Chullin

Why did he not tell him [that it was forbidden] because of Samuel's dictum, ‘Whatsoever is salted is counted as hot, and whatsoever is preserved is counted as cooked’? — As for Samuel's dictum I would have thought that it applies only to the blood1 but not to the juice and broth;2 he therefore teaches us [the Baraitha]. An objection was raised: [It was taught:] If a clean fish was salted together with an unclean fish, it3 is permitted. Presumably this is a case where both were salted, is it not?4 — No. It is a case where the clean fish was salted but the unclean was not.5 But surely, since the subsequent clause states: If the clean fish was salted and the unclean was not, [it’ is permitted],6 it follows that the first clause deals with the case where both were salted. — The [second] clause merely explains the first thus: If a clean fish was salted together with an unclean fish, it is permitted. When is this so? When, for instance, the clean fish was salted but the unclean was not. And indeed this supposition is reasonable, since if we assume the first clause to refer to the case where both were salted, seeing that where both were salted it is permitted, is it necessary [to tell us that it is permitted] where only the clean fish was salted and not the unclean? — This however is not a conclusive argument. It may be that the second clause was put in to make clear the reference in the first: lest you might think that the first clause refers to where the clean fish was salted and the unclean was not, leaving us to infer that where both were salted it would be forbidden, he therefore adds the second clause, where the clean fish was salted and the unclean was not, which shows that the first clause speaks of the case where both were salted, and even so it is permitted. Come and hear from the very last clause: But if the unclean fish was salted and the clean was not, it3 is forbidden. Now it is forbidden only where the unclean was salted and the clean was not, from which it follows that where both were salted it would be permitted!4 — Not at all; but since in the preceding clause it teaches of the case where the clean fish was salted, and the unclean was not, it teaches also in the second clause of the case where the unclean fish was salted and the clean was not.7 (Mnemonic: Flesh put [on the] neckbone.)8 Samuel said: Flesh cannot be drained of its blood unless it has been salted very well and rinsed very well. It was stated: R. Huna said: One must salt the flesh and then rinse it. In a Baraitha it was taught: One must rinse it, salt it and then rinse it again. Indeed they are not at variance, for in the one case9 it was washed down by the butcher and in the other it was not washed by the butcher. R. Dimi of Nehardea used to salt meat with coarse salt and then shake it off.10 R. Mesharsheya said: We do not assume that the internal organs contain blood;11 this is explained as referring specifically to the rectum, the small intestines, and the coil of the colon. Samuel said: One may not put salted meat except into a perforated vessel.12 R. Shesheth used to salt each piece of meat13 separately. But why not two together? Because the blood would run out of one piece and be absorbed by the other? Then in one piece also the blood may run out of one side and be absorbed by the other side! — Indeed there can be no difference. 14 Samuel said in the name of R. Hiyya: If a man breaks the neck bone of an animal [after it has been slaughtered but] before the life departed from it, he thereby makes the meat heavy,15 robs mankind,16 and causes the blood to remain in the limbs. It was asked: What is the true meaning? Is it that he makes the meat heavy and thereby robs mankind by causing the blood to remain in the limbs, but where only he himself is concerned he may do so?17 Or perhaps even for himself it is forbidden?18 — This remains undecided. MISHNAH. IF A MAN PLACES UPON THE TABLE FOWL WITH CHEESE HE DOES NOT THEREBY TRANSGRESS THE LAW. GEMARA. It follows that if he were to eat [them together] he would transgress the law; you can infer from this that the flesh of fowl [cooked] in milk is prohibited by the law of the Torah! — Render thus. If a man places upon the table fowl with cheese he cannot come to the transgression of the law.19 MISHNAH. IT IS FORBIDDEN TO COOK THE FLESH OF A CLEAN ANIMAL IN THE MILK OF A CLEAN ANIMAL OR TO DERIVE ANY BENEFIT THEREFROM; BUT IT IS PERMITTED TO COOK THE FLESH OF A CLEAN ANIMAL IN THE MILK OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL OR THE FLESH OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL IN THE MILK OF A CLEAN ANIMAL AND TO DERIVE BENEFIT THEREFROM. R. AKIBA SAYS, WILD ANIMALS AND FOWLS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROHIBITION OF THE TORAH, FOR IT IS WRITTEN THRICE, THOU SHALT NOT SEETHE A KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK,20 TO EXCLUDE WILD ANIMALS, FOWLS, AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS, IT IS WRITTEN, YE SHALL NOT EAT OF ANYTHING THAT DIETH OF ITSELF.21 AND IN THE SAME VERSE IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT NOT SEE THE A KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK; THEREFORE WHATSOEVER IS PROHIBITED. UNDER THE LAW OF NEBELAH22 IT IS FORBIDDEN TO COOK IN MILK. NOW IT MIGHT BE INFERRED THAT A FOWL, SINCE IT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE LAW OF NEBELAH. IS ALSO FORBIDDEN TO BE COOKED IN MILK; THE VERSE THEREFORE SAYS. IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK’; THUS A FOWL IS EXCLUDED SINCE IT HAS NO MOTHER'S MILK.23 GEMARA. Whence do we know this?24 — R. Eleazar said: Because the verse says: And Judah sent the kid of the goats;25 roasted) thus, and is forbidden. secretion and of no consequence. one will not absorb from the other; similarly in the above case, so long as each piece of meat is exuding blood and juice, the ritually slaughtered meat will not absorb from the trefah meat. not be affected by it. the mnemonic is read as t,erpn ‘neckbone’ which is supported by MS.M.; in cur. edd. the reading is t,uepb ‘going out, departing’. blood and run off the meat. the meat will absorb again the blood that was drawn out of it. It is certainly forbidden to salt meat in such a vessel in the first instance (R. Nissim). [Rashi supra 122b, s.v. ukhpt, seems to have read one may not salt etc. ihjkun for ihjhbn] the pieces must be salted simultaneously or not, v. Tosaf. supra 112b, ohdsu. but applies to all clean animals.