Chullin 108b (קח:) — the Talmud in English

And now we analyze the matter:

And if it should enter your mind that

Rav holds

that what can be extracted is forbidden,

this milk

in which an olive-bulk of meat was cooked,

why

is

it permitted?

But surely that

milk

in small quantity that entered the meat is considered

carcass;

it

is considered so because the taste of meat entered it. And now, when it is extracted again and mixed with the rest of the milk in the pot, all the milk should become forbidden, since the forbidden milk is the same type as the milk in the pot, and Rav holds that one type does not become nullified when mixed with the same type!?

And we answer:

Rav may actually hold that what can be extracted -

is forbidden,

but nevertheless the milk in the pot did not become forbidden on account of the forbidden milk mixed with it. For Rav holds that there is a distinction,

and there it is different, in the prohibition of meat and milk, since the Torah prohibited only the meat that was cooked with milk, but did not prohibit 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 prohibit, and not

the

milk

in which the kid was cooked.

And we raise an objection:

And

if

Rav holds

that only the

kid did the Torah prohibit

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 should enter your mind

that only

a kid did the Torah prohibit and not milk,

then the following difficulty arises:

With regard to eating

half an olive-bulk of 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 may actually hold

that the

milk

in which meat was cooked

is also forbidden.

Nevertheless, he permitted the milk in the pot, because

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

into

a boiling pot,

for it absorbed

the meat absorbed milk, and while it was preoccupied with absorbing

it did not release,

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

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

ultimately, when it ceases

boiling,

it releases again, and it follows that the milk that was inside the meat and became forbidden is mixed with the milk in the pot and will prohibit the pot.

And we answer: The case is

where he hastened and removed

the meat before the pot ceased boiling.

The essential text: 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 statement:

What is the reasoning!? If they combine,

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

he should also be flogged for cooking!

If they do not combine,

the meat and the milk,

he should not be flogged for eating either!?

And we answer:

They never combine

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

Rav, who said that half of one and half of the other combine for eating but not for cooking, stated his words with regard to two different cases.

When he said that one is flogged for eating half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk, he was not referring to a case where he cooked them together now. Rather,

in

meat and milk that

came from a large pot,

in which an olive-bulk of meat and an olive-bulk of milk had been cooked, since both the meat and the milk became prohibited, half an olive-bulk of the meat combines with half an olive-bulk of the milk to form a complete measure for liability to lashes for eating it.

But when Rav said, “He is not flogged for cooking it,” he was referring to one who cooks half an olive-bulk of meat with half an olive-bulk of milk. Since at the time of cooking there was neither an olive-bulk of meat nor 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 Levi likewise taught in a baraita: Just as he is flogged for eating it,

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

so is he flogged for cooking it,

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

And with regard to which [in which]

which]

cooking did they say

that one is flogged for it?

For cooking that others [gentiles]

non-Jews]

eat on account of its cooking!

That is, cooking suitable for eating.

And we say:

“what can be squeezed out”

itself,

whether it is permitted or forbidden—is a dispute among

the tannaim!

As it was taught in a beraita: If a drop of milk fell onto a piece

of meat—

once it imparted

the milk drop

flavor to the piece [if the milk drop contains enough to impart flavor to the piece]—

the piece itself

into which the milk drop was absorbed

becomes “neveila.”

And

once it itself becomes neveila, it

forbids

the

entire pieces

with which it is in the pot,

all of them;

even if there are a thousand pieces in the pot opposite it, they are forbidden

because they are of its type,

of the piece of meat—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda!

For he holds that even when one type is mixed with the same type, it is not nullified even in a thousand.

And the Sages say:

The milk drop does not forbid the piece

until

the milk drop contains enough to

impart

milk

flavor—

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

and in all the pieces.

If not, even the piece into which the drop was absorbed is not forbidden, despite the fact that the milk drop contains enough to impart flavor to that piece, because during cooking the milk flavor is expelled from it and squeezed out.

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Yehuda appear to be correct when one did not stir and did not cover,

as he proceeds to explain,

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

as will be explained.

And we explain:

What is meant by “did not stir and did not cover”?

If you say—

he did not stir at all [because stirring, by mixing the dish with a large spoon called a magis, spreads the flavor throughout the pot],

and he did not cover at all [because covering causes the water to rise to the top and then descend again, thereby mixing the flavor and spreading it throughout the pot], if so, when he did not stir at all and did not cover at all,

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

it absorbed

indeed

the first piece of meat absorbed

the milk drop that fell upon it, but

it did not release

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

Rather, he did not stir initially,

when the milk drop fell onto the piece of meat [and then the piece acquired the flavor of the milk],

but

he stirred

at the end,

after the piece of meat had acquired the milk flavor, and it expelled that flavor into the other pieces through the stirring.

And this is how Rabbi’s statement must be explained, when he said that the words of Rabbi Yehuda appear correct when one did not cover: He meant

he did not cover initially, but did so at the end.

And now this is difficult:

why

do Rabbi’s words of Rabbi Yehuda appear correct when one stirred and covered at the end?

The meat absorbed

the milk drop,

but

also

expelled

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

Rather, necessarily,

Rabbi holds: “

Rabbi that

what can be squeezed out—

is forbidden,”

because the permitted piece becomes an object of prohibition; everything squeezed out from it is forbidden, and everything remaining in it is forbidden [the language of Rashi]. And since the meat flavor that emerges from it is forbidden, it is not nullified, as it is of the same type as the pieces of meat.

And we challenge this: Now that we have explained Rabbi’s statement, in which he said, “I see the words of Rabbi Yehuda as correct when one did not stir initially, but I do not see his words that he forbids even when one stirred initially,”