(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 111

CHULIN 111-112 - 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) When Rav Safra returned to Eretz Yisrael, he again met Rebbi Zerika, who told him that Abaye's latter She'eilah (whether the blood that emerges from the liver, forbids other meat that is cooking together with it in the same pot) is no problem either, because at the home of Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi, they were served - the entire Kaneh with all that was attached to it (the lungs, the liver and the heart), which had all been cooked in one large pot.

(b) Rav Ashi (or Rebbi Shmuel from Zerukina) however, queried Rebbi Zerika's proof from two angles. First of all, he asked, perhaps they cooked it with the opening of the Kaneh placed outside the pot - enabling all the blood from the liver, via its blood-vessels, which flow from the K'neh ha'Kaved to the Kaneh, to drip out of the pot.

(c) His second query was - that before cooking it, the 'Kaneh be'Kufeih', it may well have been 'scalded' (a process called 'Chalitah'), which causes the blood to contract and to 'close up' permanently.

(a) They used to perform Chalitah on behalf of Rav Nachman using boiling water. Rav Huna used to use - vinegar.

(b) Rav Papa thought that the vinegar that is used for Chalitah is forbidden - because it releases the blood into whatever is cooked together with it.

(c) Rava disillusioned him however - by pointing out that if it did, then it would also do the same with the liver, once it finished exuding its blood, rendering it (the liver) Asur, too.

(d) When Rav Nachman was informed that his Talmid Rav bar Sh'va declined to eat the cooked liver that his wife had served (see Tosfos DH 'Rav bar Sh'va'), he responded - by ordering his servants to force-feed the son of) Sh'va (though he was probably making a point, and did not mean his command to be taken literally).

(a) Cooked liver is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im. Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Oseres ve'Eino Ne'eseres' (under any circumstances); whereas, according to Rebbi Yishmael b'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah liver that has been ...
1. ... spiced - 'Oseres ve'Ne'eseres' (because the spices soften the flesh, enabling it to absorb easily).
2. ... over-cooked - 'Oseres ve'Ne'eseres'.
(b) When, arriving unexpectedly at the home of Rabah bar Rav Nachman for Shabbos, Rabah bar Rav Huna was served three Sa'ah of fine white bread which had been smeared with a coat of oil and honey, he asked - how they knew that he was coming.

(c) Rabah bar Rav Nachman's response was - that although they would have prepared such a delicacy in his honor had they known he was coming, this particular bread had in fact, been baked in honor of the Shabbos queen, whom they did know was coming.

(d) The problem with the fried liver that they subsequently served was - that it still contained the large blood-vessel which still contained blood.

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna suggested that for the next time that they served liver - they cut it horizontally and vertically, leaving the cut section facing downwards whilst it was being fried.

(b) This would not be necessary if one prepared spleen instead of liver - because the spleen does not contain blood, only gravy.

(c) Shmuel tended to eat a dish of cooked spleen - after letting blood ...

(d) ... a proof - that the spleen does not contain blood (because if it did, they would not have served it after a blood-letting session).

(a) If a piece of meat is roasted in the oven underneath a piece of liver - it is permitted; underneath a piece of udder - it is forbidden ...

(b) ... because, unlike blood, which slips off roasting meat, milk tends to stick to it.

(c) Rav Dimi from Neherda'a reversed the rulings - because whereas the milk of a Shechted animal is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, the blood of liver is d'Oraysa.

(d) Mereimar ruled that the meat is permitted, provided it is lying on top of the liver or the udder. Regarding the reverse case, he ruled - that Lechatchilah it is forbidden, though Bedi'eved it is permitted.

(a) Lechatchilah, *we* are always forbidden to roast meat together with either liver or udder - because we tend to lay the spit-rod flat, sometimes slightly raising one end, sometimes, the other.

(b) Rav Ashi referred to Rami bar Aba's son (his brother-in-law) as vain - when he found him roasting liver on top of meat, Lechatchilah (whereas it is permitted Bedi'eved, as we just learned).

(c) If there is a Bei Dugi (a drip-tray), we conclude, it is Asur even Bedi'eved - with reference to the gravy together with the blood that drip from the meat and the liver respectively.

(d) If it was a piece of roasted meat only from which both the gravy and the blood were falling into the drip-tray, the gravy would be permitted.that was lying in the drip-tray, it would be permitted - because (unlike the blood of the liver, which floats to the top and mixes with the gravy) the blood from the meat sinks to the bottom and can be sifted (see also Sugya near the foot of 112a, and top of 112b).




(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel forbids cutting hot meat with a Shechitah knife - because he holds that the Beis ha'Shechitah (the location on the neck where the Shechitah took place) is hot, in which case, the knife absorbs some of the blood (see first Perek 8b).

(b) According to some, if one used the knife to cut cold meat, the meat (see Mesores ha'Shas) requires washing. Others say - that it does not.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel forbids using a dish in which one salted meat, to eat hot meat, based on Shmuel's own principle - 'Meli'ach, Harei Hu ke'Rose'ach (di'Tz'li [that salting heats to the same degree as frying])' ...

(d) ... and 'Kavush (something that is pickled), Harei Hu ki'Mevushal' (is considered like cooking).

(a) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael and declared in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that Kavush is not like cooked -Abaye refuted it ...

(b) ... based on an incident that occurred with Rebbi Ami - who broke the earthenware dish that was used for salting meat.

(c) He did not Kasher it - because one cannot Kasher earthenware.

(d) Rebbi Ami proves Rebbi Yochanan's opinion from an incident with Rebbi Ami - who was his Talmid, and who probably learned the Halachah from him in the first place.

(a) Rav Kahana ruled in front of Rav Huna that one may ...
1. ... not eat a milk dish in a bowl that was used to salt meat ...
2. ... eat it together with a radish that was cut with a meat knife.
(b) Abaye attributes this seeming discrepancy to the fact - that the latter absorbed Heter (the gravy of meat that remained on the knife), whereas the former absorbed blood, which is Isur.

(c) Rava refutes this reason however - on the grounds that, when all's said and done, once the milk dish absorbs the gravy that is absorbed in the radish, it will be Asur (so what difference does it make whether it was originally Isur or Heter?

(d) Rava therefore explains - that it is possible to taste the radish first (and Rav Kahana is speaking when he did), whereas there is no way to test the dish (whether it has absorbed blood or not).

(a) We already cited the Beraisa that permits testing by tasting, a meat pot in which one cooked milk, or a Terumah pot in which one cooked Chulin. The taster in the case of ...
1. ... the Terumah pot is - a Kohen.
2. ... the meat pot is - a Nochri baker (chef).
(b) In that case, we ask - why did Rava just say that there is no way of testing the dish in which meat has been salted? Why can once not ask a Nochri baker to taste the meat that was subsequently cooked in it?

(c) Rava answered - that Rav Kahana is speaking in a case where there is no Nochri baker available to do the testing.

(a) One is certainly - not permitted to eat fish that has been cooked together with meat, with a milk stew.

(b) Shmuel nevertheless permits eating fish that has been placed in a meat dish which in turn, just contained hot roasted meat - because it is Nosen Ta'am bar Nosen Ta'am ('Nat bar Nat' for short).

(c) According to Rav - 'Nat bar Nat' is Asur.

(d) We query the authenticity of Rav's statement - on the grounds that he did not actually say it, and we only extrapolate it from an incident that occurred with him (which we will now describe).

(a) When Rav, who was staying by Rav Shimi bar Chiya (his grandson) at the time once had eye trouble - they prepared him an ointment in a certain dish.

(b) When, at a later date, they served him something to eat in the same dish, Rav commented - that the taste from the ointment was noticeable in the food.

(c) We cannot proof from there however, that Rav holds 'Nosen Ta'am bar Nosen Ta'am ('Nat bar Nat') Asur' - because spices which are particularly bitter, leave a stronger taste in the walls of the K'li than food does (see Tosfos DH 've'Lo Hi').

(a) When they brought before Shmuel fish that had been cooked in a meat dish, Rebbi Elazar - was serving him.

(b) When he (Rebbi Elazar) declined to eat them together with a milk stew, Shmuel said to him - that if his Rebbi (Rav) could eat from them, then so could he.

(c) When Rebbi Elazar went to ask Rav him whether he had indeed changed his mind, Rav replied - that what Shmuel had testified in his name was not true (see Ya'avetz).

(a) Rav Huna and Rav Chiya bar Ashi were sitting - at opposite ends of the bridge that spanned the river in Sura, when they brought one of them fish that had been cooked in a meat dish, and the other, figs and grapes in the middle of the meal.

(b) The one - ate the fish together with a milk stew, whilst the other, ate the fruit without reciting the appropriate B'rachah.(each one raising the eyebrows of the other).

(c) Each one asked the other one - whether that was what his Rebbe did. By 'Yasma', he meant - that he had acted without Da'as.

(d) The problem with eating fruit in the middle of the meal without reciting a B'rachah is - the ruling that whatever is normally served as a dessert, and not as part of the meal, requires a B'rachah both before and after eating it.

(a) The one replied that he did indeed, follow the opinion of his Rebbe (Shmuel), who permitted eating 'Dagim she'Alu bi'Ke'arah together with a milk stew. The other one replied that he followed the opinion of his Rebbe too, namely, Rebbi Chiya, who ruled in a Beraisa - that bread exempts all food, and wine, all drinks, from a separate B'rachah.

(b) Chizkiyah Amar Abaye rules that Dagim she'Alu bi'Ke'arah - may be eaten with a milk stew, like Shmuel).

(c) He also forbids eating a radish that was cut using a meat knife, together with a milk stew - but only in the case of a radish; a cucumber, for example, would be permitted, due to its mild taste.

(d) One would nevertheless need to - wash the location of the cut, due to the gravy from the knife.

(a) In spite of the fact that 'Nat bar Nat' is Mutar (besides the fact that a radish is sharp), we would forbid eating it with a milk stew - because on account of the fact that one does not tend to wash a knife as meticulously as one does a dish, it is not a case of 'Nat bar Nat', because the gravy on the knife is real.

(b) Abaye places a turnip in the same category as a cucumber - because its sweetness neutralizes the taste of the gravy on the knife.

(c) But beets - he compares to radishes, since they do absorb the taste of the gravy.

(d) In a case where one cuts both of them one after the other - both are permitted, provided he cut the turnip first (because then the taste of the gravy has been neuralized by the time he cuts the beet).

Next daf


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