Chullin 113a — the Talmud in English

And we challenged it:

And let him say to him from that which Shmuel said?

For Shmuel said: Salted is like boiled, and pickled is like cooked!?

And it follows that the meat of the slaughtered animal was cooked in the blood of the non-kosher animal, and it is obvious that it became prohibited.

And we answer:

If [we derive it] from that which Shmuel said, I would say that this applies only to blood

—that only blood prohibits, and the case is one involving an unperforated vessel, so that after the kosher meat expels its blood, it again absorbs the blood of the non-kosher animal.

But its juices

—which are only perspiration—

and its gravy do not

become prohibited when they are in a perforated vessel.

It teaches us

that prohibited juice is readily absorbed even in a perforated vessel.

He raised an objection:

We learned:

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

is permitted.

What, is it not

speaking of a case

where both of them were salted?

And the juice issuing from the non-kosher fish did not prohibit the kosher fish as long as they were occupied with expelling [their fluids].

And we answer:

No.

Here it is speaking

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

And since the non-kosher fish has no salt, it expels nothing.

And we wonder:

But since 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 where both of them were salted!?

And we answer:

It explains

the latter clause as the first clause:

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

How so?

For example,

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

This too is reasonably inferred.

For if it enters your mind

that

the first clause

is speaking of

both of them being salted,

then what is the novelty of the latter clause? For

now, when both of them are salted, it is permitted—

when the kosher fish is salted and the non-kosher fish is unsalted, is it necessary [to state it]!?

And we reject this:

If [you object] on account of this, it is not [a valid objection].

For it is possible to say:

The teacher 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 that the kosher fish is salted and the non-kosher fish is unsalted,

only then is it permitted,

but when both of them are salted, it is prohibited.

Therefore,

the teacher taught the latter clause: the kosher fish is salted and the non-kosher fish is unsalted. By inference, the first clause means that both of them are salted, and even so 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 prohibited!

And it implies:

It is only when the non-kosher fish is salted and the kosher fish is unsalted that it is prohibited; but when both of them are salted, it is permitted.

And this is because both of them are occupied with expelling [their fluids].

And we reject this: Do not infer this from it, for it is possible to say:

Since the teacher taught in the first clause: the kosher fish is salted and the non-kosher fish is unsalted, he also taught in the latter clause: the non-kosher fish is salted and the kosher fish is unsalted.

A sign for the meat that is placed: an indication

Shmuel said: The meat does not leave the status of its blood unless it is salted very well and rinsed very well.

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

And it apparently implies that it is unnecessary to rinse the meat before salting.

In a beraita it was taught: He rinses

first,

and salts,

and again

rinses.

And they do not disagree

—Rav Huna and the tannay of the beraita.

This

which Rav Huna said, “He salts and rinses,” is speaking

where they split it

—where they washed the meat with water

at the butcher’s house,

in the slaughterhouse.

This

which the beraita wrote, that it must first be rinsed, is speaking where

they did not split it,

where they did not wash it

at the butcher’s house.

Rav Dimi of Nehardea salted it

—the meat—

with coarse salt,

coarse salt,

and shook it off,

the coarse salt from 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 they are therefore permitted.

He explained

this permission as referring

to the karkesha, the intestines, and the hadra de-kanta.

For these are the small intestines surrounding the fat called kanta. But the kanta itself, and likewise the rest of the intestines, such as the heart, lung, and liver, must be salted in order to extract their blood.

Shmuel said: One places salted meat only on a perforated vessel.

Rav Sheshet salted it one piece at a time.

A bone, a bone—that is, each piece separately.

And we considered it:

What is the reason that two may not

be salted together?

Because the blood separates from this one and that one absorbs it.

If so,

with one also, it separates from this side and the other side absorbs it,

the other side!

Rather, it makes no difference.

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

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

after it has been slaughtered,

before its soul departs, thereby makes the meat heavier,

because if he had not broken its neck, it would have groaned and expelled the blood from the place of its slaughter; but now that he has broken its neck, it has no strength to groan and expel the blood, rather it rests and becomes still, and the blood is absorbed into its limbs, and through this he makes the meat heavier.

And he robs people,

for he sells the blood as well together with the meat by weight,

and causes blood to be absorbed into the limbs.

They raised a question: What did he say?

Did he say this:

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

when he salts it—

it is entirely acceptable,

and it is permitted to eat it.

Or perhaps, as for him too, it is prohibited,

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

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Mishna:

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

does not transgress a negative commandment.

The fundamental law is straightforward: there is no prohibition in the Torah against placing a bird together with cheese on the table. Rather, it comes to teach us that only for placing them on the table does he not transgress according to Torah law, but for eating a bird that was cooked in milk he is liable according to Torah law; and this is not like Rabbi Akiva, who excludes the meat of a bird from the Torah prohibition of meat with milk.

Gemara:

And we infer:

If he eats it—

he transgresses a negative commandment!

Infer from this that the meat of a bird 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 a negative commandment.”

That is to say, we need not be concerned that he might transgress it when he eats it, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who said that according to Torah law it is permitted to cook the meat of a bird in milk.

Mishna:

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

it is prohibited to cook

together,

and

if he cooked it, it is

prohibited for benefit!

But

the meat of a kosher animal in the milk of a

non-kosher animal,

And likewise,

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

it is permitted to cook and permitted for benefit.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The meat of

a wild animal and a bird is not

prohibited from being cooked in milk

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

to teach us—

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

You shall not eat any carcass,”

and it is stated

also in that same verse: “

You shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother,”

which implies—

that which is prohibited on account of a carcass is prohibited from being cooked in milk.

A bird, which is prohibited on account of a carcass—might it be prohibited from being cooked in milk?

The verse says “

in the milk of its mother”—

a bird is excluded, for it has no mother’s milk.

Gemara:

And we considered it:

From where are these matters

that it is prohibited to cook every animal in milk?

Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states “

And Judah sent a kid of the goats,”