שהחלב

AND IT IMPARTED ITS FLAVOUR [TO THE MILK]. IT IS FORBIDDEN. THE [MILK IN THE] STOMACH OF A VALIDLY SLAUGHTERED ANIMAL WHICH HAD SUCKED FROM A TREFAH ANIMAL. IS FORBIDDEN; THE [MILK IN THE] STOMACH OF A TREFAH ANIMAL WHICH HAD SUCKED FROM A VALID ANIMAL IS PERMITTED, BECAUSE THE MILK REMAINS COLLECTED INSIDE.1 GEMARA. But is not the stomach [of an animal] of a gentile nebelah?2 — R. Huna answered. We are dealing here with the case of a kid that was bought from a gentile.3 and we apprehend that it sucked from a trefah animal.4 But do we apprehend that it sucked from a trefah animal? Behold it has been taught: One may buy eggs from gentiles and need have no fear lest they are of birds that were nebelah or trefah!5 — Say, rather, we apprehend lest it sucked from an unclean animal. And why is it that we do not apprehend [sucking] from a trefah animal but we do apprehend [sucking] from an unclean animal? — Because trefah animals are not common whilst unclean animals are. If these are common, then even with regard to our own [kids] we should be apprehensive?6 — With regard to our own, since we keep away from unclean animals, and whenever we see them together7 we separate them, the Rabbis imposed no restriction as a precaution; with regard to theirs, however, since they do not keep away from unclean animals, and whenever they see them together7 they do not separate them, the Rabbis imposed a restriction as a precaution. Samuel answered:8 They are to be taken as one thus: The [milk in the] stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile is nebelah [and therefore forbidden]. But how could Samuel have said so? Behold Samuel has stated. The reason for forbidding the cheese of gentiles is because they curdle it with the skin of the stomach of a nebelah. This implies, does it not, that the [milk In the] stomach is permitted? There is no contradiction here. This [sc. our Mishnah] was taught before he [R. Joshua] retracted, the other after he retracted.9 THE [MILK IN THE] STOMACH OF A VALIDLY SLAUGHTERED ANIMAL WHICH HAD SUCKED FROM A TREFAH ANIMAL IS FORBIDDEN etc. But does not the first clause state, THE [MILK IN THE] STOMACH OF [AN ANIMAL] OF A GENTILE. OR [IN THE STOMACH OF] A NEBELAH. IS FORBIDDEN?10 — R. Ashi answered. In the first clause it would appear that one is eating nebelah,11 but here [in the final clause] the animal has been slaughtered. Said to him Raba. But is this not all the more reason [to forbid it]? For if in the case of nebelah, which is a loathsome matter, and if you were to permit [the milk in] its stomach one would not come to eat of its flesh, you say it is forbidden; is it not then all the more reason to forbid [the milk in the stomach of] a trefah animal which had been slaughtered, for if you were to permit it one would come to eat of its flesh? — Rather said R. Isaac in the name of R. Johanan. There is no contradiction here. This [the first clause was taught] before he [R. Joshua] retracted; the other [the final clause] after he retracted;12 [the first clause, however, of] our Mishnah was allowed to stand.13 R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: One may curdle [milk] with the [milk in the] stomach of a nebelah, but not — with the [milk in the] stomach of an animal slaughtered by an idolater. Thereupon R. Simeon b. Abba said before him: This is, is it not, in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer who maintains that the thoughts of an idolater are usually directed towards idolatry? — He replied: Of course. According to whom else could it be? When R. Samuel b. R. Isaac came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Johanan: One may curdle [milk] with the [milk in the] stomach both of a nebelah and an animal slaughtered by an idolater for we are not concerned with the view of R. Eliezer. The law is: One may not curdle [milk] with the skin of the stomach of a nebelah, but one may with the [milk in the] stomach of a nebelah, and also with the [milk in the] stomach of an animal slaughtered unto idolatry. ([One may also curdle milk] with the [milk found in the] stomach of a validly slaughtered animal which had sucked from a trefah animal, and certainly with the [milk found in the] stomach of a trefah animal which had sucked from a valid animal, because the milk that is collected within is considered as dung.) 14 MISHNAH. IN CERTAIN RESPECTS THE PROHIBITION OF THE FAT IS MORE STRICT THAN THE PROHIBITION OF THE BLOOD, AND IN CERTAIN RESPECTS THE PROHIBITION OF THE BLOOD IS MORE STRICT THAN THE PROHIBITION OF THE FAT. THE PROHIBITION OF THE FAT IS MORE STRICT, IN THAT THE FAT therefore permitted. forbidden; subsequently he retracted this. Now our Mishnah which, according to Samuel's interpretation, suggests that the milk in the stomach of a nebelah is forbidden is obviously the view of R. Joshua before he retracted; whereas Samuel's statement as regards the cheese of gentiles follows the later view of R. Joshua. be forbidden. Can there be any distinction between the milk in the stomach of a nebelah and of a trefah? regarded as part of the nebelah but merely collected in its stomach. commentators.