(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Chulin 97

CHULIN 96-98 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.



(a) We reconcile Rav Huna, who just forbade a kid that one roasted together with its Cheilev, with Rabah bar bar Chanah, who testified that when the community of Ma'on sent Rebbi Yochanan a similar She'eilah, he permitted it ('Kolef ve'Ochel ad she'Magi'a le'Chelbo') - by establishing the latter by a lean goat, which is permitted either because the Cheilev does not spread to other parts of the body, or because it is Bateil be'Shishim (Tosfos DH 'ha'Hu Kachush Havi').

(b) According to Rav Huna bar Yehudah, the case that came before Rebbi Yochanan was not that of a kid goat, but of a kidney that was roasted together with its Cheilev. This is 'better' than the case of a kid goat - because the membrane that divides between the meat and the Cheilev - prevents the Cheilev from spreading to the Basar.

(a) Whereas according to Ravin bar Rav Ada, the She'eilah that came before Rebbi Yochanan involved Kilchis (little Tamei fish) that was cooked in a pot together with meat, and the She'eilah was - whether the meat contained sixty times the amount of the Kilchis or not.

(b) He ruled that a Nochri baker should taste it. The Nochri baker would be believed - only on condition that he was not aware of the fact that the issue was one that concerned religion.

(c) The significance of the fact that he was a baker is - that a professional (as opposed to an ordinary Nochri) would not risk losing his reputation by giving wrong information (Tosfos DH 'Samchinan a'Kefeila').

(a) The Beraisa rules - that ...
1. ... one is forbidden to cook milk in a pot in which one cooked meat, or Chulin for a Yisrael in a pot in which one cooked Terumah for a Kohen.
2. ... if in spite of the prohibition, one did - then it is Asur, if the former (that is absorbed in the walls of the pot) gives taste to the latter.
(b) Rava interpreted the Tana's latter ruling (with regard to a pot in which one cooked Terumah for a Kohen) to mean - that the Kohen should then taste it and inform the Yisrael whether it was 'Nosen Ta'am' or not.

(c) The problem he initially had with the earlier ruling (with regard to a pot in which one cooked first meat and then milk) was - how they would discover whether it was 'Nosen Ta'am' or not.

(d) Based on Rebbi Yochanan previous ruling however - he established the Beraisa by a Nochri baker, whom they would ask to taste it.

4) Rava reconciles Chazal's three seemingly contradictory rulings 'be'Ta'ama', 'bi'Kefeila', 'be'Shishim'. They said ...
1. ... 'be'Ta'ama' - in a case of Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno of Heter.
2. ... 'bi'Kefeila' - in a case of Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno of Isur
3. ... 'be'Shishim' - in a case of Miyn be'Miyno, or of Miyn be'she'Eino
Miyno of Isur, but where no Nochri baker is available.



(a) Ravina forbade the thighs that were salted in the Resh Galusa's house together with their Gid ha'Nasheh - Rav Acha (some add b'rei de'Rav) permitted them.

(b) It seems that Rav Acha's source was a statement of Shmuel concerning 'Meli'ach', which means - that Heter was salted together with Isur, and 'Kavush', which means - that it was pickled in vinegar and spices.

(c) Shmuel ruled - that 'Meli'ach' is like being heated together, and 'Kavush' like being cooked together.

(a) Ravina interpreted 'heated' ('Rose'ach') to mean - 'cooked'.

(b) Rav Acha bar Rav proved him wrong - from the second ruling 'Kavush, Harei Hu ki'Mevushal', implying that 'Rose'ach' refers to the heating of roasting ...

(c) ... which is more lenient, since there is no water to spread the taste of the Isur to the Heter.

(d) When the Resh Galusa sent the case to Mar bar Rav Ashi, he quoted his father as saying - that the thighs were permitted (like Rav Acha).

(a) Rebbi Chanina maintains that when reckoning 'be'Shishim', one includes in the sixty, the gravy, the sediment, the pieces of meat and the pot, by which he means - either the entire pot, or whatever the pot absorbed.

(b) We ought to rule - like the second interpretation (which is the more stringent of the two, seeing as the outcome involves an Isur d'Oraysa).

(c) In fact, we do not rule like either of them - on the basis of a ruling later, which argues that just as the pot absorbed some of the Heter, it also absorbed some of the Heter (in which case they cancel each other out).

(a) As we already learned, our Mishnah considers a thigh cooked together with its Gid like meat in turnip (taste-wise). All other Isurin that are cooked together with Isur however - Rebbi Yochanan considers meat that is cooked in onions or leeks ...

(b) ... which are stronger than turnips (and therefore require more Heter to annul the taste than Gid, which (even though our Mishnah holds 'Yesh be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am') possess a weaker taste than other meat.

(c) We cannot simply ...

1. ... taste the mixture or give it to a Nochri to taste - because we are referring to a case of Miyn be'Miyno, or where no Nochri is available to taste it.
2. ... reckon 'be'Shishim' - because Rebbi Yochanan is speaking before the Heter of Shishim has been taught.
(d) Rebbi Aba asked Abaye why we do not reckon the mixture like meat cooked together with peppers or spices - in which case it would not be Bateil at all (even in a thousand, as is the case with peppers and spices).

(e) Abaye answered - that there is no Isur which gives taste to Heter that is stronger than the taste of onions and leeks.

(a) When Rav Nachman rules ...
1. ... 'K'chal (a cow's udder) be'Shishim', he means - that if a K'chal is cooked together with meat that comprises sixty times as much as it is permitted (see Tosfos DH 'Kol Isurin').
2. ... 'Beitzah be'Shishim', he means - that if a Tamei egg is cooked with sixty Kasher eggs, they are permitted.
(b) And he adds to that - 'Gid be'Shishim'.

(c) He excludes the Gid in the Shishim, but includes the K'chal - because whereas the former is intrinsically Asur, the latter is intrinsically Mutar.

(d) By the same token therefore, he rules 'Beitzah be'Shishim - ve'Ein Beitzah min ha'Minyan'.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Mesharshaya adds that the K'chal itself is forbidden - since the meat inevitably gives taste to it.

(b) He adds to this that if the K'chal fell into another pot of meat - it forbids it (unless the latter comprises Shishim).

(c) Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana - whether one requires sixty times the K'chal or sixty times the milk that it exudes into the pot.

(d) In reply, Rav Kahana took for granted the first side of the She'eilah - because there is no way of knowing how much the pot exuded into the Heter.

(a) Based on what we just learned, we suggest that if the K'chal subsequently falls into a second pot of meat, the pot ought to be permitted - because since there was Shishim times the K'chal in the first pot, it ought to adopt the taste of meat, and not forbid the second pot into which it subsequently falls.

(b) And the reason that it is not is - because the moment Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Meharshaya forbade the K'chal, the Chachamim gave it a Din of a piece of Neveilah ('Chatichah Na'asis Neveilah').

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,