Chullin

(It follows then from this that R. Judah holds that [the entire contents of the pot] are forbidden even though he stirred it straightway [and continued to do so] till the very end, or covered it straightway [and kept it so] till the very end.1 But why should this be so? The one [piece] has not absorbed any more [than the others]?2 — Perhaps he did not stir it so well or he did not cover it so well.) 3 The Master [further] stated above: ‘And the words of the Sages in the case where he either stirred it or covered it’. What is meant by ‘either stirred it or covered it’? Should you say it means that he stirred it only later on but not at the beginning, or that he covered it only later on but not at the beginning,4 — but in this case you have said that the words of R. Judah are acceptable.5 It must therefore mean that he stirred it straightway and [continued to do so] till the very end, or that he covered it straightway and [kept it so] till the very end; from which it follows that the Sages maintain [that everything in the pot is] permitted even though he stirred it only later on but not at the beginning, or he covered it only later on but not at the beginning. It is evident then that they hold that when the forbidden substance can be considered extracted it becomes permitted. 6 R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: Why say they differ as to the law where the forbidden substance can be extracted? Perhaps all are of the opinion that even when the forbidden substance can be is extracted it is still forbidden, but they differ [about the neutralization7 of homogeneous substances: R. Judah maintaining his principle that homogeneous substances cannot neutralize each other, and the Rabbis maintain theirs that homogeneous substances can neutralize each other?7 — This argument cannot be entertained.8 If you concede that the Sages in this dispute accept R. Judah’ s view concerning homogeneous substances, but they differ only as to the law in the case where the forbidden substance can be considered extracted, then the meaning of Rabbi is clear when he says. ‘The words of R. Judah are acceptable in this case and the words of the Sages in that’. But if you insist that all agree that even where the forbidden substance can be considered extracted it is still forbidden, but they differ concerning the law of homogeneous substances, then surely [Rabbi] should have said. ‘The words of R. Judah are acceptable in this but not in that’!9 And there is no more to be said about this. MISHNAH. THE UDDER MUST BE CUT OPEN AND EMPTIED OF ITS MILK; IF HE DID NOT CUT IT OPEN10 HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF.11 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.12 clearly suggests that R. Judah maintains his view (viz., that everything in the pot is forbidden) even where the pot was stirred immediately and kept on so till the end. and surely there is sufficient in the pot to neutralize this drop. would immediately absorb the milk and would render all the contents of the pot forbidden. neutralize the milk, for it has been extracted from the one piece and distributed evenly in the pot. Tannaim. but the dispute is concerning the other pieces in the pot. R. Judah holding that the entire contents of the pot are forbidden because the forbidden piece can never be neutralized amongst other pieces, and the Sages holding that neutralization even in a mixture of homogeneous substances can take place. The attitude of Rabbi who holds, first that when the forbidden substance can be extracted the piece is still forbidden, and secondly that neutralization cannot take place between homogeneous substances, is expressed thus: The words of R. Judah are acceptable to me, namely, that the entire contents of the pot are forbidden, in the case where the pot was not stirred at once but only later on, for then one piece was first rendered forbidden and it would later render the entire pot forbidden. But the words of R. Judah are not acceptable to me in the case where the pot was stirred straightway, for then the drop of milk was immediately evenly distributed among the contents of the pot. In this latter case the words of the Sages are acceptable to me, namely that the entire contents of the pot are permitted, for the apprehension lest the pot was not well stirred or well covered need not be taken into consideration. the case where the pot was not stirred at once, but does not agree with him in the case where it was stirred at once. If this is Rabbi's true view then he should not have mentioned the Sages at all in his statement. The fact that the Sages are mentioned in Rabbi's statement indicates that they went so far as to permit even that Piece upon which the drop of milk fell, for they hold that when the forbidden substance is extracted the piece itself becomes permitted. The result of all this argument is to show that the law in the case when the forbidden substance can be considered extracted is a matter of dispute between Tannaim. milk drawn off from the living animal but not to milk found in the udder of a slaughtered animal. heart of a fowl and the reason why this penalty is not incurred is because the blood contained in the heart is not as much as an olive's bulk. According to Tosaf. it refers to the heart of any animal and there is no liability because blood that has been cooked is not forbidden by the law of the Torah. V. Ker. 220. The flesh of the heart, says Rashi, is not rendered forbidden, for since it is smooth it does not absorb the blood. V. however Tosaf. s.v. ckv.