Chullin 217:1
אמאי הא לא בלע כלל
The one [piece] has not absorbed any more [than the others]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The drop of milk, in these circumstances, should be considered as distributed equally among all the pieces in the pot, and surely there is sufficient in the pot to neutralize this drop.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אימא לא ניער יפה יפה ולא כסה יפה יפה
- Perhaps he did not stir it so well or he did not cover it so well">.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if the pot was not stirred well or covered properly the very moment the drop of milk fell on a piece, that piece would immediately absorb the milk and would render all the contents of the pot forbidden.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אילימא ניער בסוף ולא ניער בתחלה וכסה בסוף ולא כסה בתחלה האמרת נראין דברי ר' יהודה בהא
Should you say it means that he stirred it only later on but not at the beginning, or that he covered it only later on but not at the beginning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in this case Rabbi is inclined to accept the lenient view of the Sages that all the pieces in the pot would neutralize the milk, for it has been extracted from the one piece and distributed evenly in the pot.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
מכלל דרבנן סברי
It must therefore mean that he stirred it straightway and [continued to do so] till the very end, or that he covered it straightway and [kept it so] till the very end; from which it follows that the Sages maintain [that everything in the pot is] permitted even though he stirred it only later on but not at the beginning, or he covered it only later on but not at the beginning.
ניער בסוף ולא ניער בתחלה כסה בסוף ולא כסה בתחלה מותר
It is evident then that they hold that when the forbidden substance can be considered extracted it becomes permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we see that where the forbidden substance can be considered extracted is a matter of dispute between Tannaim.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא
Perhaps all are of the opinion that even when the forbidden substance can be is extracted it is still forbidden, but they differ [about the neutralization<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The position would then be: all bold that the piece upon which the drop of milk fell is wholly forbidden as nebelah, but the dispute is concerning the other pieces in the pot. R. Judah holding that the entire contents of the pot are forbidden because the forbidden piece can never be neutralized amongst other pieces, and the Sages holding that neutralization even in a mixture of homogeneous substances can take place. The attitude of Rabbi who holds, first that when the forbidden substance can be extracted the piece is still forbidden, and secondly that neutralization cannot take place between homogeneous substances, is expressed thus: The words of R. Judah are acceptable to me, namely, that the entire contents of the pot are forbidden, in the case where the pot was not stirred at once but only later on, for then one piece was first rendered forbidden and it would later render the entire pot forbidden. But the words of R. Judah are not acceptable to me in the case where the pot was stirred straightway, for then the drop of milk was immediately evenly distributed among the contents of the pot. In this latter case the words of the Sages are acceptable to me, namely that the entire contents of the pot are permitted, for the apprehension lest the pot was not well stirred or well covered need not be taken into consideration.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ממאי דבאפשר לסוחטו פליגי דלמא אפשר לסוחטו דברי הכל אסור
of homogeneous substances: R'Judah maintaining his principle that homogeneous substances cannot neutralize each other, and the Rabbis maintain theirs that homogeneous substances can neutralize each other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The position would then be: all bold that the piece upon which the drop of milk fell is wholly forbidden as nebelah, but the dispute is concerning the other pieces in the pot. R. Judah holding that the entire contents of the pot are forbidden because the forbidden piece can never be neutralized amongst other pieces, and the Sages holding that neutralization even in a mixture of homogeneous substances can take place. The attitude of Rabbi who holds, first that when the forbidden substance can be extracted the piece is still forbidden, and secondly that neutralization cannot take place between homogeneous substances, is expressed thus: The words of R. Judah are acceptable to me, namely, that the entire contents of the pot are forbidden, in the case where the pot was not stirred at once but only later on, for then one piece was first rendered forbidden and it would later render the entire pot forbidden. But the words of R. Judah are not acceptable to me in the case where the pot was stirred straightway, for then the drop of milk was immediately evenly distributed among the contents of the pot. In this latter case the words of the Sages are acceptable to me, namely that the entire contents of the pot are permitted, for the apprehension lest the pot was not well stirred or well covered need not be taken into consideration.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
האי מאי
If you concede that the Sages in this dispute accept R'Judah' s view concerning homogeneous substances, but they differ only as to the law in the case where the forbidden substance can be considered extracted, then the meaning of Rabbi is clear when he says.'
ודברי חכמים בהא אלא אי אמרת אפשר לסוחטו דברי הכל אסור והכא במין במינו קמיפלגי האי נראין דברי ר' יהודה ואין נראין מבעי ליה ותו לא מידי:
But if you insist that all agree that even where the forbidden substance can be considered extracted it is still forbidden, but they differ concerning the law of homogeneous substances, then surely [Rabbi] should have said.'
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו
The words of R'Judah are acceptable in this but not in that'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 1. The view expressed there is that Rabbi agrees with R. Judah, that the entire contents are forbidden in the case where the pot was not stirred at once, but does not agree with him in the case where it was stirred at once. If this is Rabbi's true view then he should not have mentioned the Sages at all in his statement. The fact that the Sages are mentioned in Rabbi's statement indicates that they went so far as to permit even that Piece upon which the drop of milk fell, for they hold that when the forbidden substance is extracted the piece itself becomes permitted. The result of all this argument is to show that the law in the case when the forbidden substance can be considered extracted is a matter of dispute between Tannaim.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big>
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE UDDER MUST BE CUT OPEN AND EMPTIED OF ITS MILK; IF HE DID NOT CUT IT OPEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But cooked it together with all the milk it contained.');"><sup>10</sup></span> HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no penalty Is 1ncurred either for cooking or eating the udder. The prohibition of 'flesh in milk' applies only to milk drawn off from the living animal but not to milk found in the udder of a slaughtered animal.');"><sup>11</sup></span> THE HEART MUST BE CUT OPEN AND EMPTIED OF ITS BLOOD; IF HE DID NOT CUT IT OPEN HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is not liable to the penalty of kareth for eating blood. According to Rashi the Mishnah is referring only to the heart of a fowl and the reason why this penalty is not incurred is because the blood contained in the heart is not as much as an olive's bulk. According to Tosaf. it refers to the heart of any animal and there is no liability because blood that has been cooked is not forbidden by the law of the Torah. V. Ker. 220. The ckv flesh of the heart, says Rashi, is not rendered forbidden, for since it is smooth it does not absorb the blood. V. however Tosaf. s.v. .');"><sup>12</sup></span>