Chullin 110a (קי.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

The same law applies even ab initio. But since he wanted to teach in the latter clause, “the udder that one cooked in its milk

is forbidden,” meaning that even after the fact it is also not permitted, he likewise taught in the first clause, “that one cooked.”

The same law applies even ab initio. And since he wanted to teach in the latter clause, “an udder that he cooked in its milk is forbidden,” that even after the fact it is also not permitted, he also taught in the first clause, “that he cooked it.” an udder that he cooked in its milk is forbidden,” that even after the fact it is also not permitted, he also taught in the first clause, “that he cooked it.”

When he went up

when

Rabbi Elazar

went up to the Land of Israel,

he encountered Zeiri.

He said to him:

Rabbi Elazar said to Zeiri: Is there

a tanna

here

who taught Rav the law that

an udder

that was cooked without being slit is forbidden to eat? [Rabbi Elazar had heard Rav’s latter version of the statement.]

They showed him

the people of that place

to Rav Yitzhak bar Avudimi,

and they said to him: This is the tanna who taught Rav this law.

He said to him:

Rav Yitzhak said to Rabbi Elazar:

I did not teach him

the law of

an udder

as forbidden

at all,

neither an udder of a nursing animal nor one of an animal that was not nursing!

And Rav,

who prohibited the udder to them,

found a breach—

and made a fence around it.

He saw that they were treating the prohibition against meat and milk lightly, and therefore he was stringent with them even with regard to an udder, in order to distance them from the prohibition.

When Rav happened to come to Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to her friend: A quarter

[a litra]

of meat—

how much milk is required to cook it?

Rav said:

Rav

These people have not learned

that meat cooked with milk is forbidden!? I will remain

there,

and prohibit even udders! Rav Kahana taught

this incident

as follows:

Rav Yitzhak answered Rabbi Elazar that he had not taught Rav the law of an udder at all.

Rabbi Yosei bar Abba taught

this incident as follows: Rav Yitzhak answered Rabbi Elazar:

I taught him that the udder of a nursing animal

is forbidden,

and from

among

Rabbi Hiyya’s discussion he taught him

to Rav

an ordinary udder.

Rabbi Hiyya, in his sharpness, would abbreviate his statements, assuming that his students were as sharp as he was, and relied on their understanding that the reference was to the udder of a nursing animal. Rav did not understand it that way, but rather understood it simply as referring to every udder as forbidden.

Ravin and Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef happened to come to the house of Rav Pappi. They brought before them a dish of udder.

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef ate

from the dish.

Ravin did not eat.

Abaye said: Ravin,

who was known as

Tikhla

[a bereaved person who had buried his children]—

why did he not eat

from the udder dish!?

Since,

after all,

the wife

[his wife]

of Rav Pappi—

was the daughter of Rav Yitzhak Nappaḥ! And Rav Yitzhak Nappaḥ—

was a man of exemplary deeds!

[He was meticulous in his good deeds.]

If she had not heard it

by Rav Pappi’s wife

from her father’s house,

from her righteous father’s household,

she would not have prepared it—

a dish made from udder; and since she did so, this is proof that it is permitted.

In Sura—

they did not eat udder

at all, neither roasted nor slit.

In Pumbedita—

they ate udder!

Rami bar Tamrei, who was Rami bar Dikulei from Pumbedita, happened to come to Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur,

the day before Yom Kippur.

Everyone took out their udders—

and threw them away!

He went

[Rami bar Dikulei],

took them and ate them

the udders.

They brought him before Rav Ḥisda. He said to him:

Rav Ḥisda

why did you do this

to eat udder?

He said to him:

Rami bar Dikulei:

I am from the place of Rav Yehuda—

who eats it!

He said to him:

Rav Ḥisda:

And

if

you do not have

what we learned, that one who travels from one place to another

is assigned the stringencies of the place from which he departed and the stringencies of the place to which he went!?

If so, here, where the practice is to prohibit eating udder, you should have been stringent in accordance with the practice of the place!?

He said to him: I ate them outside the Shabbat boundary

of Sura,

I ate them.

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

And

since you ate it outside the Shabbat boundary,

on what did you roast them

[How did you obtain wood suitable for roasting the udder?].

He said to him:

Rami bar Dikulei:

With grape seeds,

the seeds found near winepresses. I burned them and roasted the udder over them.

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

Perhaps they were from wine used for idolatrous purposes!?

He said to him:

They were old grape seeds;

they had been there for twelve months,

and we learned in tractate Avoda Zara that dried grape seeds that have remained for twelve months are permitted.

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

Perhaps

the grape seeds

were stolen!?

That is, who gave you permission to take them?

He said to him: The owners had despaired of recovering them

and therefore they were ownerless, as evidenced by the fact

that they had sprouted,

that there had grown on them

ḥilfei,

herbs that grow in vineyards. Since, over such an extended period, they would deteriorate, and nevertheless the owners had not come to take them, this is an indication that they had despaired of them.

He saw him

Rav Ḥisda saw Rami bar Dikulei

not wearing tefillin.

He said to him:

Rav Ḥisda:

Why are you not wearing tefillin?

He said to him: I suffer from an intestinal ailment, and Rav Yehuda said: One who suffers from an intestinal ailment is exempt from tefillin

because he must remove them many times, as tefillin require a clean body.

He saw that he was not tying threads

of tzitzit onto Rami bar Dikulei’s garment.

He said to him:

Rav Ḥisda:

Why do you not have threads?