Chullin 108b — the Talmud in English

And now we analyze precisely:

And if it enters your mind

that Rav holds

that what can be squeezed out is forbidden, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

this milk

in which an olive-bulk of meat was cooked,

why

is

it permitted?

But that

milk

of a small amount that entered the meat

is carrion

it is

considered, since the taste of meat entered it; and from now, when it returns and is expelled and mixed with the rest of the milk inside the cauldron, all the milk should have to become forbidden, since the forbidden milk is the same species as the milk in the cauldron, and Rav holds that a species with its own species is not nullified!?

And we answer:

Rav indeed holds that “what can be squeezed out

is forbidden,”

and nevertheless the milk in the cauldron was not forbidden on account of the forbidden milk that was mixed into it. For Rav holds that there is a distinction,

and there it is different,

in the prohibition of meat with milk, for the Torah forbade only the meat that was cooked in milk, but it did not forbid the milk that was cooked with the meat, because

the verse says, “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,”

and the verse is expounded as follows: only

the kid did the Torah forbid, and not

the

milk

in which the kid was cooked.

And we challenge:

And

if

he holds

that only

the kid did the Torah forbid

только,

and not

the

milk!?

But it was stated: Half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk

of milk that he cooked together—

Rav said: He is flogged for eating it,

because he ate [together] a measure of an olive-bulk,

but he is not flogged for cooking it,

for the reason that will be explained below.

And if it enters your mind

that only

the kid did the Torah forbid and not the milk,

the following difficulty arises:

concerning the eating

of half an olive-bulk of the meat [which alone is forbidden, and not the milk!]

why is he flogged?

For half an olive-bulk of meat

is half a measure,

and one is not flogged for eating half a measure!?

Rather, Rav indeed holds

that

the milk

in which meat was cooked

is also forbidden,

and nevertheless he permitted the milk in the cauldron, because

here, with what are we dealing? With a case where the meat fell

into

a boiling cauldron,

for it absorbs, it absorbs

the meat from the milk, and while it is occupied with absorbing

it does not expel,

so it follows that the milk absorbed into the meat did not leave the meat.

And we challenge: It is true that at the time of boiling the meat was occupied with absorbing and did not expel at that moment, but

in the end, when it rests

from its boiling,

it returns and expels,

and it follows that mixed into the milk in the pot is the milk that was inside the meat and became forbidden, and it will forbid the pot.

And we answer: it is speaking

when he preceded and removed it,

the meat, before the cauldron rested from its boiling.

The body of the matter: Half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk that he cooked together—

Rav said: He is flogged for eating it, but he is not flogged for cooking it.

And we inquire into Rav’s words:

Whatever way you look at it: if they combine,

the half olive-bulk of meat and the half olive-bulk of milk,

then he should also be flogged for cooking!

If they do not combine,

the meat and the milk,

then he should also not be flogged for eating it!?

And we answer:

They never combine

half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk to create the prohibition of “meat with milk”; rather, there must have been a measure of an olive-bulk of meat and a measure of an olive-bulk of milk at the beginning of their cooking.

And Rav, who said that half of this and half of that combine for eating but not for cooking, stated his words concerning two different cases.

This statement, that one is flogged for eating half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk, does not concern a case where he cooked them together now, but rather

in

meat with milk that

came from a large cauldron,

in which an olive-bulk of meat and an olive-bulk of milk were cooked; since both the meat and the milk became forbidden, half an olive-bulk of the meat and half an olive-bulk of the milk combine to a full measure, for which he is flogged for eating it.

Whereas this statement of Rav, “one is not flogged for cooking it,” concerns one who cooks half an olive-bulk of meat with half an olive-bulk of milk: since during the cooking there was not an olive-bulk of meat and an olive-bulk of milk, there is no liability for the cooking. Likewise, one is not flogged for eating it.

And Levi said: He is also flogged for cooking it,

half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk.

And likewise Levi taught in a baraita: Just as he is flogged for eating it,

of an olive-bulk whose half is meat and whose half is milk,

so he is flogged for cooking it,

half an olive-bulk of meat with half an olive-bulk of milk.

And in which

which]

cooking did they say

for which he is flogged?

In cooking that others

non-Jews]

eat it on account of its cooking!

That is, cooking suitable for eating.

And we say:

“and whether it can be squeezed out”

itself,

whether it is permitted or forbidden—this is a dispute among

the Tannaim!

For it was taught: A drop of milk that fell upon the piece

of meat—

once

the drop of milk

gave taste to the piece [that is, the drop of milk contains enough to give taste to the piece]—

the piece itself

into which the drop of milk was absorbed

becomes “a carcass.”

And

once it itself becomes a carcass, it

forbids

the

entire pieces

together with it in the pot,

all of them,

and even if there are a thousand pieces in the pot corresponding to it, they are forbidden

because they are of its kind

of the piece of meat,

the words of Rabbi Judah!

For he holds that a kind mixed with its own kind is not nullified even in a thousand.

And the Sages say:

The drop of milk does not forbid the piece

until

the drop of milk contains enough that it can

give

the drop of milk

taste—

in the sauce and in the sediment, [thin pieces of meat that sink to the bottom of the vessel]

and in the pieces

all of them. And if not, even the piece into which the drop was absorbed is not forbidden, although in this piece the drop of milk contains enough to give it taste, because the taste of the milk returns and is squeezed out of it during cooking.

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Judah appear [to be correct] when he did not stir and did not cover

as he proceeds to explain,

and the words of the Sages when he stirred and covered,

as will be explained.

And we explain:

What is “he did not stir and did not cover”?

If you say—

he did not stir at all [for stirring, by mixing the food with a large spoon called a “magis,” spreads the taste throughout the entire pot],

and he did not cover at all [for covering causes the water to rise upward and then return and descend downward, and through this the taste is mixed and spread throughout the entire pot],

then, if he did not stir at all and did not cover at all,

it absorbed

indeed

it absorbed

the first piece of meat from the drop of milk that fell upon it, but

it did not release

the taste of the milk into the other pieces, for the milk was absorbed only in the upper part of the piece, and without stirring or covering it does not pass to the other pieces!?

Rather, he did not stir at the beginning,

when the drop of milk fell upon the piece of meat [and then the piece received the taste of the milk],

but

he stirred

at the end,

after the piece of meat had received the taste of the milk, and it released it into the other pieces through the stirring.

And thus one must explain Rabbi’s words, who said that the words of Rabbi Judah appear [to be correct] when he did not cover, meaning

he did not cover at the beginning, but at the end.

And now this is difficult:

why

do Rabbi’s words of Rabbi Judah appear [to be correct] when he stirred and covered at the end?

It absorbed

the drop of milk,

and

also

released

the milk when he stirred and covered at the end; and the milk that was released does not contain enough to forbid all the pieces, so why do they forbid them!?

Rather, necessarily,

he holds

that Rabbi [holds]: “

whether it can be squeezed out—

it is forbidden,”

because the permitted piece becomes an object of prohibition, and everything squeezed out from it is forbidden and everything remaining in it is forbidden [in the language of Rashi]; and since the taste of the meat that emerges from it is forbidden, it is not nullified, for it is a kind mixed with its own kind among the pieces of meat.

And we challenge: And now that we have explained Rabbi’s words, who said, “I see the words of Rabbi Judah when he did not stir at the beginning, but I do not see his words, that he forbids even when he stirred at the beginning,”