Chullin 113a (קיג.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenged this:

But let him say to him: From what Shmuel said?

For Shmuel said: Salted food is like boiling-hot food, and pickled food is like cooked food!?

It follows that the meat of the slaughtered animal was cooked in the blood of the tereifa, and it is obvious that it became forbidden.

And we answer:

If it were based on what Shmuel said, I would say that this applies only to blood

—that only blood renders the food forbidden, and the case is one involving an unperforated utensil, so that after the kosher meat expels its blood, it then absorbs the blood of the tereifa.

But its brine

which is merely perspiration,

and its gravy do not

become forbidden when they are in a perforated utensil.

It teaches us

that brine is forbidden, as it is readily absorbed even through a perforated utensil.

The Gemara raises an objection:

We learned:

A kosher fish that was salted together with a non-kosher fish—

is permitted.

What, is it not

speaking of a case

in which both of them were salted?

And the brine issuing from the non-kosher fish did not render the kosher fish forbidden as long as they were both occupied with expelling their fluids.

And we answer:

No.

Here it is speaking

of a case in which the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted.

Since the non-kosher fish had no salt, it expelled nothing.

And we ask:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches “

If the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted, it is permitted,”

by inference, the first clause

is speaking

of a case in which both of them were salted!?

And we answer:

It explains

the latter clause as clarifying the first clause:

A kosher fish that was salted together with a non-kosher fish is permitted.

How so?

For example,

the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted!

This too stands to reason.

For if you should think

that the

first clause

is speaking of

a case in which both of them were salted,

then what is the novelty of the latter clause? For

now, if both of them were salted, it is permitted—

if the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted, is it necessary to state this!?

And we reject this:

That is not a proof.

For it can be said that

the tanna taught the latter clause in order to reveal the meaning of the first clause.

So that you should not say that the first clause means: The kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted,

and only then is it permitted,

but if both of them were salted, it is forbidden.

Therefore

he taught the latter clause: The kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted. By inference, the first clause concerns a case in which both of them were salted, and nevertheless it is permitted.

Come and hear from the latter clause of the latter clause: But if the non-kosher fish was salted and the kosher fish was unsalted—

it is forbidden!

And it indicates:

It is specifically when the non-kosher fish was salted and the kosher fish was unsalted that it is forbidden; but when both of them were salted, it is permitted,

because both are occupied with expelling their fluids.

And we reject this: Do not infer this from there, for it can be said:

Since the tanna taught in the first clause, “The kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted,” he also taught in the latter clause, “The non-kosher fish was salted and the kosher fish was unsalted.”

A mnemonic for the halakhot of meat placed [in salt] and the resulting inference

Shmuel said: Meat is freed of its blood only if it is salted thoroughly and rinsed thoroughly.

It was stated: Rav Huna said: One salts and rinses.

Apparently, this means that it is not necessary to rinse the meat before salting it.

It was taught in a baraita: One rinses

first,

and salts,

and then

rinses

again.

And they do not disagree,

this

statement of Rav Huna, that one salts and rinses, refers to a case

in which they split it

—they washed the meat with water

at the slaughterhouse.

.

This

statement in the baraita, that one must rinse it first, refers to a case

in which they did not split it,

that they did not wash it

at the slaughterhouse.

Rav Dimi of Neharde'a salted it

—the meat—

with coarse salt

—thick salt—

and shook it off,

shaking the coarse salt off the meat because it had absorbed blood.

Rav Mesharsheya said: Blood is not presumed to be present in the intestines.

That is to say, intestines that were not salted are not presumed to contain blood, and therefore they are permitted.

He explained

this permission as referring to

the karkesha and the intestines, and the membrane surrounding the kinta.

These are the small intestines surrounding the fat called kinta. But the kinta itself, as well as the other internal organs, such as the heart, lung, and liver, must be salted in order to extract their blood.

Shmuel said: One may place salted meat only on a perforated utensil.

Rav Sheshet salted it piece by piece.

“Bone by bone,” that is, each piece separately.

And we considered this:

What is the reason that two may not

be salted together?

Because the blood separates from this one and is absorbed by that one.

If so,

with one too, the blood separates from one side and is absorbed by the other side,

the opposite side!

Rather, there is no difference.

Whether there is one piece or two, they do not absorb from one another because they are occupied with expelling their fluids.

Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: One who breaks the neck of an animal

after it has been slaughtered,

before its soul departs, makes the meat heavier,

because had he not broken its neck, it would have groaned and expelled the blood through the place of its slaughter. But now that he has broken its neck, it lacks the strength to groan and expel the blood; rather, it rests and becomes still, and the blood is absorbed into its limbs. As a result, it makes the meat heavier.

And he robs the public,

as he sells the blood along with the meat by weight,

and causes blood to be absorbed into the limbs.

They raised a dilemma: What is he saying?

Did he mean this:

He makes the meat heavier and robs the public because he causes blood to be absorbed into the limbs; but as for him,

when he salts it—

it is properly permitted,

and he may eat it.

Or perhaps it is also forbidden for him,

because the blood was absorbed in such a manner that even if he salts it, the blood will not be expelled.

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Mishna:

One who places a bird together with cheese on the table—

does not violate a prohibition.

The fundamental law is straightforward: There is no Torah prohibition against placing a bird together with cheese on the table. Rather, this teaches that one violates no Torah prohibition merely by placing them together, but for eating a bird that was cooked in milk one is liable by Torah law. This is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who excludes bird meat from the Torah prohibition of meat cooked in milk.

Gemara:

And we infer:

If he eats it—

he violates a prohibition!

Learn from this that bird meat cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law!

And we reject this: No. Rather,

say: One who places a bird together with cheese on the table does not come to violate a prohibition.

That is, there is no need to fear that he might violate a prohibition when he eats it, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who said that bird meat is permitted by Torah law to be cooked in milk.

Mishna:

The meat of a kosher animal with the milk of a kosher animal—

it is forbidden to cook

together,

and

if one cooked them, it is

forbidden to derive benefit from it!

But

the meat of a kosher animal with the milk of a

non-kosher animal,

And likewise,

the meat of a non-kosher animal with the milk of a kosher animal—

it is permitted to cook and permitted to derive benefit from it.

Rabbi Akiva says:

Meat of

wild animals and birds is not

forbidden to cook in milk

by Torah law, as it is stated three times: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk”;

to teach us:

to exclude a wild animal, a bird, and a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated

“You shall not eat any unslaughtered animal,”

and it is stated

also in that same verse:

“You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk,”

which implies:

That which is forbidden as an unslaughtered animal is forbidden to cook in milk.

A bird, which is forbidden as an unslaughtered animal—might it be forbidden to cook in milk?

The verse therefore states

“in its mother's milk”—

a bird is excluded, as it has no mother's milk.

Gemara:

And we considered this:

From where are these matters

that it is forbidden to cook any animal in milk?

Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states:

“And Judah sent a kid of the goats,”