Chullin

putting liver on the spit on top of meat. ‘How presumptuous this young scholar is!’ he exclaimed. ‘The Rabbis may have permitted it after the act, but did they permit it in the first instance?’ But if a vessel was placed below to collect the drippings, even though the meat was on top of the liver, it is forbidden.1 But in what way is this different from the blood of flesh?2 — The blood of flesh settles at the bottom of the vessel, whereas the blood of liver floats at the top.3 R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: The knife with which one slaughtered may not be used for cutting hot food;4 as for cold food, some say it must be washed,5 whilst others say, it need not be washed. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The vessel in which one salted meat may not be used for eating therein hot food. This is in accord with Samuel's principle, for Samuel has stated: Whatsoever is salted is counted as hot, and whatsoever is preserved is counted as cooked.6 When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Johanan. Whatsoever is salted is not counted as hot and whatsoever is preserved is not counted as cooked. Said Abaye. This statement of Rabin cannot be upheld, for it once happened in the house of R. Ammi that an earthenware plate had been used for salting meat thereon and he broke It. Now let us see. Was not R. Ammi a disciple of R. Johanan? Why then did he break [the plate]? Surely because he had heard the statement from R. Johanan that whatsoever is salted is counted as hot. R. Kahana, the brother of Rab Judah, was sitting before R. Huna and recited as follows, The vessel in which one salted meat may not be used for eating therein hot food. A radish which was cut with a meat knife may be eaten with a milk sauce.7 Why the distinction? — Abaye answered: The latter absorbed what is permitted, the former what is forbidden.8 Said to him Raba. But what difference does it make the fact that it absorbed what is permitted? After all what is permitted now will be forbidden later on,9 so that he will be eating that which is forbidden! Rather said Raba: [This is the distinction]. The latter can be tasted, the former cannot.10 R. Papa said to Raba: But could not a gentile cook taste it? Has it not been taught: In a pot wherein meat had been cooked a person may not boil milk, and if he did boil [milk] therein [it is forbidden] if the pot imparts a flavour [to the milk]. In a pot wherein terumah food had been cooked a person may not cook common food, and if he did cook [common food] therein, [it is forbidden] if the pot imparted a flavour [to the common food]. And when we put the question to you. In the case of terumah I grant you that a priest could taste the food; but in the case of meat and milk who may taste it? You replied: A gentile cook could taste it. Now in our case, too, could not a gentile cook taste it? [He replied:] That is so, but I am speaking of a case where there is no gentile cook available. 11 It was stated: If [hot] fish was served on a [meat] plate: Rab says: It is forbidden to eat it with milk sauce; Samuel says: It is permitted to eat it with milk sauce. ‘Rab says: It is forbidden’, because it imparted a flavour to it;12 ‘Samuel says: It is permitted’, because it imparted a flavour indirectly. 13 This ruling of Rab, however, was not expressly stated by him but was inferred from the following incident. Rab once visited the house of R. Shimi b. Hiyya, his grandson. He felt a pain in his eyes and so they prepared for him an ointment on a dish. Later on he was served with stew in this same dish and he detected the taste of the ointment in it. He remarked: ‘Does it impart such a strong flavour?’14 — But this does not prove anything; in that case it is different for the bitterness of the ointment is very pungent.15 R. Eleazar was once standing before Mar Samuel, who was being served with fish upon a [meat] plate and was eating it with milk sauce. He [Samuel] offered him some but he would not eat it. Samuel said to him, ‘I once offered some to your Master16 and he ate it, and you won't eat it.’ He [R. Eleazar] then came to Rab and asked him, ‘Has my Master withdrawn his view?’ He replied. Heaven forfend that the son of Abba b. Abba17 should give me to eat that which I do not hold [to be permitted]!18 R. Huna and R. Hiyya b. Ashi were once sitting, one on the one side of the ferry of Sura and the other on the other side; one was served with fish on a [meat] plate which he ate with milk sauce; the other was served with figs and grapes in the course of the meal which he ate without reciting a benediction over them.19 One called out to the other, ‘ignoramus,20 would your master do so?’ The other called back, ‘Ignoramus, would your master do so?’ The one answered and said: ‘I accept Samuel's view.’21 The other answered: ‘I hold the view of R. Hiyya. For R. Hiyya taught:22 [The benediction over] bread exempts all other kinds of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of drink [from the necessity of another benediction].’ Hezekiah said in the name of Abaye: The law is, fish that was served on a [meat] plate may be eaten with milk sauce, and a radish that was cut with a meat knife may not be eaten with milk sauce. This is so only in the case of a radish, from the liver. even though it collects at the same time blood drippings. blood is intermingled with the fat and the one cannot be separated from the other. absorbed blood and will give it out again when used with hot food. Tosaf. (supra 8b s.v. t,fkvu), interpret that the knife must be washed before cutting with it cold food. absorbed the fat that was congealed upon the knife. forbidden. food cooked in the vessel wherein meat had been salted, may not be tasted by a Jew, for fear that the flavour of the blood that was absorbed in the vessel will have passed into the food. absolutely free from the taste or flavour of blood it may then be eaten. So that in fact there is no distinction between the two cases cited by R. Kahana. imparted a flavour to the plate and the plate to the fish; the fish, therefore, has a secondary or indirect taste of the meat, and this according to Samuel is negligible and of no consequence. However, it is conceded by Samuel that it is forbidden to drink hot milk out of a meat dish, for the dish has the first taste of the meat and this flavour, like the meat itself, is forbidden to eat with milk. cleaned well) and be felt also in the food that was subsequently served in it. From this remark the Rabbis inferred that even the secondary or indirect taste is of consequence. This suggested inference is somewhat difficult for the case of the fish and the case of the ointment are not on all fours; v. however R. Nissim a.l. the benediction over them, and one is not exempt with the benediction recited over the bread at the beginning of the dinner. V. Ber. 41b.