Chullin 111b — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi happened to come to the house of Rami bar Abba

who was

his father-in-law

([his father-in-law]).

He saw

Rav Ashi

Rami bar Abba’s son who was ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

roasting on a spit,

who was placing on the spit

liver above meat!

Rav Ashi said

Rav Ashi:

How arrogant is this scholar,

that he did not take care not to place the liver over the meat.

Say that the Sages said

that it is permitted to eat the meat only where he roasted it

after the fact,

when the liver was above the meat; but

as an initial matter, who said

the Sages that it is permitted to roast it in this manner!?

And the Gemara continues:

And if there is

beneath the spit

a bei dugi,

a utensil containing a receptacle to collect the fat that emerges during roasting—

even meat above liver is prohibited,

for the liver’s blood drips into the meat fat found in the utensil and renders it prohibited.

And we consider this:

And in what way is

the liver’s blood

different from the blood of meat,

as also when one roasts meat alone, its blood drips into the utensil together with the fat, and how does one eat the fat?

And we answer: The characteristic of blood that emerges from meat differs from the blood that emerges from liver.

The blood of meat—

it sinks.

It sinks to the bottom of the utensil, while the fat floats above it; therefore it is possible to separate the fat from the blood and eat it.

The blood of liver—

it floats.

The blood floats on top of the fat, and it is impossible to separate the fat from the blood.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: A knife with which one slaughtered,

it has absorbed the blood that emerges at the time of slaughter, for the slaughtering place is hot and the knife absorbs some of the blood. Therefore

it is prohibited to cut with it

food that is

hot,

so that the knife should not release the blood, and the blood should be absorbed into the food and render it prohibited.

And if one cut with the slaughtering knife something

cold—

Some say: It requires

the food cut with the slaughtering knife

rinsing.

And some say: It does not require rinsing!

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A bowl in which one salted meat

in order to render the meat fit by removing its blood—

it is prohibited to eat in it

something

hot,

because the blood was absorbed into the bowl, and when one places something hot in it [or heats it in it], the bowl imparts “first flavor” to the hot food, and it is considered a complete prohibition. Below it will be explained what first flavor is and in what way it differs from second flavor.

And we say:

And Shmuel,

who considered the bowl’s absorption as though meat with blood had been cooked in it, follows

his reasoning.

For Shmuel said: Salted—

it is like hot.

And pickled—

it is like cooked.

That is, salting causes absorption like roasting, and pickling like cooking.

When Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Salted is not like hot, and pickled is not like cooked.

Abaye said: This statement of Ravin,

who was lenient in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan—

is not so!

For that bowl,

an earthenware bowl [which has no remedy through kashering],

that was in the house of Rabbi Ami, in which he salted meat, he broke

it, Rabbi Ami, so that people would not come to cook in it.

And Abaye inferred:

Since,

indeed,

Rabbi Ami was a student of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

then

for what reason did he break it,

the bowl? Rather,

was it not because

he broke it for this reason, because

he had heard from Rabbi Yoḥanan that he said: Salted is like hot.

Rav Kahana, the brother of Rav Yehuda, sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said:

A bowl in which one salted meat—

it is prohibited to eat hot food in it,

because blood was absorbed in the bowl, and it will impart flavor to the hot food that one places in it afterward.

And a radish,

which is a sharp substance and absorbs by virtue of its sharpness like a hot substance,

that one cut with a knife

on which there was meat fat, and the radish absorbed from the meat fat the flavor of meat, which is considered “imparting first flavor” —

it is permitted to eat it,

the radish cut with a knife that has some meat fat on it, and to dip it

in kutah,

even though there is milk in the kutah.

And we consider this:

For what reason

did Rav Kahana distinguish between the flavor of blood absorbed in the pot, which is prohibited, and the flavor of meat absorbed in the knife, which is permitted to eat with milk?

Abaye said: This

radish that one cut with a knife with meat fat—

it absorbed permitted matter,

for the meat fat is permitted, since meat by itself is a permitted substance.

And this,

the bowl in which one salted meat,

absorbed prohibited matter,

for blood is prohibited.

Rava said to him: When it absorbed

the radish

permitted matter—

what of it!?

But

in the end, this permitted matter that is destined to become prohibited

since when he eats the radish containing the flavor of meat in the dairy kutah,

prohibited matter,

the prohibition of the flavor of meat in milk,

is he not eating!?

Rather, Rava said:

This is the distinction between a bowl in which one salted meat and a radish cut with a knife on which there is meat fat:

This

radish, before he places it in the kutah,

it is possible

for an Israelite

to taste it

and ascertain whether it contains the flavor of the meat fat. The permission applies only when an Israelite tastes it and determines that the radish contains no flavor of meat.

But

if

this,

the flavor of the blood in the bowl,

it is not possible

for an Israelite

to taste it,

for it is prohibited, and therefore it cannot be permitted.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Let a gentile professional taster taste it,

a baker,

an Aramean,

and tell us whether it contains the flavor of meat!?

Did we not learn: A pot in which one cooked meat—

one may not cook milk in it.

And if one cooked

it becomes prohibited

through imparting flavor.

And likewise, if one

cooked teruma in it—

one may not cook ordinary produce in it.

And if one cooked

it is prohibited for non-priests to eat the ordinary produce if it contains

through imparting flavor

from the teruma.

And we say: Granted, teruma—

a koen tastes it; but meat in milk—

who tastes it?

For it is prohibited to eat, and how can one know whether it contains the measure of imparting flavor?

And you say to us—

let a professional taster taste it!

And if so,

here too,

why did you prohibit the bowl in which one salted meat because it is impossible to taste the flavor of the blood, and why?

Let a professional taster taste it,

let a professional taster taste this!?

Rava said to Rav Pappa:

Here too

the tasting of a professional taster is effective;

when I say

that it is prohibited—where

there is no professional taster

a gentile who will taste it!

It was stated: Fish that rose

from the utensil while hot and were placed

in a bowl

in which one had eaten hot meat, and the meat imparted flavor to the bowl, and the hot fish received flavor from the flavor of the meat absorbed in the bowl—

Rav said: It is prohibited to eat them

these fish, which contain the flavor of meat,

with kutah

which is dairy.

And Shmuel said: It is permitted to eat them with kutah,

as will be explained below.

And we explain:

Rav said it is prohibited,

because

“imparting flavor”

it is,

for the flavor of the meat absorbed in the bowl imparts flavor to the fish, and this flavor is significant to prohibit eating the fish with the milk in the kutah.

And Shmuel said it is permitted.

What is the reason? It is flavor transmitted through flavor!

For this bowl itself is not absorbed with meat, but only with the flavor of meat, and it follows that it is absorbed with “first flavor,” and it imparts flavor to the fish, which is called “second flavor” [or, as it is called, “flavor transmitted through flavor”]; and it is permitted to cook the flavor of meat, which is “flavor transmitted through flavor” [the flavor of the son of flavor, namely, “second flavor”], with milk. But, if the fish had been cooked in one pot together with the meat, they are forbidden to be cooked in milk, because then they would have absorbed a “first flavor,” which is forbidden to cook in milk.

And that of Rav

who forbade cooking meat with milk even in the case of a flavor imparted by a flavor

was not stated explicitly, but was stated by implication.

For Rav happened to come to the house of Rav Shimi bar Hiyya, the son of his son.

Rav was

unwell

in his eyes.

They prepared for him sheifa

an ointment made from spices

in

a bowl called

“tzea.”

Afterward, they placed for him [ [A0023]]they inserted for him ]

they put in for him]

a cooked dish

a dish

inside it,

in that same bowl.

He tasted

Rav, during that cooking

the flavor of the sheifa,

the flavor of the ointment.

He said

Rav: I see that it

imparts flavor

in the bowl

to such an extent!

That is, I realized that the flavor absorbed in the bowl is a strong flavor, to the point that it is even capable of imparting flavor to a dish that is subsequently cooked in the bowl.

And the one who heard Rav’s words understood from them that, also with regard to the imparting of the flavor of a prohibition, Rav considered a flavor imparted by a flavor to be actual imparting of flavor, which forbids the dish.

But it is not so!

For

there it is different,

with the spices of the ointment,

because its bitterness is exceedingly great,

for their bitterness is very intense, and therefore their flavor is discernible in the food. But an ordinary flavor imparted by a flavor does not impart a flavor so strong that it should be considered a first flavor for purposes of prohibition.

Rabbi Elazar was standing

serving at the meal

before Mar Shmuel.

They brought before him

of Shmuel

fish that had been placed in a bowl

of meat,

and he was eating

them

with kutaḥ.

He gave him

Shmuel gave Rabbi Elazar some of these fish—

but he did not eat!

He said to him

Shmuel said to Rabbi Elazar:

To

Rav, who is

your master,

from whom you learned that it is forbidden to eat them,

they gave him, and he ate! And you,

who are Rav’s student,

did not eat!?

Rabbi Elazar came

Rabbi Elazar

before Rav.

He said to him

Rabbi Elazar said to Rav: Is it that

my master has retracted from his teaching,

that you forbade fish that had been placed in a bowl to eat them with kutaḥ!? For I heard from Shmuel that he gave you such fish and you ate them with kutaḥ.

He said to him

Rav said to Rabbi Elazar:

Heaven forbid that the offspring of Abba bar Abba should feed me something that is not my opinion!

That is, he denied Rav denied the matter, saying that Shmuel had never fed him such a food, for it is impossible that Shmuel [who was the son of “Abba bar Abba,” which was the name of Shmuel’s father, who was a great pious man] would feed him something that Rav held was forbidden to eat.

Rav Huna and Rav Hiyya bar Ashi were sitting, one on this side of the ferry crossing of Sura, and one on that side of the ferry crossing

of Sura. That is, they were sitting on the two sides of the river, each on a different side.

To one master,

to one of them,

they brought him fish that had been placed in a bowl, and he ate it with kutaḥ.

And

to the other master,

to the second one,

they brought him figs and grapes during the meal, and he ate, but he did not recite a blessing

before eating them or after eating them, even though figs and grapes do not come to accompany bread, but rather the practice is to bring them after the meal, and we have a principle that they require a blessing before them and after them even if he ate them during the meal.

One master,

the first one,

said to his fellow: Orphan!

That is, you acted without understanding; is it that

your master acted this way!?

And the other master said to his fellow: Orphan!

Is it that

your master acted this way!?

And afterward:

the master,

who ate the fish that had been placed in the bowl with kutaḥ,

said to his fellow: I—

hold like Shmuel,

that a flavor imparted by a flavor is permitted.

And the master,

who ate the figs and the dates without reciting a blessing over them,

said to his fellow: I hold like Rabbi Hiyya.

For Rabbi Hiyya taught: Bread exempts all types of food,

for one who recites a blessing over bread does not need to recite a blessing, since even things that are customarily brought after the meal, if they brought them during the meal, the bread exempts them from a blessing,

and wine exempts all types of beverages

from a blessing!

Hezekiah said in the name of Abaye: The halakha is—

Fish that had been placed in a bowl—

it is permitted to eat them with kutaḥ.

A radish that one cut with a knife

with which he had cut meat—

it is forbidden to eat it with kutaḥ.

А согласно галахе, Шульхан арух в знаке 95 постановил согласно мнению разрешающих: рыба, которая находилась в чаше, разрешена как после жарки, так и после варки. Рема считает, что изначально следует опасаться мнений, запрещающих это и при жарке, и при варке, но постфактум это разрешено, согласно мнению автора Шульхан аруха. Согласно мнению Ремы, приведенный в Гемаре закон относится только к горячей рыбе, помещенной в холодную чашу, которая не стоит на огне, или, наоборот, к холодной рыбе, помещенной в горячую чашу, которая не стоит на огне. Но если и рыба, и чаша горячие, это подобно жарке и изначально запрещено. Поэтому если человек хочет приготовить пищу, намереваясь затем есть ее с молоком, по всем мнениям запрещено готовить ее в мясной посуде, даже если эта посуда не использовалась для мяса в течение последних суток. Ведь изначально нельзя создавать вкус, переданный через другой вкус. [Если же постфактум пища была приготовлена в посуде, которая не использовалась для мяса в течение последних суток, по всем мнениям разрешено есть ее с молоком. Так же постановил «Хохмат Адам», общее правило 48, пункт 2: даже воду, кипевшую в мясной посуде, не использовавшейся для мяса в течение последних суток, разрешено пить с кофе и молоком.] Если пищу приготовили или пирог испекли в мясной посуде, использовавшейся для мяса в течение последних суток, автор Шульхан аруха считает, что разрешено есть их с молоком. По мнению Ремы, изначально запрещено есть их с молоком. Однако если человек забыл и уже смешал блюдо с молоком или положил сыр на пирог, то, поскольку это произошло постфактум, даже по мнению Ремы разрешено есть их.