Chullin 109b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: He does not transgress on account of it, and it is permitted

to eat it even according to the Rabbis, since milk that separated from a slaughtered animal is not forbidden by Torah law to cook it with meat, but only according to the Rabbis. And here, since the milk has not yet separated from the kחל, the Sages did not forbid cooking it.

And we object:

But did we not learn in the Mishna: He does not transgress on account of it!

which implies,

It is only transgression that he does not transgress

by Torah law.

But a prohibition

according to the Rabbis

there is!?

And we answer:

In truth, there is no prohibition either.

And since he wanted to teach in the latter clause, “The heart: one tears it and removes its blood

; if he did not tear it, he does not transgress on account of it”.

And there,

there, it is only transgression that he does not transgress

because there is not in it an olive-sized portion,

but a prohibition

of a half-measure by Torah law

there is.

Therefore

he also taught in the first clause, “He does not transgress on account of it.”

And the Gemara discusses:

Let us say that it supports him.

For it was taught in a beraita:

The kחל: one tears it and removes its milk. If he did not tear it, he does not transgress on account of it. The heart: one tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear it—

he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted.

And it is demonstrated:

It is the heart that requires tearing, but the kחל does not require tearing,

but it is permitted to cook it with the milk inside it, and there is no need to tear it after cooking, from the fact that we did not teach concerning it, as concerning the heart, “If he did not tear it—he tears it after its cooking

”. And we reject this:

Perhaps

the reason that we did not teach concerning the kחל a law of tearing as concerning the heart is that

it is the heart for which tearing is sufficient,

because the flesh of the heart is smooth and does not absorb the blood,

but tearing is not sufficient for the kחל

because the flesh of the kחל is soft and it absorbs the milk during cooking, and afterward tearing will no longer be effective for it.

And there are those who say: Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said:

a kחל that one cooked—

he does not transgress on account of it, but it is forbidden,

according to the Rabbis.

Let us say that it supports him.

For we learned in our Mishna:

He does not transgress on account of it.

And it is demonstrated:

It is only transgression that he does not transgress, but there is a prohibition.

And we reject this:

In truth, there is no prohibition either. And since he wanted to teach in the latter clause, “The heart: one tears it and removes its blood; if he did not tear it, he does not transgress on account of it,” for there it is only transgression that he does not transgress, but there is a prohibition

of a half-measure

there is, he also taught the first clause

concerning the kחל,

“He does not transgress on account of it.”

Come and hear:

for it was taught in a beraita:

The kחל: one tears it and removes its milk. If he did not tear it, he does not transgress on account of it. The heart: one tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear it, he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted.

And we infer:

It is the heart that requires tearing, but the kחל does not require tearing!?

And we reject this:

Perhaps, it is the heart for which tearing is sufficient.

And because the blood is not absorbed in the heart,

but the kחל

which is soft and the milk is absorbed in it,

tearing is not sufficient for it.

It was taught in accordance with Rav’s first formulation,

that a kחל that one cooked in its milk is permitted, but initially one is obligated to tear it:

A kחל that one cooked in its milk—

permitted. The stomach of an animal that one cooked in its milk,

that is, a calf or lamb that nursed milk and it is now found inside its stomach—

forbidden.

And what is the difference between this and that?

This—

the milk of the stomach is

gathered in its intestines.

And since it came out of the animal’s udders, it is considered milk.

And this—

the milk in the kחל—

is not gathered in its intestines.

And as long as it has not separated from the animal’s udders, it is not considered milk.

How does one tear it,

the kחל?

Rav Yehuda said: One tears it lengthwise and crosswise, and smears it

and presses and squeezes it afterward

against a wall,

so that all the milk will be squeezed out of it.

Rabbi Elazar said to his attendant

to his servant:

Tear for me

a kחל before you roast it

and I will eat.

And we inquire concerning this:

What is he teaching us

Rabbi Elazar?

It is a Mishna

that one tears it initially, and it is permitted

!? And we answer:

This is what he teaches us—

that we do not require

for a kחל that one roasts, tearing of

lengthwise and crosswise and smearing it against a wall,

but tearing alone is sufficient. Because the milk that separates from the kחל during roasting does not return and become absorbed in the kחל, but flows downward. And only with cooking is tearing lengthwise and crosswise and smearing against a wall required, because the milk that comes out returns to the pot and is absorbed in the flesh of the kחל.

Yalta said to him,

the wife of Rav Nahman,

to Rav Nahman: Since, everything that the Merciful One forbade to us, He permitted to us something like it.

He forbade blood to us—

He permitted the liver to us.

He forbade to us

menstrual blood—

He permitted to us

pure blood

of a woman who has given birth and of virginity.

He forbade to us

the milk of a domesticated animal—

He permitted to us

the milk of a wild animal.

He forbade to us

pig—

He permitted to us

the brain of a shibuta,

which is the brain of a fish called shibuta, whose taste is like the taste of pig.

He forbade to us

gyruta,

an impure bird—He permitted to us

the tongue of a fish,

of a fish that has a taste similar to the taste of this bird.

He forbade to us

a married woman—

He permitted to us

a divorced woman during her husband’s lifetime.

He forbade to us

a brother’s wife—

He permitted to us

a yevama.

He forbade to us

a Samaritan woman—

He permitted to us

a beautiful captive.

We want to eat

a food having the taste of

meat with milk.

Rav Nahman said to his slaughterers: Roast

that is, skewer and roast

for her

on a spit,

kחלot.

And we wonder:

But did we not learn: “

The kחל—

one tears it”?

And we answer:

That

which must be torn is

for a pot,

when one wishes to cook it in a pot.

And we object:

But it teaches: “

The kחל

that one cooked,”

which implies

after the fact—

yes.

Initially—

no!