Chullin 110b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rami bar Dikulei:

It is a borrowed tallit,

and Rav Yehuda said: For a borrowed tallit, all thirty days

from the time it was borrowed—

it is exempt

from tzitzit even by rabbinic law, and after thirty days it is exempt by Torah law and obligated by rabbinic law.

even by rabbinic ordinance; and after thirty days it is exempt by Torah law but obligated by rabbinic ordinance.

Meanwhile,

while they were engaged in this dialogue,

they brought that man who did not honor [

who did not respect]

his father and his mother.

They bound him

that man to the pillar in order to flog him, as we learned in tractate Ketubot: One who does not wish to fulfill a positive commandment incumbent upon him is beaten, in order to compel him to fulfill it, until his soul departs.

He said to them,

Rami bar Dikulei:

Release him!

Release him and do not flog him, because regarding the mitzva of honoring father and mother, they do not compel him,

as it was taught in a beraita: Every positive commandment whose reward is stated alongside it,

for the Torah explicitly wrote its reward, such as the mitzva of honoring father and mother, concerning which it is stated, “so that your days may be lengthened,”

the lower court is not warned concerning it!

For this reason the Torah specified its reward: to tell us that if they do not fulfill it, the sole punishment will be the loss of the specified reward of the mitzva, and there will be no other punishment for it, not even the punishment of compulsion to fulfill it.

He said to him

Rav Chisda to Rami bar Dikulei:

I see that you are exceedingly sharp!

You are exceedingly sharp.

Rami bar Dikulei said to him:

Rami bar Dikulei:

If you had been in the place of Rav Yehuda—

I would have shown you my sharpness!

Abaye said to Rav Safra: When you go up there,

to the Land of Israel,

ask them: The liver—

what do you

practice

with it

when cooking it? Is it permitted to cook it in a pot, or perhaps it is forbidden to cook it because when it is cooked it emits blood into the pot, and blood that is emitted is forbidden to eat and is absorbed again into the foods in the pot?

When he went up,

Rav Safra

found Rav Zerika

and asked him how they practice cooking the liver.

He said to him,

Rav Zerika to Rav Safra:

I boiled it

I cooked liver

for Rabbi Ami—

and he ate.

When he came,

Rav Safra returned

to him,

Abaye, and told him what he had heard from Rav Zerika.

Abaye said to him,

Abaye to Rav Safra:

Concerning forbidding itself—

I have no question!

That is, Abaye had no uncertainty concerning the cooking of the liver itself, for certainly the blood emitted from it during cooking does not return and become absorbed in it and forbid it, because as long as the liver is emitting the blood during cooking, it does not return and absorb the blood emitted from it.

When I ask—

concerning forbidding another [piece].

Does the blood that emerges from the liver during cooking forbid the piece of meat cooking with it in the same pot?

Rav Safra said to Abaye:

What is different about forbidding itself, concerning which you have no question,

because you know the Mishna

as we learned

in tractate Terumot: “The liver—

is not forbidden

by its cooking.” If so,

concerning forbidding another [piece] too, you should have no question, as we learned,

in that same Mishna, which is known to you:

The liver—

forbids

the other [piece] cooking with it in the pot,

but is not forbidden

itself,

because it emits

the blood during cooking,

and

because it is occupied with emitting the blood, it

does not absorb

the emitted blood! But the other meat absorbs [it].

And these words

that a crosswise and lengthwise cut is required—this applies only to a

liver,

because blood is contained within it, and when it comes out it is forbidden [by Torah law or by rabbinic law; see folio 110b, Tosafot s.v. “liver,” the opinion of Rabbenu Tam, and the Rashba there],

but

the blood of

the spleen

[the spleen] does not have blood contained within it, and the redness in it

is merely fat.

[Rashi wrote that it is permitted even to cook it in a pot. Tosafot wrote that specifically the body of the spleen is considered fat, but the blood that comes out of it is forbidden like all blood of the organs].

As with that which Shmuel did: they made him a spleen dish on the day he performed bloodletting.

For on the day when he was letting blood, he would eat a dish of spleen.

It was stated:

One who roasts meat in an oven by means of a spit [with the point of the spit facing downward] should do as follows:

Liver above meat—

permitted.

For we do not care that the blood comes out during the roasting and flows onto the piece of meat suspended on the spit beneath it.

And why?

The blood

of the liver

slides completely,

sliding over the piece of meat during the roasting, and is not absorbed into it, but falls onto the ground, for it is the nature of blood to slide.

But to place

the abomasum above the meat—

forbidden!

What is the reason?

Milk

that comes out of the abomasum while it is being roasted does not slide over the piece of meat, but

clings firmly,

for it is the nature of milk to adhere, and it adheres and is absorbed into the meat.

Rav Dimi of Nehardea taught the reverse:

Abomasum above meat—

permitted. What is the reason?

The milk

of a

slaughtered

animal is a prohibition

of rabbinic law

and we are not concerned about milk being absorbed into the meat beneath it during roasting.

But,

liver above meat—

forbidden.

For the prohibition of

blood

that comes out of the liver

is by Torah law,

and we must be concerned that it will be absorbed into the meat beneath it. [And see Tosafot s.v. “blood by Torah law”]

Marimar expounded: The halakha is: whether liver or abomasum—

beneath meat is permitted,

for the blood of the liver and the abomasum slides and is not absorbed into the meat beneath it [and concerning the milk that comes out of the abomasum, see Tosafot s.v. “beneath meat is permitted”].

And to place the liver or the abomasum

above meat—

only

after the fact, not,

but

initially—

no!