Chullin 218:1

אמר רבי זירא אמר רב

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Zera said in the name of Rab: He has [not only] not transgressed the law on account thereof, but it is even permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be eaten; for the milk that was withdrawn from a slaughtered animal is at most forbidden to be cooked with flesh by the Rabbis only, and here since the milk was absorbed and confined within the udder there is not even a Rabbinic injunction against eating it.');">¹</span>

אינו עובר עליו ומותר

But have we not learnt: HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF, which implies that there is no transgression of the law but that it is forbidden?

והא אנן תנן אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא

Strictly it is not forbidden at all, but only because the second clause reads: 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, in which case it is true that there is no transgression of the law but clearly it is forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For although there can be no liability to any punishment for eating the blood in the heart of a fowl for the reason stated, namely that it is less than an olive's bulk, there nevertheless lies a prohibition even where there is less than an olive's bulk, and it would certainly not be permitted to be eaten.');">²</span>

בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו התם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו

the Tanna also stated in the first clause, HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF.

לימא מסייע ליה

Shall we say that the following teaching supports him?

הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו

It was taught: The udder must be cut open and emptied of its milk; if he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on account thereof.

הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר

The heart must be cut open and emptied of its blood; if he did not cut it open he must cut it open after it had been cooked and it is permitted [to be eaten].

לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה

Now it is only the heart that must be cut open [after the cooking], but the udder need not be cut open at all! - Perhaps the inference is: only for the heart does the cutting open [after the cooking] suffice, but for the udder the cuttin open [after the cooking] would not be sufficient.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is good reason for this distinction. As the heart is smooth and hard even in cooking the blood would not penetrate into it; the udder, on the other hand, is soft and spongy, and in cooking, the milk would Penetrate into it, and it would be impossible to remove it.');">³</span>

דלמא

Others report the passage thus: R'Zera said in the name of Rab: He has not transgressed the law on account thereof, but it is forbidden [to be eaten].

לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה

Shall we say that [our Mishnah] supports him?

ואיכא דאמרי א"ר זירא אמר רב

It reads: HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF, which implies, no doubt, that there Is no transgression of the law but that it is forbidden! - Strictly it is not even forbidden, but only because the second clause reads: 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, in which case there is no transgression of the law but clearly it is forbidden, the Tanna also stated in the first clause, HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW ON ACCOUNT THEREOF.

אינו עובר עליו ואסור

Come and hear: The udder must be cut open and emptied of its milk; if he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on account thereof.

לימא מסייע ליה

The heart must be cut open and emptied of its blood; if he did not cut it open, he must cut it open after it had been cooked and it is permitted [to be eaten].

אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא

Now only the heart must be cut open [after the cooking] but the udder need not be cut open at all! - Perhaps the inference is: only for the heart does the cutting open [after the cooking] suffice, but for the udder the cutting open [after the cooking] would not be sufficient.

בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו דהתם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו

It was taught in agreement with the first version of Rab's view: If the udder was cooked with its milk it is permitted; if the stomach [of a sucking calf] was cooked with its milk it is forbidden.

ת"ש

And wherein lies the distinction between the two?

הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו

In the one the milk is collected inside, in the other it is not collected inside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The milk found in the stomach of a calf is regarded as ordinary milk, accumulated in a particular place, to which the prohibition of 'flesh in milk' applies, whereas the milk in the udder cannot be said to be collected inside but is absorbed in every part of the udder and therefore the prohibition of 'flesh in milk' does not apply.');">⁴</span>

הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר

How should one cut it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the udder.');">⁵</span>

לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה

open? - Rab Judah replied.

דלמא

One must cut it lengthwise and breadthwise and press it against the wall.

לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה

R'Eleazar once said to his attendant, 'Cut it up for me<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before you roast it (Rashi) ; or, Before you cook it (Tosaf.) .');">⁶</span>

תניא כלישנא קמא דרב

and I will eat it'.

כחל שבשלו בחלבו מותר קבה שבשלה בחלבה אסור ומה הפרש בין זה לזה זה כנוס במעיו וזה אין כנוס במעיו

What does he teach us?

כיצד קורעו

Is it not [a clear statement in] our Mishnah? - He teaches us that it is not necessary to cut it both lengthwise and breadthwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But cutting it in one direction would be sufficient.');">⁷</span>

אמר רב יהודה

Or [he teaches us that this would be sufficient even for cooking] in a pot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by cutting it lengthwise and breadthwise and by pressing it out against the wall it is permitted to cook it in a pot together with other meat. The text adopted is as found in MS.M.. Alfasi, R. Gershom and others. In cur. edd., in place of 'or in a pot' are the words 'and to press it against the wall'. V. Glos. of Bah.');">⁸</span>

קורעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל

Yaltha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman's wife.');">⁹</span>

א"ל ר' אלעזר לשמעיה

once said to R'Nahman: 'Observe, for everything that the Divine Law has forbidden us it has permitted us an equivalent: it has forbidden us blood but it has permitted us liver; it has forbidden us intercourse during menstruation but it has permitted us the blood of purification;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the period of purification after childbirth (cf. Lev. XII, 4) intercourse is permitted even though the woman may be suffering from a discharge of blood. Moreover, the blood of virginity is permitted which is the equivalent of the blood of menstruation. tyucha');">¹⁰</span>

קרע לי ואנא איכול

it has forbidden us the fat of cattle but it has permitted us the fat of wild beasts; it has forbidden us swine's flesh but it has permitted us the brain of the shibbuta;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' a kind of fish the brain of which has the same taste as swine's flesh. According to some it is the mullet, according to others the sturgeon.');">¹¹</span>

מאי קמ"ל

it has forbidden us the girutha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A forbidden bird; v. supra ');">¹²</span>

מתניתין היא

but it has permitted us the tongue of fish;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has the taste of girutha.');">¹³</span>

הא קמ"ל

it has forbidden us the married woman but it has permitted us the divorcee during the lifetime of her former husband; it has forbidden us the brother's wife but it has permitted us the levirate marriage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXV, 5ff.');">¹⁴</span>

דלא בעינן שתי וערב וטחו בכותל

it has forbidden us the non-Jewess but it has permitted us the beautiful woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. XXI, II ff.');">¹⁵</span>

אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן

[taken in war].

מכדי כל דאסר לן רחמנא שרא לן כוותיה אסר לן דמא שרא לן כבדא נדה דם טוהר חלב בהמה חלב חיה חזיר מוחא דשיבוטא גירותא לישנא דכורא אשת איש גרושה בחיי בעלה אשת אח יבמה כותית יפת תאר בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא

I wish to eat flesh in milk, [where is its equivalent? ]' Thereupon R'Nahman said to the butchers, 'Give her roasted Udders'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'give her udders on the spit'. i.e., roasted (Rashi) . According to Aruch: 'Feed her with well-filled udders'.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי

But have we not learnt, [THE UDDER] MUST BE CUT OPEN? - That is only when [it is to be cooked] in a pot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman apparently accepts the view stated in the second version of Rab supra. that the udder is forbidden if cooked without having been cut open. kac');">¹⁷</span>

זויקו לה כחלי

But does it not state [in the Baraitha above].'

והאנן תנן קורעו

If [the udder was] cooked',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'cooked', , in the Baraitha is to be interpreted as roasted and not cooked in a Pot. Cf. the same expression in II Chron. XXXV, 13: And they cooked the passover.');">¹⁸</span>

ההוא לקדרה

which implies that only after the act it is permitted but not in the first instance?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then did R. Nahman permit his wife to eat the udder roasted, and in the first instance too?');">¹⁹</span>

והא קתני שבשלו דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

- Indeed, it is even permitted in the first instance, but only because [the Tanna of the cited Baraitha] desired to state the second clause viz. , If the stomach

ה"ה דאפי' לכתחלה ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא קבה