(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 108



(a) If some milk falls on to a piece of meat cooking in a pot containing many pieces (and the entire piece is outside the gravy, see Tosfos DH 'Tipas Chalav'), our Mishnah forbids the piece - if a. it does not comprise sixty times the volume of the milk that fell into it (because then the latter is 'Nosen Ta'am') b. if he did not subsequently stir the pot.

(b) The Tana then rules that if he did then stir the pot - the milk is Bateil, assuming that the meat in the pot is sixty times the milk.

(a) If, as Abaye maintains, 'Ta'amo ve'Lo Mamasho' (i.e. 'Ta'am ke'Ikar') is d'Oraysa, we learn it from Basar be'Chalav, which as our Mishnah teaches us, is only Asur when it is Nosen Ta'am.

(b) If it we not d'Oraysa, it would be because Basar be'Chalav is a Chidush, and we cannot generally learn from a Chidush. What makes Basar be'Chalav a Chidush - is the fact that each of the two ingredients on its own is permitted (see Tosfos DH 'de'Chidush Hu').

(c) Abaye proves that Basar be'Chalav is not a Chidush (and that Ta'am ke'Ikar is therefore d'Oraysa) - from the fact that it is only Asur if it is Nosen Ta'am, because if it was a Chidush, then even a 'Kol she'Hu' ought to be forbidden.

(d) And we will learn that where it is not Nosen Ta'am, it is permitted - from Zero'a Besheilah (as we learned in 'Gid ha'Nasheh' [see Maharsha]).

3) Rava refutes Abaye's proof. When he says 'Derech Bishul Asrah Torah' - he means that in reality, Basar be'Chalav is a Chidush, but that part of the Chidush is that it must be Nosen Ta'am, seeing as the Torah only forbids them if they have been cooked together (see Tosfos DH 'Amar Rava').


(a) Rav rules that, in the case in our Mishnah, once the milk is Nosen Ta'am in the piece - that piece becomes Neveilah, and renders Asur all the pieces in the pot, even if they are more than Shishim, because he holds ...

(b) ... 'Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil', like Rebbi Yehudah.

(c) We ask whether Rav disagrees with Rava, who holds according to Rebbi Yehudah 'Miyn u'Miyno ve'Davar Acher Salek es Miyno k'Mi she'Eino, ve'she'Eino Miyno Rabah Alav u'Mevatlo' (as we learned in 'Gid ha'Nasheh'). According to Rava therefore - the gravy ought to be Mevateil the piece containing the milk.

(d) We reconcile Rav with Rava however - by establishing the case when the gravy is thick (i.e. when it consists of the meat sediment), which is considered Miyn be'Miyno, just like the other pieces.

(a) We query this however, from the S'vara 'Efshar Lesochto, Mutar', which means - that if Isur becomes absorbed in Heter, and is recooked, the Isur is 'squeezed out' and redistributed among all the pieces of Heter (a contradiction to 'Chatichah Na'asis Neveilah').

(b) The problem now is - that if Rav does indeed hold 'Efshar Lesochto, Mutar', why does even the first piece remain Asur. Once it has been recooked with the other pieces, they should all combine to be Mevateil the milk that it absorbed?

(c) 'Efshar Lesochto Mutar' is a Din in Bedi'eved, but not Lechatchilah - due to the principle 'Ein Mevatlin Isur Lechatchilah'.

(d) We resolve the problem however, by establishing Rav's opinion as 'Efshar Lesochto, Asur', as we shall now see.

(a) Rav, Rebbi Chanina and Rebbi Yochanan all hold 'Efshar Lesochto Asur'. Shmuel, Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi and Resh Lakish hold 'Efshar Lesochto, Mutar'.

(b) If a piece of meat falls into a pot of milk - Rav permits the milk.

(c) This poses a Kashya on what we just said - because the milk that became absorbed in the piece ought to become Asur, and then, because of the S'vara of Chatichah Na'asis Neveilah, it ought to forbid the rest of the milk, because 'Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil'.

(d) We answer by reciting the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo", from which we initially learn - that the kid is Asur, but not the milk.




(a) In a case where someone cooked half a k'Zayis of meat together with half a k'Zayis of milk and ate them - Rav sentences him to Malkos for eating the mixture, but not for cooking it.

(b) One measures a k'Zayis of milk or any other liquid - by placing a cupful of the liquid in a dry dish and measuring the liquid that is displaced by the olive that one gently drops into it.

(c) This latter ruling of Rav poses a Kashya on the D'rashah that we just made in his name from the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo" - because if Rav really held that the milk was not included in the Isur of Basar be'Chalav, then how could it combine with half a k'Zayis Basar to make up the Shiur?

(d) We therefore conclude that Rav does include milk in the Isur, and the reason that he permits the pot of milk into which the piece of meat fell is - because he is speaking where the milk is boiling, in which case the piece of meat is able to absorb the milk in the pot, but not to exude into it.

(e) And he is speaking when the piece of meat was removed before the milk cooled down; otherwise, it would have exuded into the milk, rendering it all Asur.

(a) The problem with Rav's dual ruling in the case of someone who cooks half a k'Zayis of Basar together with half a k'Zayis of Chalav and then eats them is - that 'Mah Nafshach', if the two half-k'Zeisim combine, then why is he not Chayav for cooking them, whereas if they don't, then why is he Chayav for eating them?

(b) We answer that in fact - the two half-k'Zeisim do not combine, and he is only Chayav for eating them - because Rav is speaking 'be'Ba mi'Yoreh Gedolah' (when they were originally cooked in a large pot [consisting of at least a full k'Zayis of each).

(c) Levi disagrees with Rav. According to him, one is Chayav for cooking the two half-k'Zeisim as well (because he holds that the two halves do combine).

(d) Tana de'Bei Levi supports Levi's ruling. He also gives the Shi'ur Bishul that renders one Chayav - as cooked to the point that others (Nochrim) would eat it (i.e. fully cooked).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa renders Asur a piece of meat onto which a drop of milk falls if there is not Shishim in the piece. What he actually says is - 'Keivan she'Nasnah Ta'am ba'Chatichah, ha'Chatichah Atzmah Na'asis Neveilah, ve'Oseres Kol ha'Chatichos Kulan ...'

(b) ... Mipnei she'Hein Miynah'.

(c) The Rabbanan - combine the gravy, the sediment and the other pieces to be Mevateil the drop of milk.

(a) Rebbi prefers the opinion of ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - on condition that one neither stirred nor covered the pot.
2. ... the Rabbanan - on condition that one either stirred or covered the pot.
(b) With reference to Rebbi's opinion based on Rebbi Yehudah's ruling, Rebbi cannot mean that one did not stir or cover the pot at all - because then the piece of meat would absorb the milk, but how would it exude it (to render the other pieces Asur)?

(c) He must therefore mean that he did not cover it at first, only later, and the piece does not become permitted, on the grounds that just as it absorbed, so too, it exudes (into all the other pieces) - because Rebbi holds 'Efshar Lesochto, Asur'.

(d) We can infer from Rebbi that Rebbi Yehudah forbids the piece even if one stirred the pot from beginning to end. Nevertheless, the piece becomes Asur - because we suspect that he did not mix or cover them properly (in which case, the milk does extend to all the other pieces, which cannot therefore combine to be Mevatel it).

Next daf


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