## Chullin Daf 109a

###### Chullin 109a:1
[Chullin 109a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/109a:1)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: כִּי נִיעֵר מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף וְכִסָּה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – אָסוּר, אַמַּאי? הָא לָא בָּלַע כְּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: From Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s acceptance of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion only when one did not stir or cover the pot, one can conclude **by inference that Rabbi Yehuda** himself **maintains** that even **when one stirred** the contents of the pot continuously **from beginning to end,** i.e., before and after the drop of milk was absorbed, **or covered** the pot continuously **from beginning to end,** all the contents of the pot are **prohibited.** But **why** should this be so? The first piece of meat **did not absorb any** more milk than the others. Since the milk definitely diffused evenly through the pot immediately, it should be nullified, assuming that the pot’s contents amount to more than sixty times the milk.


###### Chullin 109a:2
[Chullin 109a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/109a:2)

אֵימָא: לֹא נִיעֵר יָפֶה יָפֶה, וְלֹא כִּסָּה יָפֶה יָפֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Say** that Rabbi Yehuda is stringent because one might **not** have **stirred thoroughly, or** he might **not** have **covered** the pot **thoroughly,** and therefore initially the milk might have been absorbed only by the first piece, rendering it prohibited. Afterward, when he does stir thoroughly, that piece of meat renders the other pieces prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not share this concern.


###### Chullin 109a:3
[Chullin 109a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/109a:3)

אָמַר מָר, וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כְּשֶׁנִּיעֵר וְכִסָּה. מַאי ״נִיעֵר״ וּמַאי ״כִּסָּה״? אִילֵּימָא נִיעֵר בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא נִיעֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה, וְכִסָּה בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא כִּסָּה בַּתְּחִלָּה – הָאָמְרַתְּ נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהָא! אֶלָּא נִיעֵר מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְכִסָּה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: **The Master said** above: **And the statement of the Rabbis** appears correct in a case **where one stirred** the pot **and covered** it. The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the term: **Stirred, and what** is the meaning of the term: **Covered? If we say** that he **stirred at the end,** after the first piece absorbed the milk, **and did not stir at the beginning,** beforehand, **and** likewise he **covered at the end and did not cover at the beginning,** one may respond: **Didn’t you** already **say** on the previous *amud* that **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears** to be correct **in this** case? **Rather,** it must be a case where he **stirred** continuously **from beginning to end or covered** the pot continuously **from beginning to end.**


###### Chullin 109a:4
[Chullin 109a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/109a:4)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: נִיעֵר בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא נִיעֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה, כִּסָּה בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא כִּסָּה בַּתְּחִלָּה – מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, one can conclude **by inference** from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s qualified acceptance of the Rabbis’ opinion **that the Rabbis** themselves **maintain** that even when one **stirred** only **at the end and did not stir at the beginning,** and similarly if he **covered** the pot only **at the end and did not cover at the beginning,** all the contents of the pot are **permitted.** Even the first piece is permitted, as they hold that the milk it absorbed diffused out of it and throughout the pot.


###### Chullin 109a:5
[Chullin 109a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/109a:5)

אַלְמָא קָסָבְרִי אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Evidently,** the Rabbis **maintain** that an item **that can be wrung** to remove the forbidden substance is **permitted.** This illustrates that *tanna’im* dispute this issue, as according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is prohibited.


###### Chullin 109a:6
[Chullin 109a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/109a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: מִמַּאי דִּבְאֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ פְּלִיגִי? דִּלְמָא אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל, וְרַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּאָמְרִי: מִין בְּמִינוֹ בָּטֵיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: From where** is it derived **that** Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis **disagree with regard to** an item **that can be wrung? Perhaps** even if an item **can be wrung, everyone agrees** that it remains **prohibited, and here they disagree with regard to** whether **a type** of food mixed **with** food of **its** own **type** can be nullified. **And Rabbi Yehuda** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as he said** that **a type** of food mixed **with** food of **its** own **type cannot be nullified. And** likewise, **the Rabbis** conform **to their** standard line of **reasoning, as they said** that **a type** of food mixed **with** food of **its** own **type can be nullified.** This is why they maintain that all the meat in the pot is permitted.


###### Chullin 109a:7
[Chullin 109a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/109a:7)

הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבָּנַן בְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ הָכָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לְהוּ, וּבְאֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ פְּלִיגִי – הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהָא, וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים בְּהָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina responded: **What is this** reasoning? **Granted, if you say that the Rabbis here hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda with regard to** the issue of **a type** of food mixed **with** food of **its** own **type, and they disagree with regard to** an item **that can be wrung, that is** why **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears** to be correct **in this** case, when one did not initially stir or cover the pot, **and the statement of the Rabbis** appears to be correct **in that** case, when one did initially stir or cover it, since the issue of when one stirred or covered the pot is relevant to the dispute, as explained above.


###### Chullin 109a:8
[Chullin 109a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/109a:8)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: אֶפְשָׁר לְסוֹחֳטוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי – הַאי נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְאֵין נִרְאִין מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, וְתוּ לָא מִידִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say: Everyone agrees** that an item **that can be wrung is prohibited, and here they disagree** only **with regard to a type** of food mixed **with** food of **its** own **type,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should not phrase his statement as a qualified acceptance of both opinions, which seems arbitrary. Rather, **he should have** said **this:** I accept that a type of food is not nullified by a food of its own type. Therefore, **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears** correct where one did not stir initially, as the flavor of the prohibited first piece cannot be nullified; **but** it **does not appear** correct where one stirred immediately, since in that case, even the first piece is not prohibited, and I do not share Rabbi Yehuda’s concern that perhaps one did not stir thoroughly. **And nothing more** need be said.


###### Chullin 109a:9
[Chullin 109a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/109a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַכְּחָל – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ. לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הַלֵּב – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** One who wants to eat **the udder** of a slaughtered animal **tears it and removes its milk,** and only then is it permitted to cook it. If **he did not tear** the udder before cooking it, **he does not violate** the prohibition against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive lashes **for it,** as the halakhic status of the milk in the udder is not that of milk. One who wants to eat **the heart** of a slaughtered animal **tears it and removes its blood,** and only then may he cook and eat it. If **he did not tear** the heart before cooking and eating it, **he does not violate** the prohibition against consuming blood and is not liable to receive *karet* **for it.**