Chullin 111b (קיא:) — the Talmud in English

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

who

was his father-in-law

(his father-in-law).

He saw

Rav Ashi

the son of Rami bar Abba who was

roasting on a spit,

placing on the spit

liver over meat!

Rav Ashi said

Rav Ashi:

How presumptuous is this Torah scholar,

who did not hesitate 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

who said that, ideally,

the Sages permitted roasting it in this manner!?

And the Gemara continues:

And if there is

beneath the spit

a drip pan,

a vessel with a receptacle to collect the fat that emerges during roasting—

meat above liver is also forbidden,

as the liver’s blood drips into the meat fat in the vessel and renders it forbidden.

And we raised a difficulty:

And in what way is

the liver’s blood

different from the blood of meat,

which likewise, when meat alone is roasted, drips into the vessel together with the fat? How, then, may one eat the fat?

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

The blood of meat

settles.

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

The blood of liver

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,

is considered to have absorbed the blood that emerges during slaughter, because the slaughtering site is hot, and the knife absorbs blood from it. Therefore

it is forbidden to cut with it

food

that is hot,

so that the knife will not release the blood, causing the blood to be absorbed into the food and render it forbidden.

And if he 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 prepare the meat by removing its blood—

it is forbidden to eat from it

something

hot,

because the blood is absorbed into the bowl; and when one places hot food in it [or heats food in it], the bowl imparts “first flavor” to the hot food, and it is considered a full-fledged prohibition. The Gemara will explain below what first flavor is and how it differs from second flavor.

And we say:

And Shmuel,

who regarded the bowl’s absorption as though the meat and its blood had been cooked in it, follows

his own reasoning.

As Rav Shmuel said: Salted food—

is considered like hot food.

And pickled food—

is considered like cooked food.

That is, salting causes absorption as roasting does, and pickling as cooking does.

When Ravin came, he said

in the name of

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

Abaye said: That statement of Ravin

who was lenient in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan—

is not so!

That particular bowl,

an earthenware bowl [which cannot be kashered through scalding,

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

Rabbi Ami, so that no one would come to cook in it.

And Abaye inferred:

Since,

after all,

Rabbi Ami was a student of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

and if so,

for what reason did he break it,

the bowl? Rather,

is it not because

he broke it for this reason:

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

Rav Kahana, Rav Yehuda’s brother, was sitting before Rav Huna, and he was sitting and saying:

A bowl in which one salted meat—

it is forbidden to eat hot food from it,

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

And a radish,

which is sharp and absorbs by virtue of its sharpness as hot food does,

that one cut with a knife

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

it is permitted to eat it,

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

in kutah,

even though the kutah contains milk.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the reason

that Rav Kahana distinguished between the flavor of blood absorbed in the pot, which is forbidden, and the flavor of meat absorbed in the knife, which may be eaten with milk?

Abaye said: This

radish cut with a knife bearing meat fat—

absorbed permitted substance,

because the meat fat is permitted. Meat by itself is, after all, permitted food.

And this,

the bowl in which meat was salted,

absorbed a forbidden substance,

because blood is forbidden.

Rava said to him: When it absorbed

the radish

a permitted substance—

what of it!?

But

ultimately, this permitted substance that will come to be forbidden,

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

a forbidden substance

of meat-and-milk flavor

he is eating!?

Rather, Rava said:

This is the distinction between a bowl in which meat was salted and a radish cut with a knife bearing meat fat:

This

radish, before it is placed in kutah,

it is possible

for a Jew

to taste it

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

But

if

this,

the flavor of blood in the bowl,

is not possible

for a Jew

to taste it,

because it is forbidden, and therefore it cannot be permitted through tasting.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Let a gentile professional cook 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 he cooked

it becomes forbidden

by imparting flavor.

And likewise, if he

cooked teruma in it—

he may not cook non-sacred food in it.

And if he cooked

non-priests are forbidden to eat the non-sacred food if it contains

the imparted flavor

of the teruma.

And we say: Granted, teruma—

a koen can taste it; but meat and milk—

who can taste it?

It is forbidden to eat, so how can one determine whether it contains the requisite amount of imparted flavor?

And you tell us—

let a professional cook taste it!

And if so,

here too,

why did you forbid the bowl in which meat was salted on the grounds that one cannot taste the flavor of blood? Why not

let a professional cook taste it,

let a professional cook taste it!?

Rava said to Rav Pappa:

Here too,

the tasting of a professional cook is effective;

when I say

that it is forbidden, it is only in a case

where there is no professional cook,

a gentile who can taste it.

It was stated: Fish that were removed

from a vessel while hot and placed

in a bowl

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

Rav said: It is forbidden to eat them

these fish, which absorbed 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 forbidden

because

“it is imparted flavor”

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

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 from flavor from flavor!

The bowl itself is not absorbed with meat, but only with the flavor of meat, so it is absorbed with “first flavor,” and it imparts flavor to the fish, which is called “second flavor” [or, as it is called, “flavor from flavor from flavor”]. It is permitted to cook a meat flavor that is “flavor from flavor from flavor” [flavor that is the offspring of another flavor, namely, “second flavor”] with milk. However, had the fish been cooked in one pot together with the meat, they would be forbidden to cook with milk, because they would then have absorbed “first-order flavor,” which is forbidden to cook with milk.

And as for Rav’s statement

that cooking meat with milk is forbidden even in a case of noten taam bar noten taam,

it was not stated explicitly; rather, it was inferred.

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

Rav felt pain

in his eyes.

before him

They prepared sheifa for him,

an ointment made from herbs,

in

a bowl called

tze’a.

Afterward, they placed for him [

they put in for him]

a cooked dish

inside it,

in the same bowl.

He tasted in it

Rav, during that same cooking,

the flavor of the sheifa,

the flavor of the ointment.

Rav said:

I see that it

imparts flavor

to the bowl

to such an extent!

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

The one who heard Rav’s words understood from them that, with regard to the transfer of the flavor of a forbidden substance as well, Rav considered noten taam bar noten taam to be an actual transfer of flavor, which renders the dish forbidden.

That is not so!

For

there it is different

with regard to the herbs of the ointment,

because their bitterness is exceptionally strong,

their bitterness is very intense, and therefore their flavor is discernible in the food. But ordinary noten taam bar noten taam does not impart a flavor so strong that it is considered first-order 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 it

them

with kutah.

He gave him

Shmuel gave Rabbi Elazar some of this fish—

but he did not eat!

He said to him,

Shmuel said to Rabbi Elazar:

For

Rav, who is

your teacher,

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

when they gave them to him, he ate! And you,

who are Rav’s student,

did not eat!?

Rabbi Elazar came

to

Rav.

He said to him,

Rabbi Elazar said to Rav: Surely

has my master retracted his teaching,

in which you forbade fish that had been placed in a bowl to be eaten with kutah? For I heard from Shmuel that he gave you such fish, and you ate it with kutah.

He said to him,

Rav said to Rabbi Elazar:

Heaven forbid that the offspring of Abba bar Abba should feed me something that I do not hold is permitted!

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

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

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

To one master,

to one of them,

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

But

to the other master,

to the second one,

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

before or after eating them, even though figs and grapes are not brought to accompany bread, but are customarily brought after the meal; and we have a principle that they require blessings before and after them even when eaten during the meal.

One master,

the first,

said to his colleague: Orphan!

That is, you acted without understanding; surely

your teacher Rav did this!?

And the other said to his colleague: Orphan!

Surely

your teacher did this!?

And afterward:

The master

who ate the fish that had been placed in a bowl with kutah

said to his colleague: As for me—

I hold in accordance with Shmuel,

that noten taam bar noten taam is permitted.

And the other master,

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

said to his colleague: As for me, I hold in accordance with Rabbi Hiyya.

As Rabbi Hiyya taught: Bread exempts all types of food

from a blessing, for one who recites a blessing over bread need not recite another blessing; even foods customarily brought after the meal, if they were brought during the meal, are exempted from a blessing by the bread,

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 kutah.

A radish that one cut with a knife

with which he had cut meat—

it is forbidden to eat it with kutah.