## Chullin Daf 113a

###### Chullin 113a:1
[Chullin 113a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:1)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ, וְכָבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But let** Rava **say to** him the same ruling by instead citing the seemingly more relevant statement **of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A salted** food imparts its flavor **like a boiling** food, **and a marinated** food **is** as absorbent **as a cooked** food. Clearly, the kosher meat absorbed flavor from the meat of the *tereifa* as it would have had they been cooked together.


###### Chullin 113a:2
[Chullin 113a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:2)

אִי מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – דָּמָן, אֲבָל צִירָן וְרוֹטְבָן – לָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Had** Rava based his ruling only **on Shmuel’s** statement, **I would say** in response: **This statement** applies only to the absorption of **the blood of** the meat, **but** kosher meat is **not** prohibited if it absorbs only **the juices and gravy of** the meat of the *tereifa*. Since in this case the meat is salted in a perforated vessel, the blood from each piece runs out and is not absorbed by the other, and one might think that the kosher meat remains permitted. Rava’s interpretation of the verse in Leviticus **teaches us** that the juices and gravy of the meat of the *tereifa* must also be taken into account.


###### Chullin 113a:3
[Chullin 113a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:3)

מֵיתִיבִי: דָּג טָהוֹר שֶׁמְּלָחוֹ עִם דָּג טָמֵא – מוּתָּר. מַאי לָאו שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן מְלוּחִין? לָא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה טָהוֹר מָלִיחַ וְטָמֵא תָּפֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **A kosher fish that one salted** together **with a non-kosher fish is permitted. What, is it not** referring to a case **where they were both salted** and expel juices? This indicates that the kosher fish is not prohibited by the juices of the non-kosher fish, contrary to Rava’s statement. The Gemara responds: **No,** this is referring to a case **where** the **kosher** fish was **salted and** the **non-kosher** fish was **unsalted.** Since an unsalted fish does not emit juices, the kosher fish does not absorb the flavor of the non-kosher fish.


###### Chullin 113a:4
[Chullin 113a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:4)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֲבָל אִם הָיָה טָהוֹר מָלִיחַ וְטָמֵא תָּפֵל, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא בְּשֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מְלוּחִין עָסְקִינַן! פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָא מְפָרֵשׁ: טָהוֹר שֶׁמְּלָחוֹ עִם דָּג טָמֵא – מוּתָּר, כֵּיצַד? שֶׁהָיָה טָהוֹר מָלִיחַ וְטָמֵא תָּפֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But from** the fact **that the latter clause teaches: But if** the **kosher** fish **was salted and** the **non-kosher** fish was **unsalted** the kosher fish remains permitted, **it may be inferred that** in **the first clause we are dealing with** a case **where they are both salted.** The Gemara responds: The latter clause **is explaining** the *halakha* of the first clause. The *baraita* should be read as follows: **A kosher** fish **that one salted** together **with a non-kosher fish is permitted. How so?** This is the *halakha* **if** the **kosher** fish **was salted and** the **non-kosher** fish was **unsalted.**


###### Chullin 113a:5
[Chullin 113a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:5)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ רֵישָׁא שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלוּחִים – הַשְׁתָּא שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלוּחִים שְׁרֵי, טָהוֹר מָלִיחַ וְטָמֵא תָּפֵל מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **So, too, it is reasonable** that this is the meaning of the *baraita*, **as if it enters your mind** that **the first clause** is referring to a case where **both of them are salted,** one can claim: **Now** that the *baraita* has stated that even if **both of them are salted** the kosher fish is **permitted, is** it **necessary** to state that the same applies in the less problematic case where the **kosher** fish was **salted and** the **non-kosher** fish was **unsalted?**


###### Chullin 113a:6
[Chullin 113a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:6)

אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא לָא אִירְיָא, תְּנָא סֵיפָא לְגַלּוֹיֵי רֵישָׁא, דְּלָא תֵּימָא רֵישָׁא טָהוֹר מָלִיחַ וְטָמֵא תָּפֵל, אֲבָל שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלוּחִין אָסוּר, תְּנָא סֵיפָא טָהוֹר מָלִיחַ וְטָמֵא תָּפֵל, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא שְׁנֵיהֶן מְלוּחִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **If it is due to that** reason, **there is no** conclusive **argument.** It is possible that the first clause of the *baraita* is indeed referring to a case where both fish are salted, and the *tanna* of the *baraita* nevertheless **taught the latter clause to shed light on the first clause,** so **that you** should **not say: The first clause** is referring only to a case where the **kosher** fish was **salted and** the **non-kosher** fish was **unsalted, but** if they were **both salted,** then the kosher fish is **prohibited.** To rule this out, he **taught the latter clause,** which explicitly makes reference to a case where the **kosher** fish was **salted and** the **non-kosher** fish **unsalted,** which **by inference** indicates **that the first clause** is referring to a case where they are **both salted, and** teaches that **even so** the kosher fish is **permitted.**


###### Chullin 113a:7
[Chullin 113a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא דְּסֵיפָא: אֲבָל אִם הָיָה טָמֵא מָלִיחַ וְטָהוֹר תָּפֵל – אָסוּר. טָמֵא מָלִיחַ וְטָהוֹר תָּפֵל הוּא דְּאָסוּר, הָא שְׁנֵיהֶן מְלוּחִין – שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof against Rava’s ruling **from the latter clause of the latter clause,** i.e., the third clause of that *baraita*: **But if** the **non-kosher** fish **was salted and** the **kosher** fish was **unsalted,** the kosher fish is **prohibited.** One can infer from here that **it is** only if the **non-kosher** fish is **salted and** the **kosher** fish is **unsalted that** the kosher fish is **prohibited. But** if they were **both salted,** then the kosher fish is **permitted,** contrary to Rava’s ruling.


###### Chullin 113a:8
[Chullin 113a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:8)

אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא: טָהוֹר מָלִיחַ וְטָמֵא תָּפֵל, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא: טָמֵא מָלִיחַ וְטָהוֹר תָּפֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the last section of the *baraita* uses this language only **since** it **teaches** in **the former clause,** i.e., the second clause: If the **kosher** fish was **salted and** the **non-kosher** fish **unsalted,** etc. The *baraita* therefore **taught the last clause as well** using parallel language: If the **non-kosher** fish was **salted and** the **kosher** fish **unsalted,** etc. But nothing can be derived from here with regard to a case where both fish were salted.


###### Chullin 113a:9
[Chullin 113a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:9)

(סִימָן: בִּישְׂרָא דְּמַנַּח נַפְקוּתָא).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for remembering the three *halakhot* stated by Shmuel below: The manner in which blood is expelled from **meat;** salted meat **that is placed** on a vessel; an animal whose neck is broken before its soul **departs.**


###### Chullin 113a:10
[Chullin 113a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:10)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין הַבָּשָׂר יוֹצֵא מִידֵי דָּמוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה. אִתְּמַר: רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מוֹלֵחַ וּמֵדִיחַ. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תְּנָא: מֵדִיחַ וּמוֹלֵחַ וּמֵדִיחַ. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, הָא דְּחַלְלֵיהּ בֵּי טַבָּחָא, הָא דְּלָא חַלְלֵיהּ בֵּי טַבָּחָא. רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא מָלַח לֵיהּ בְּמִילְחָא גְּלָלְנִיתָא, וּמְנַפֵּיץ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel says: Meat cannot be rid of its blood unless one salts it thoroughly and rinses it thoroughly** in water. **It was stated: Rav Huna says:** One must **salt and rinse** the meat in water. And it **was taught in a *baraita*:** One must **rinse** the meat, **and salt** it, **and** then **rinse** it again. The Gemara adds: **And** these two rulings **do not disagree. This** ruling of Rav Huna is referring to a case **where one** already **washed** the meat **in the slaughterhouse** before salting, whereas **that** *baraita* is referring to a case **where one did not wash** the meat **in the slaughterhouse.** The Gemara relates: **Rav Dimi of Neharde’a would salt** meat **with coarse salt and** then **shake** the salt off the meat.


###### Chullin 113a:11
[Chullin 113a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:11)

אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין דָּם בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים. תַּרְגְּמַאּ אַכַּרְכְּשָׁא וּמְעַיָּיא וְהַדְרָא דְּכַנְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya says: One does not presume** that there is **blood in the intestines,** and therefore they are not prohibited if they have not been salted. The Gemara comments: The Sages **interpreted** this statement as referring **to the rectum, the intestines, and the spiral colon.**


###### Chullin 113a:12
[Chullin 113a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:12)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין מַנִּיחִין בָּשָׂר מָלִיחַ אֶלָּא עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי מְנוּקָּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel says: One may place salted meat only on a perforated vessel,** so that the expelled blood can run out. But if the vessel is not perforated then the blood will pool and be reabsorbed by the meat.


###### Chullin 113a:13
[Chullin 113a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:13)

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מָלַח לֵיהּ גַּרְמָא גַּרְמָא. תְּרֵי מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּפָרֵישׁ מֵהַאי וּבָלַע הַאי? חַד נָמֵי פָּרֵישׁ מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּבָלַע הַאי גִּיסָא! אֶלָּא לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Sheshet would salt** meat **one bone,** i.e., one piece, **at a time.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that he would **not** salt **two** together? Could it be **because** the blood **leaves this** piece **and that** piece **absorbs** it? If so, with regard to **one** piece **as well,** one could claim that the blood **leaves this side** of the piece **and that side absorbs** it. **Rather,** there **is no difference** between one piece and two pieces, and one may salt even several pieces together.


###### Chullin 113a:14
[Chullin 113a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:14)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הַשּׁוֹבֵר מַפְרַקְתָּהּ שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה מַכְבִּיד אֶת הַבָּשָׂר, וְגוֹזֵל אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וּמַבְלִיעַ דָּם בָּאֵבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: One who breaks the neck of an animal** after it is slaughtered but **before its soul departs thereby makes the meat heavy.** The meat expels blood at the time of slaughter, but if one breaks the animal’s neck, excess blood is trapped inside and weighs down the meat. **And** by this action **he robs people,** as **he causes blood to be absorbed in the** animal’s **limbs,** and since he sells the meat by weight, people will pay extra to acquire the same amount of edible meat.


###### Chullin 113a:15
[Chullin 113a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:15)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? מַכְבִּיד אֶת הַבָּשָׂר, וְגוֹזֵל אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת מִשּׁוּם דְּמַבְלִיעַ דָּם בָּאֵבָרִים – הָא לְדִידֵיהּ שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא לְדִידֵיהּ נָמֵי אֲסִיר? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **what** case **is he speaking?** Does Shmuel mean that there is only one problem with this practice, namely, that it **renders the meat heavy and robs people since he causes blood to be absorbed in the** animal’s **limbs?** If so, it may be inferred that if one wishes to keep the meat **for himself,** one may **well** do so, since he is robbing no one. **Or perhaps** Shmuel is referring to two prohibitions, first, that the blood trapped in the meat renders it prohibited for consumption, and second, that of robbery. If so, then even if one wants to keep the meat **for himself,** it is **also prohibited.** The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 113a:16
[Chullin 113a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶת הָעוֹף עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who places** the meat of **birds with cheese on the table** upon which he eats **does not** thereby **violate** a Torah **prohibition.**


###### Chullin 113a:17
[Chullin 113a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:17)

**גְּמָ׳** הָא אוֹכְלוֹ – עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בְּשַׂר עוֹף בְּחָלָב דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! אֵימָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶת הָעוֹף עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן – אֵינוֹ בָּא לִידֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara suggests: Since the mishna mentions only that placing meat of birds and milk on one table does not violate a Torah prohibition, one may **consequently** infer that if one **eats** them together he does **violate** a Torah **prohibition.** If so, **learn from** the mishna that **meat of birds in milk** is prohibited **by Torah law,** contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that it applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara responds: **Say** that the mishna should be understood as follows: **One who places bird meat with cheese on the table will not** thereby **come to** violate a Torah **prohibition,** since eating the two together is a rabbinic prohibition, as Rabbi Akiva maintains.


###### Chullin 113a:18
[Chullin 113a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה – אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה – מוּתָּר לְבַשֵּׁל וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חַיָּה וָעוֹף אֵינָם מִן הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים – פְּרָט לְחַיָּה, וּלְעוֹף, וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** It is **prohibited to cook the meat of a kosher animal in the milk of** any **kosher animal,** not merely the milk of its mother, **and** deriving **benefit** from that mixture is **prohibited.** It is **permitted to cook the meat of a kosher animal in the milk of a non-kosher animal,** or **the meat of a non-kosher animal in the milk of a kosher animal, and** deriving **benefit** from that mixture is **permitted. Rabbi Akiva says:** Cooking the meat of **an undomesticated animal or bird** in milk is **not** prohibited **by Torah law, as it is stated: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk”** (Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21) **three times.** The repetition of the word “kid” three times **excludes an undomesticated animal, a bird, and a non-kosher animal.**


###### Chullin 113a:19
[Chullin 113a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:19)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇל נְבֵלָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״, אֶת שֶׁאָסוּר מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב. עוֹף שֶׁאָסוּר מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה, יָכוֹל יְהֵא אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ – יָצָא עוֹף שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֲלֵב אֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says** that **it is stated: “You shall not eat of any animal carcass”** (Deuteronomy 14:21), **and** in the same verse **it is stated: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”** This indicates that meat of an animal **that** is subject to be **prohibited due to** the prohibition of eating **an unslaughtered carcass** is **prohibited** for one **to cook in milk.** Consequently, with regard to meat of **birds, which** is subject to be **prohibited due to** the prohibition of eating **an unslaughtered carcass,** one **might** have thought that it **would be prohibited to cook** it **in milk.** Therefore, **the verse states: “In its mother’s milk,” excluding a bird, which has no mother’s milk.**


###### Chullin 113a:20
[Chullin 113a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113a:20)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָמַר קְרָא ״וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוּדָה אֶת גְּדִי הָעִזִּים״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states: “And Judah sent the kid of the goats”** (Genesis 38:20).