## Chullin Daf 108a

###### Chullin 108a:1
[Chullin 108a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:1)

כׇּל הַסְּרִיקִין אֲסוּרִין וּסְרִיקֵי בַיְיתּוֹס מוּתָּרִין? הָתָם, הָא אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֵיזוֹרוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**All the Syrian cakes are prohibited, but the Syrian cakes of Baitos are permitted?** The Gemara responds: With regard to the case **there, Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: His belt is proof for him,** as in those days people commonly had one belt, which was worn over the shirt. If a person had more than one shirt, then whenever he laundered one he would remove the belt and wear it over the second. If one saw a shirt being washed with its belt, he would know that the owner had only one shirt.


###### Chullin 108a:2
[Chullin 108a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** טִיפַּת חָלָב שֶׁנָּפְלָה עַל הַחֲתִיכָה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם בְּאוֹתָהּ חֲתִיכָה – אָסוּר. נִיעֵר אֶת הַקְּדֵרָה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם בְּאוֹתָהּ קְדֵרָה – אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **a drop of milk that fell on a piece** of meat, **if** the drop **contains** enough milk **to impart flavor to that piece** of meat, i.e., the meat is less than sixty times the size of the drop, the meat is **forbidden.** If **one stirred** the contents of **the pot** and the piece was submerged in the gravy before it absorbed the milk, **if** the drop **contains** enough milk **to impart flavor to** the contents of **that** entire **pot,** the contents of the entire pot are **forbidden.**


###### Chullin 108a:3
[Chullin 108a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: טַעְמוֹ וְלֹא מַמָּשׁוֹ בְּעָלְמָא – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Abaye said:** The principle that **the flavor** of a forbidden food renders prohibited the substance in which it is absorbed, **and** it is **not** necessary for there to be **actual** forbidden substance, applies **by Torah law in general,** and not just to the prohibition of meat cooked in milk.


###### Chullin 108a:4
[Chullin 108a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:4)

דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן, מִבָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב מַאי טַעְמָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן? דְּחִדּוּשׁ הוּא. אִי חִדּוּשׁ הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא נוֹתֵן טַעַם נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As, if it enters your mind** that the principle applies to other prohibited foods **by rabbinic law,** one can claim: **What is the reason** that **we do not learn** that it applies by Torah law **from** the analogous case of **meat** cooked **in milk?** It must be **because** the prohibition of meat cooked in milk **is a novelty** that is not derived through logical reasoning, as each substance is separately permitted, and they are prohibited only when cooked together. No analogies can be drawn to a novelty. But **if** the prohibition **is a novelty,** then **even if there is not** enough milk to **impart flavor,** the meat and milk should **also** be prohibited. Since the measure of the prohibition follows the standard principles of mixtures, the prohibition itself is apparently not a novelty. One may therefore draw an analogy to other mixtures, inferring that this measure applies to them by Torah law as well.


###### Chullin 108a:5
[Chullin 108a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: דֶּרֶךְ בִּשּׁוּל אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Abaye: This is not a valid proof. The prohibition of meat cooked in milk is in fact a novelty and differs from other prohibited mixtures. Nevertheless, its measure is the imparting of flavor only because the action **the Torah prohibited** is in **the manner of cooking,** and cooking involves the imparting of flavor.


###### Chullin 108a:6
[Chullin 108a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:6)

אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן טַעַם בַּחֲתִיכָה, חֲתִיכָה עַצְמָהּ נַעֲשֵׂית נְבֵלָה, וְאוֹסֶרֶת כׇּל הַחֲתִיכוֹת כּוּלָּן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִינָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if the piece of meat acquires the flavor of milk, it is forbidden. **Rav says: Once** the milk **imparts flavor to the piece** of meat, the **piece itself becomes non-kosher** meat in its own right. **And** therefore, if one did not immediately remove the piece from the pot, **it renders all the pieces** of meat in the pot **forbidden,** even if they are together more than sixty times the size of that forbidden piece. This is **because they are** the same **type** as the forbidden piece, and as a rule, a substance in contact with the same type of substance cannot be nullified.


###### Chullin 108a:7
[Chullin 108a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי לְרָבִינָא: מִכְּדֵי רַב כְּמַאן אָמַר לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל, לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרָבָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: Now** consider, **in accordance with whose** opinion did **Rav say his *halakha*?** It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that **a type** of food mixed with food **of** its **own type is not nullified.** If so, **shall we say** that Rav **disagrees with Rava’s** interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion?


###### Chullin 108a:8
[Chullin 108a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:8)

דְּאָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מִין וּמִינוֹ וְדָבָר אַחֵר – סַלֵּק אֶת מִינוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ רָבֶה עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds** with regard to **any** tripartite mixture **consisting of** a forbidden **type** of food, a permitted food of **the same type, and another** food **item** that is permitted, one **disregards** the permitted food that is its **own type as though it were not there, and** if the permitted food **that is not** of **its own type is more than** the forbidden food, the permitted food **nullifies** the forbidden food. In the case Rav describes, although the other pieces of meat are of the same type as the piece that has become forbidden, the gravy in the pot is not of the same type, and it should nullify the forbidden piece. Since Rav does not mention this principle, he apparently disagrees with it.


###### Chullin 108a:9
[Chullin 108a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי דִּנְפַל בְּרוֹטֶב רַכָּה – הָכִי נָמֵי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דִּנְפַל בְּרוֹטֶב עָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina **said to him: If** the forbidden substance **fell into thin gravy,** Rav would concede that the gravy would **indeed** nullify the piece of meat, since the two substances are of different types. **But here we are dealing with** a case **where it fell into thick gravy,** which is composed of meat residue. Since the gravy is of the same substance as the meat, the forbidden piece is not nullified.


###### Chullin 108a:10
[Chullin 108a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:10)

וּמַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ מוּתָּר, חֲתִיכָה אַמַּאי נַעֲשֵׂית נְבֵלָה? אֶלָּא קָסָבַר אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to Rav’s statement that the piece of meat upon which the milk fell is considered a non-kosher item in its own right. **And what does** Rav **maintain** in this regard? **If he maintains** that an item **that can be wrung** to remove the forbidden substance it contains becomes **permitted** again after wringing, then it follows that only the absorbed substance is truly forbidden. If so, **why** should this **piece** of meat itself **become non-kosher?** Once it has been mixed into the stew, the milk it has absorbed should be evenly distributed throughout the pot and be nullified. **Rather,** Rav must **maintain** that even an item **that can be wrung** to remove the forbidden substance is **forbidden.**


###### Chullin 108a:11
[Chullin 108a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:11)

דְּאִיתְּמַר: רַב וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמְרִי: אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ – אָסוּר, שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי: אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ – מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **As it was stated: Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that even an item **that can be wrung** to remove the forbidden substance is **forbidden,** whereas **Shmuel, and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and Reish Lakish say:** An item **that can be wrung** to remove the forbidden substance is **permitted.**


###### Chullin 108a:12
[Chullin 108a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/108a:12)

וְסָבַר רַב אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ אָסוּר? וְהָאִיתְּמַר: כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ יוֹרָה שֶׁל חָלָב, אָמַר רַב: בָּשָׂר אָסוּר וְחָלָב מוּתָּר, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ אָסוּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rav** really **maintain** that an item **that can be wrung** to remove the forbidden substance is **forbidden? But wasn’t it stated:** If **an olive-bulk of meat fell into a pot of milk** so large that the meat did not impart flavor to it, **Rav says:** The **meat is forbidden,** as it absorbed the taste of the milk, **but** the **milk is permitted,** since it did not absorb the taste of the meat. **But if it enters your mind** that according to Rav an item **that can be wrung is forbidden,**