Chullin 116b — the Talmud in English

The one who curdles

milk

with the hide of a stomach

which is flesh, in order to make it into cheese,

if there is

in the stomach

enough to impart flavor

to the milk,

then this

cheese

is forbidden.

An animal

fit that nursed from a tereifa—

its stomach

the milk that is inside the stomach

is forbidden.

A tereifa that nursed from a fit animal—

its stomach is permitted.

Because

the milk

is gathered in its intestines

and it is therefore like something placed in a vessel, and it is not part of the animal.

Gemara:

And we are astonished:

Is that so? Is the stomach of a gentile not a carcass?!

Rav Huna said: Here we are dealing with one who purchases a kid from a gentile,

and the Jew slaughtered it.

And

the stomach is forbidden because

we are concerned that it may have nursed

the milk found in its stomach

from a tereifa.

And we ask:

Are we concerned that it may have nursed from a tereifa?

But we learned: One may purchase eggs from gentiles, and we are not concerned either because of a carcass,

lest a carcass was found in the hen,

or because of a tereifa [

and the egg of a tereifa is forbidden, as was explained in the chapter “These Tereifot” ]!?

Rather, say

as follows:

we are concerned that it may have nursed

the kid

from

an animal

that is impure.

And we are astonished:

What is different about a tereifa, concerning which we are not concerned

lest it nursed from it,

and what is different about an impure animal, concerning which we are concerned?

And we explain:

a tereifa is uncommon,

and therefore we are not concerned lest it nursed from it, whereas

an impure animal is common,

and for that reason we are concerned.

And we ask:

If it is common

that an animal should nurse from an impure animal,

even regarding

our

kids should we be concerned

lest they nursed from an impure animal, and should we forbid their stomachs?!

And we answer:

We separate ourselves from them,

from the impure animals,

and when we see them

the impure animals,

we separate them

our kids from them;

the Sages did not decree concerning them.

But

they,

the gentiles,

do not separate themselves from them, and when they see them they do not separate them

the pure kids from the impure animals;

the Sages decreed concerning them.

And Shmuel said:

Do not find difficult regarding the Mishna the matter that we asked, that “the stomach of a gentile” and “a carcass” are the same thing! For our Mishna

states one matter: the stomach of the slaughtering of a gentile—

which

is a carcass,

it is forbidden. Since it is a carcass, it is forbidden.

And we ask:

And did Shmuel say this,

that the stomach of a carcass is forbidden, because it is considered like the body of the animal? An animal

fit that nursed from a tereifa—

its stomach

the milk that is inside the stomach

is forbidden.

A tereifa that nursed from a fit animal—

its stomach is permitted.

Because

the milk

is gathered in its intestines

and it is therefore like something placed in a vessel, and it is not part of the animal.

Gemara:

And we are astonished:

Is that so? Is the stomach of a gentile not a carcass?!

Rav Huna said: Here we are dealing with one who purchases a kid from a gentile, and the Jew slaughtered it.

And

the stomach is forbidden because

we are concerned that it may have nursed

the milk found in its stomach

from a tereifa.

And we ask:

Are we concerned that it may have nursed from a tereifa?

But we learned: One may purchase eggs from gentiles, and we are not concerned either because of a carcass,

lest a carcass was found in the hen,

or because of a tereifa [

and the egg of a tereifa is forbidden, as was explained in the chapter “These Tereifot” ]!?

Rather, say

as follows:

we are concerned that it may have nursed

the kid

from

an animal

that is impure.

And we are astonished:

What is different about a tereifa, concerning which we are not concerned

lest it nursed from it,

and what is different about an impure animal, concerning which we are concerned?

And we explain:

a tereifa is uncommon,

and therefore we are not concerned lest it nursed from it, whereas

an impure animal is common,

and for that reason we are concerned.

And we ask:

If it is common

that an animal should nurse from an impure animal,

even regarding

our

kids should we be concerned

lest they nursed from an impure animal, and should we forbid their stomachs?!

And we answer:

We separate ourselves from them,

from the impure animals,

and when we see them

the impure animals,

we separate them

our kids from them;

the Sages did not decree concerning them.

But

they,

the gentiles,

do not separate themselves from them, and when they see them they do not separate them

the pure kids from the impure animals;

the Sages decreed concerning them.

And Shmuel said:

Do not find difficult regarding the Mishna the matter that we asked, that “the stomach of a gentile” and “a carcass” are the same thing! For our Mishna

states one matter: the stomach of the slaughtering of a gentile—

which

is a carcass,

it is forbidden. Since it is a carcass, it is forbidden.

And we ask:

And did Shmuel say this,

that the stomach of a carcass is forbidden, because it is considered like the body of the animal?

But Shmuel said: For what reason did they forbid the cheese of gentiles? Because they curdle it with the hide of the stomach of a carcass!

It follows that they forbade it specifically because of the hide of the carcass, which is the body of the animal;

but the stomach itself,

that is, the curdled milk found in the stomach,

is permitted!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

We learned in tractate Avoda Zara: Rabbi Ishmael asked Rabbi Yehoshua: Why is the cheese of gentiles forbidden?

He said to him: Because they curdle the cheese with the curdled milk in the stomach of a carcass.

He said to him: But is not the stomach of an olah more stringent than the stomach of a carcass? Nevertheless, the Sages said: Any koen whose mind is refined [as an expression of sagi nahor, that is, whose soul is not repelled]—burns it while it is alive. That is, he is permitted to gulp down the milk. We see that the stomach is permitted, even though an olah is forbidden to koanim, because the milk is not considered part of the body of the animal!?

Rabbi Yehoshua retracted his position and said to him: The cheese is forbidden because they curdle it in the stomachs of the calves of idolatry. And idolatry—even its excrement—is forbidden, as the reason is explained there. Therefore, the stomach is forbidden even though it is not the body of the animal.

And if so,

here—

our Mishna—

was taught before the retraction,

before Rabbi Yehoshua retracted his position; therefore we learned that the stomach of a carcass is forbidden.

Here—

and this statement of Shmuel, that a stomach is permitted—

is after the retraction.

And since the Mishna had already been taught, even though Rabbi Yehoshua retracted his position, the Mishna did not move from its place, and they did not say that it should no longer be taught; rather, they left it in its place.

We learned in our Mishna:

an animal fit that nursed from a tereifa

and so on.

And we ask:

But the first clause teaches: “The stomach of a gentile and that of a carcass—this one is forbidden.”

How is it written here that the stomach of a tereifa is permitted, for we learned: “A tereifa that nursed from a fit animal—its stomach is permitted”?! And what distinguishes the stomach of a tereifa from the stomach of a carcass?

Rav Hisda said:

In truth, there is no prohibition in the stomach, for the milk is gathered in its intestines and is not part of its body. The reason that the stomach of a carcass, which is written in the

first clause,

is forbidden is because

it appears as though one is eating carcasses.

In contrast,

here,

with a tereifa, there

is slaughtering,

and it is not repulsive like a carcass.

Rava said to him: Is this not a kal va-chomer!? If a carcass, which is repulsive, so that if you permit him

its

stomach,

he will not come to eat from it—

from the carcass itself, because it is repulsive—

you say

that

it is not

the stomach permitted

! A slaughtered tereifa,

which is not repulsive,

for if you permit

the stomach,

he will come to eat from it—

from the tereifa itself—

all the more so

that the stomach should be forbidden?!

Rather, Rav Yitzhak said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: It is not difficult.

Here—

the first clause, concerning the stomach of a carcass—

is before the retraction,

when we held that the stomach is forbidden.

Here—

the latter clause, concerning the stomach of a tereifa—

is after the retraction,

when we hold that the stomach is permitted.

And the Mishna

the first clause

did not move from its place,

since it had already been taught, even though we retracted our position in the latter clause.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One may curdle

milk

with the stomachs of carcasses, but one may not curdle

milk

with the stomach of the slaughtering of a gentile.

Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said before him: According to whom

did you say this matter, is it

according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that the unspecified intention of an idolater is for idolatry,

and therefore, even though the stomach contents are not from the body of the animal but only excrement, they are forbidden, for in the case of idolatry even excrement is forbidden?

He said to him: But according to whom!?

It is certainly according to Rabbi Eliezer, and you did not need to ask about this.

When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak came, Rabbi Yohanan said: They coagulate both with the stomach of a carcass,

and

with the stomach of an animal slaughtered by an idolater, so as not to be concerned with the words of Rabbi Eliezer

who distinguished between them.

And the halakha is: They do not coagulate with the hide of the stomach of a carcass,

for it is the body of the animal itself.

But they do coagulate with the stomach of a carcass, and with the stomach of an animal slaughtered by an idolater.

That is, the milk collected in their intestines.

Mishna:

A stringency

there is

in milk over blood, and a stringency

there is

in blood over milk.

The stringency in milk

over blood: