Chullin 225

ולימא ליה מדשמואל דאמר שמואל

Why did he not tell him [that it was forbidden] because of Samuel's dictum, 'Whatsoever is salted is counted as hot, and whatsoever is preserved is counted as cooked'? - As for Samuel's dictum I would have thought that it applies only to the blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if meat with its blood was salted in a vessel which was not perforated it would be regarded as cooked (or roasted) thus, and is forbidden.');">¹</span>

מליח הרי הוא כרותח וכבוש הרי הוא כמבושל

but not to the juice and broth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which we would not know to be forbidden at all without the Baraitha quoted, for we would regard them as a mere secretion and of no consequence.');">²</span>

אי מדשמואל הוה אמינא

he therefore teaches us [the Baraitha].

הני מילי דמן אבל צירן ורוטבן לא קמשמע לן

An objection was raised: [It was taught:] If a clean fish was salted together with an unclean fish, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the clean fish.');">³</span>

מיתיבי

is permitted.

דג טהור שמלחו עם דג טמא מותר מאי לאו שהיו שניהן מלוחין

Presumably this is a case where both were salted, is it not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the clean and unclean fish were salted, and the former is permitted because so long as each fish is exuding juice one will not absorb from the other; similarly in the above case, so long as each piece of meat is exuding blood and juice, the ritually slaughtered meat will not absorb from the trefah meat.');">⁴</span>

לא כגון שהיה טהור מליח וטמא תפל

- No.

והא מדקתני סיפא (אבל אם היה טהור מליח וטמא תפל) מכלל דרישא בששניהם מלוחין עסקינן

It is a case where the clean fish was salted but the unclean was not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'insipid', 'without salt'. The unclean fish not being salted will not exude at all, and therefore the clean fish will not be affected by it.');">⁵</span>

פרושי קא מפרש טהור שמלחו עם דג טמא מותר

But surely, since the subsequent clause states: If the clean fish was salted and the unclean was not, [it' is permitted],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Marginal Gloss.');">⁶</span>

כיצד שהיה טהור מליח וטמא תפל

it follows that the first clause deals with the case where both were salted.

ה"נ מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך רישא שניהם מלוחים השתא שניהם מלוחים שרי טהור מליח וטמא תפל מיבעיא

- The [second] clause merely explains the first thus: If a clean fish was salted together with an unclean fish, it is permitted.

אי משום הא לא איריא תנא סיפא לגלויי רישא דלא תימא

When is this so?

רישא טהור מליח וטמא תפל אבל שניהם מלוחין אסור

When, for instance, the clean fish was salted but the unclean was not.

תנא סיפא טהור מליח וטמא תפל מכלל דרישא שניהן מלוחין ואפ"ה שרי

And indeed this supposition is reasonable, since if we assume the first clause to refer to the case where both were salted, seeing that where both were salted it is permitted, is it necessary [to tell us that it permitted] where only the clean fish was salted and not the unclean? - This however is not a conclusive argument.

ת"ש מסיפא דסיפא

It may be that the second clause was put in to make clear the reference in the first: lest you might think that the first clause refers to where the clean fish was salted and the unclean was not, leaving us to infer that where both were salted it would be forbidden, he therefore adds the second clause, where the clean fish was salted and the unclean was not, which shows that the first clause speaks of the case where both were salted, and even so it is permitted.

אבל אם היה טמא מליח וטהור תפל אסור טמא מליח וטהור תפל הוא דאסור הא שניהן מלוחין שרי

Come and hear from the very last clause: But if the unclean fish was salted and the clean was not, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the clean fish.');">³</span>

איידי דתנא רישא טהור מליח וטמא תפל תנא נמי סיפא טמא מליח וטהור תפל

is forbidden.

(סימן

Now it is forbidden only where the unclean was salted and the clean was not, from which it follows that where both were salted it would be permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the clean and unclean fish were salted, and the former is permitted because so long as each fish is exuding juice one will not absorb from the other; similarly in the above case, so long as each piece of meat is exuding blood and juice, the ritually slaughtered meat will not absorb from the trefah meat.');">⁴</span>

בישרא דמנח נפקותא)

- Not at all; but since in the preceding clause it teaches of the case where the clean fish was salted, and the unclean was not, it teaches also in the second clause of the case where the unclean fish was salted and the clean was not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually even if both were salted the clean fish would be forbidden.');">⁷</span>

אמר שמואל

<br>(Mnemonic: Flesh put [on the] neckbone).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mnemonic of the three statements of Samuel given on this page on the subject of salting meat. The third word in the mnemonic is read as t,erpn t,uepb 'neckbone' which is supported by MS.M.; in cur. edd. the reading is 'going out, departing'.');">⁸</span>

אין הבשר יוצא מידי דמו אלא א"כ מולחו יפה יפה ומדיחו יפה יפה

Samuel said: Flesh cannot be drained of its blood unless it has been salted very well and rinsed very well.

אתמר רב הונא אמר

It was stated: R'Huna said: One must salt the flesh and then rinse it.

מולח ומדיח במתניתא תנא

In a Baraitha it was taught: One must rinse it, salt it and then rinse it again.

מדיח ומולח ומדיח

Indeed they are not a variance, for in the one case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In R. Huna's case.');">⁹</span>

ולא פליגי הא דחלליה בי טבחא הא דלא חלליה בי טבחא

it was washed down by the butcher and in the other it was not washed by the butcher.

רב דימי מנהרדעא מלח ליה במילחא גללניתא ומנפיץ ליה

R'Dimi of Nehardea used to salt meat with coarse salt and then shake it off.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it has absorbed the blood. In the case of fine salt there is no need to shake it off, for it would melt in the blood and run off the meat.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב משרשיא

R'Mesharsheya said: We do not assume that the internal organs contain blood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they are not forbidden if cooked without salting.');">¹¹</span>

אין מחזיקין דם בבני מעיים תרגמא אכרכשא ומעייא והדרא דכנתא

this is explained as referring specifically to the rectum, the small intestines, and the coil of the colon.

אמר שמואל

Samuel said: One may not put salted meat except into a perforated vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meat that was salted and the salt had not been washed off may not be Put into an unperforated vessel, for fear that the meat will absorb again the blood that was drawn out of it. It is certainly forbidden to salt meat in such a vessel in the first instance (R. Nissim) . [Rashi supra 122b, ukhpt ihjkun ihjhbn s.v. , seems to have read one may not salt etc. for ]');">¹²</span>

אין מניחין בשר מליח אלא ע"ג כלי מנוקב

R'Shesheth used to salt each piece of meat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bone (by) bone'.');">¹³</span>

רב ששת מלח ליה גרמא גרמא תרי מאי טעמא לא משום דפריש מהאי ובלע האי

separately.

חד נמי פריש מהאי גיסא ובלע האי גיסא

But why not two together?

אלא

Because the blood would run out of one piece and be absorbed by the other?

לא שנא

Then in one piece also the blood may run out of one side and be absorbed by the other side! - Indeed there can be no difference.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may therefore salt any number of pieces together, for while each is exuding it will not absorb. As to whether all the pieces must be ohdsu salted simultaneously or not, v. Tosaf. supra 112b, .');">¹⁴</span>

אמר שמואל משום ר' חייא

Samuel said in the name of R'Hiyya: If a man breaks the neck bone of an animal [after it has been slaughtered but] before the life departed from it, he thereby makes the meat heavy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the animal is bereft of its last energy to spurt out the blood, and the blood now settles in the limbs of the animal.');">¹⁵</span>

השובר מפרקתה של בהמה קודם שתצא נפשה הרי זה מכביד את הבשר וגוזל את הבריות ומבליע דם באברים

robs mankind,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he sells this meat, for it contains more than the usual amount of blood.');">¹⁶</span>

איבעיא להו

and causes the blood to remain in the limbs.

היכי קאמר מכביד את הבשר וגוזל את הבריות משום דמבליע דם באברים הא לדידיה שפיר דמי או דלמא לדידיה נמי אסור תיקו:

It was asked: What is the true meaning?

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המעלה את העוף עם הגבינה על השלחן אינו עובר בלא תעשה:

Is it that he makes the meat heavy and thereby robs mankind by causing the blood to remain in the limbs, but where only he himself is concerned he may do so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he does not sell the meat. And the usual salting of meat would presumably be sufficient for this meat too.');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא אוכלו עובר בלא תעשה שמע מינה

Or perhaps even for himself it is forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For now no amount of salting will draw out the blood that has settled in the limbs.');">¹⁸</span>

בשר עוף בחלב דאורייתא

- This remains undecided.

אימא

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN PLACES UPON THE TABLE FOWL WITH CHEESE HE DOES NOT THEREBY TRANSGRESS THE LAW.

המעלה את העוף עם הגבינה על השולחן אינו בא לידי לא תעשה:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It follows that if he were to eat [them together] he would transgress the law; you can infer from this that the flesh of fowl [cooked] in milk is prohibited by the law of the Torah! - Render thus.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה אסור לבשל ואסור בהנאה

If a man places upon the table fowl with cheese he cannot come to the transgression of the law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even if he were to eat them together he would not transgress the law of the Torah.');">¹⁹</span>

בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טמאה בשר בהמה טמאה בחלב בהמה טהורה מותר לבשל ומותר בהנאה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IT IS FORBIDDEN TO COOK THE FLESH OF A CLEAN ANIMAL IN THE MILK OF A CLEAN ANIMAL OR TO DERIVE ANY BENEFIT THEREFROM; BUT IT IS PERMITTED TO COOK THE FLESH OF A CLEAN ANIMAL IN THE MILK OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL OR THE FLESH OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL IN THE MILK OF A CLEAN ANIMAL AND TO DERIVE BENEFIT THEREFROM.

ר"ע אומר

R'AKIBA SAYS, WILD ANIMALS AND FOWLS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROHIBITION OF THE TORAH, FOR IT IS WRITTEN THRICE, THOU SHALT NOT SEETHE A KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 19; XXXIV, 26; Deut. XIV, 21.');">²⁰</span>

חיה ועוף אינם מן התורה שנאמר (שמות כג, יט) לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו ג' פעמים פרט לחיה ולעוף ובהמה טמאה

TO EXCLUDE WILD ANIMALS, FOWLS, AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS.

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר

R'JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS, IT IS WRITTEN, YE SHALL NOT EAT OF ANYTHING THAT DIETH OF ITSELF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 21.');">²¹</span>

נאמר (דברים יד, כא) לא תאכלו כל נבלה ונאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו את שאסור משום נבלה אסור לבשל בחלב עוף שאסור משום נבלה יכול יהא אסור לבשל בחלב ת"ל

AND IN THE SAME VERSE IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT NOT SEE THE A KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK; THEREFORE WHATSOEVER IS PROHIBITED.

בחלב אמו יצא עוף שאין לו חלב אם:

UNDER THE LAW OF NEBELAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא הני מילי

IT IS FORBIDDEN TO COOK IN MILK.

א"ר אלעזר אמר קרא

NOW IT MIGHT BE INFERRED THAT A FOWL, SINCE IT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE LAW OF NEBELAH.

(בראשית לח, כ) וישלח יהודה את גדי העזים

IS ALSO FORBIDDEN TO BE COOKED IN MILK; THE VERSE THEREFORE SAYS. IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK'; THUS A FOWL IS EXCLUDED SINCE IT HAS NO MOTHER'S MILK.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly the prohibition is restricted to mammals.');">²³</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence do we know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the prohibition, 'Thou shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk', is not limited in its application to a kid only but applies to all clean animals.');">²⁴</span> - R'Eleazar said: Because the verse says: And Judah sent the kid of the goats;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXXVIII, 20.');">²⁵</span>