Chullin 116b (קטז:) — the Talmud in English

One who curdles

milk

with the stomach lining

which is flesh, in order to make cheese,

if there is

in the stomach

enough to impart flavor

to the milk,

that

cheese

is forbidden.

An

ritually fit animal that nursed from a tereifa—

its stomach

the milk contained within 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 is therefore like something placed in a vessel, rather than part of the animal.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

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

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

and the Jew slaughtered it.

And

the stomach is forbidden because

we are concerned that it may have nursed

this 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 in a Mishna: One may purchase eggs from gentiles, and we are not concerned either because of a neveila

lest a neveila was found within the hen,

or because of a tereifa

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

Rather, say

the following:

We are concerned that it may have nursed

the kid

from

an

impure animal.

And we ask:

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

lest it nursed from it,

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

And we explain:

A tereifa is uncommon,

and therefore we are not concerned that it nursed from one, whereas

an impure animal is common,

and for that reason we are concerned.

And we ask:

If it is common

for a fit animal to nurse from an impure one,

even with regard to

our

kids should we be concerned

that they nursed from an impure animal and forbid their stomachs!?

And we answer:

We separate ourselves from them,

from impure animals,

and when we see them,

impure animals,

we separate

our kids from them;

the Sages did not enact a decree with regard to them.

But

they,

the gentiles,

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

the pure kids from the impure animals;

the Sages enacted a decree with regard to them.

And Shmuel said:

The difficulty we raised concerning the Mishna—that the stomach of a gentile and a neveila are the same thing—does not apply, because our Mishna

states one matter: The stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile—

which

is a neveila

is forbidden. Since it is a neveila, it is forbidden.

And we ask:

Did Shmuel really say this,

that the stomach of a neveila is forbidden, as it is considered the animal’s actual body? An

animal that nursed from a tereifa—

its stomach

the milk contained within 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 is therefore like something placed in a vessel, rather than part of the animal.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

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

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

And

the stomach is forbidden because

we are concerned that it may have nursed

this 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 in a Mishna: One may purchase eggs from gentiles, and we are not concerned either because of a neveila

lest a neveila was found within the hen,

or because of a tereifa

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

Rather, say

the following:

We are concerned that it may have nursed

the kid

from

an

impure animal.

And we ask:

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

lest it nursed from it,

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

And we explain:

A tereifa is uncommon,

and therefore we are not concerned that it nursed from one, whereas

an impure animal is common,

and for that reason we are concerned.

And we ask:

If it is common

for a fit animal to nurse from an impure one,

even with regard to

our

kids should we be concerned

that they nursed from an impure animal and forbid their stomachs!?

And we answer:

We separate ourselves from them,

from impure animals,

and when we see them,

impure animals,

we separate

our kids from them;

the Sages did not enact a decree with regard to them.

But

they,

the gentiles,

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

the pure kids from the impure animals;

the Sages enacted a decree with regard to them.

And Shmuel said:

The difficulty we raised concerning the Mishna—that the stomach of a gentile and a neveila are the same thing—does not apply, because our Mishna

states one matter: The stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile—

which

is a neveila

is forbidden. Since it is a neveila, it is forbidden.

And we ask:

Did Shmuel really say this,

that the stomach of a neveila is forbidden, as it is considered the animal’s actual body?

But Shmuel said: Why did they prohibit the cheese of gentiles? Because they curdle it with the skin of the stomach of a neveila!

This indicates that it was prohibited specifically because of the skin of the neveila, which is the animal’s body;

but the stomach itself,

that is, the coagulated milk found in the stomach,

is permitted!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

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

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

He said to him: But the stomach of an olah is more stringent than the stomach of a neveila, and nevertheless the Sages said: Any kohen whose mind is refined [a euphemism, meaning that he is not repulsed] burns it while it is still alive. That is, he is permitted to swallow the milk. We see that the stomach is permitted, even though an olah is forbidden to kohanim, because the milk is not considered part of the animal’s body!?

Rabbi Yehoshua reconsidered and said to him: The cheese is forbidden because they curdle it with the stomach of calves used for idolatry. With regard to 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 itself.

And if so,

here—

our Mishna—was taught

before the reconsideration,

when Rabbi Yehoshua reconsidered his position; therefore, we learned that the stomach of a neveila is forbidden.

Here—

the statement of Shmuel that the stomach is permitted—

after the reconsideration.

And since the Mishna had already been taught, although Rabbi Yehoshua later reconsidered his position, the Mishna was not removed from its place; they did not say that it should no longer be taught, but left it in its place.

We learned in our Mishna:

An animal fit for consumption that nursed from a tereifa

and so forth.

And we ask:

But the first clause teaches: The stomach of a gentile and that of a neveila—this is forbidden.

How, then, does it state here that the stomach of a tereifa is permitted, since we learned, “A tereifa that nursed from a fit animal—its stomach is permitted”!? What is the difference between the stomach of a tereifa and the stomach of a neveila?

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 neveila is forbidden, as stated in the

first clause,

is that

it appears as though one is eating nevelot.

Unlike

here,

with regard to a tereifa, where

there is slaughter,

and it is not repulsive like a neveila.

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

its

stomach,

he will not come to eat from it

the neveila itself, because it is repulsive,

you say

that

it is not

the stomach permitted

of a slaughtered tereifa,

which is not repulsive,

if you permit

the stomach,

he will come to eat from it

the tereifa itself,

all the more so

should the stomach be forbidden!?

Rather, Rabbi Yitzḥak said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is not difficult.

Here—

the first clause, concerning the stomach of a neveila—

before the reconsideration,

when we held that the stomach is forbidden.

Here—

the final clause, concerning the stomach of a tereifa—

after the reconsideration,

when we hold that the stomach is permitted.

And the Mishna

the first clause

was not removed from its place

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

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One may curdle

milk

with the stomachs of nevelot, but one may not curdle

milk

with the stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile.

Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said before him: In accordance with whom

did you say this matter—was it

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who says that an idolater’s unqualified thought is for idolatry,

and therefore, although the stomach contents are not part of the animal’s body but merely excrement, they are prohibited, since in idolatry even excrement is prohibited?

He said to him: And in accordance with whom else?!

It is certainly in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer; you need not have asked about this.

When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak came, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may use both the stomach of a nevela,

and

the stomach of an animal slaughtered by an idolater, without being concerned for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer

who distinguished between them.

And the halakha is: One may not use the stomach lining of a nevela to curdle cheese,

since it is part of the animal’s body.

But one may use the stomach contents of a nevela and the stomach contents of an animal slaughtered by an idolater.

That is, the milk collected in their stomachs.

Mishna:

There is a stringency

that applies

to milk compared with blood, and there is a stringency

that applies

to blood compared with milk.

The stringency that applies to milk

compared with blood: