(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 112

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) Rav Dimi asked Rav Nachman whether it is permitted to place a jar of salt beside a jar of milk stew - in case some of the milk stew falls into the salt without the owner's knowledge, and he subsequently uses the salt with a meat meal.

(b) After the latter replied that it was forbidden, he then asked him - the same She'eilah regarding placing a jar of salt next to a jar of vinegar.

(c) Rav Nachman's replied ...

1. ... that it is permitted.
2. ... when Rav Dimi asked him why he ruled differently in each the two cases, he told him initially - that when he measures him a Kur of salt, he will give him an answer.
(d) He subsequently explained - that in the first case (involving salt, which is thick) the milk stew remains intact and recognizable, whereas in the second, a. it disintegrates in the vinegar and becomes Bateil, and b. it is not Nosen Ta'am either.
(a) When a dove fell into a jar of milk stew (partially comprising salt) Rav Chin'na b'rei de'Rava mi'Pashrunya ruled - that it was permitted.

(b) When Rava heard that ruling - he exclaimed that only Rav Chin'na b'rei de'Rava mi'Pashrunya would have issued such a (wise) ruling ...

(c) ... because even though Shmuel declared a principle 'Meli'ach Harei Hu ke'Rose'ach' (in which case one might have thought that the dove absorbed some of the taste of the milk stew) - that is only if it is salted to the point that it is inedible, which is not the case by a milk stew.

(a) We qualify Rav Chin'na's ruling, however, confining to where the bird is raw. If it was ...
1. ... roasted - it would require peeling.
2. ... raw but contained cracks in its skin - it would be forbidden ...
(b) ... as it would be even if its skin was not cracked - if it had previously been cooked with spices.
(a) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules - that a loaf of bread on which one cut a piece of roasted meat is forbidden.

(b) He only forbids it however, under three conditions. The meat must be red, and the juice, which must have gone right through the bread - must also be thick (because if it is watery, it is not considered blood).

(c) Shmuel would throw the bread to his dog. Rav Huna - would give it to his servant.

(d) In fact, Rav Huna permitted it - only he was finicky and was disgusted by it.

(e) Rava - used to eat it, referring to the juice as 'the wine of the meat'.

(a) Rav Nachman permits placing a drip-tray underneath a piece of meat - only after all the blood has drained.

(b) One knows when all the blood has drained, Mar Zutra explains citing Rav Papa - when smoke begins to rise from the meat (or from the coals, because until that stage, the blood merely drips on them and extinguishes them).

(c) Rav Ashi refutes this gauge however - by suggesting that perhaps the smoke only indicates that all the blood has drained from the bottom of the meat, but the blood from the top has yet to begin draining.

(d) According to Rav Ashi, one can permit the gravy - by placing two grains of salt in the tray, which will draw the blood, and then pouring the gravy gently into another receptacle.

(e) Rav Ashi mentions specifically two grains of salt - because a lot of salt will have the affect of causing the blood to become watery in which case it will mix with the gravy.




(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika queries Rav Ashi from the ruling of Shmuel that we cited earlier, where he forbade the loaf on which one cut meat. According to Rav Ashi, he asks, Shmuel ought to have said there too - that all the blood already drained during the roasting, and what enters the bread is only juice, and not blood.

(b) Rav Ashi replied - that in fact, some blood always remain in the meat, only whereas the fire is not able to extract it, the pressure of the knife is.

(a) Rav Nachman rules - that if birds and fish are salted together in the same K'li, the fish is forbidden.

(b) If the fish was salted together with Basar Beheimah - the Din would be exactly the same (since Basar Beheimah takes even longer to exude its blood).

(c) He cannot be speaking about a K'li that has no holes for the blood to drain - because then even birds that were salted together with birds would be forbidden too as we will learn on the next Daf).

(d) He must therefore be speaking about one which does, yet the fish is forbidden - because in spite of that, due to their soft skin, they quickly finish exuding their blood, and begin to absorb some of the blood of the birds, which have not yet finished exuding theirs.

(a) When Rav Mari bar Rachel was salting meat, he discovered among the batch of salted pieces - some that were Tereifah (or Neveilah).

(b) He was salting them in a vessel - with holes for the blood to drain.

(c)The Beraisa learns from the extra 'Hey' in the Pasuk (in connection with Sheratzim) "Eileh ha'Teme'im" - that the body-juices, the gravy and the sediment and spices of Sheratzim as well as all non-Kasher species, are included in the Isur.

(d) Based on this D'rashah, Rav Mari bar Rachel asked Rava - whether, although, seeing as the vessel contained holes, the Kasher pieces of meat would not have been affected by the blood (as we already learned), maybe they would be rendered Tereifah by the body-juices of the Tereifos.

(a) Rava's replied - that this was indeed the case, because body-juice is absorbed easier than blood.

(b) We cannot learn this from Shmuel's principle 'Meli'ach Harei Hu ke'Rose'ach ... ' - because if not for Rava, we would have confines Shmuel's principle to blood (such as in a vessel that does not contain holes).

Next daf


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