Chullin 103a

מכללו אבל אבר דלא הותר מכללו לא to its general prohibition, as the fat of an undomesticated animal is permitted. But with regard to a limb from a living animal, where there are no permitted circumstances to its general prohibition, the prohibition of consuming a tereifa does not take effect.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר בעא מיניה רבי שמעון בן לקיש מרבי יוחנן חלקו מבחוץ מהו אמר ליה פטור § The Gemara continues its discussion of the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish inquired of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one took from a living animal a limb that was an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it was outside his mouth and ate each piece separately, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: He is exempt.

מבפנים מאי אמר ליה חייב Reish Lakish then asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: If he placed an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal inside his mouth and then divided it and swallowed the two parts separately, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: He is liable to receive lashes.

כי אתא רבין אמר חלקו מבחוץ פטור מבפנים רבי יוחנן אמר חייב וריש לקיש אמר פטור When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said an alternative version of this discussion. If one took from a living animal a limb that was an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it was outside his mouth, and he then ate each piece separately, he is exempt. If he divided the limb into two parts inside his mouth, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he is liable, and Reish Lakish says that he is exempt.

רבי יוחנן אמר חייב הרי נהנה גרונו בכזית וריש לקיש אמר פטור אכילה במעיו בעינן וליכא Rabbi Yoḥanan says he is liable because his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal. And Reish Lakish says that he is exempt because in order to be liable we require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e., an olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach, and in this case there is not a full olive-bulk that enters his stomach at one time.

אלא לרבי שמעון בן לקיש היכי משכחת לה דמחייב אמר רב כהנא בגרומיתא זעירתא The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan it is clear how one can be liable for eating an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal. But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, how can you find a case where one will be liable for eating a limb from a living animal, since the food is generally broken up before he swallows it? Rav Kahana said: One would be liable in a case where he eats a small bone that contains an olive-bulk of meat, bone and sinew all together, and that he can swallow whole.

ורבי אלעזר אמר אפילו חלקו מבחוץ נמי חייב מחוסר קריבה לאו כמחוסר מעשה דמי As quoted above, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish agree that if one divides a limb from a living animal before placing it in his mouth, he is not liable for eating it. The Gemara adds: But Rabbi Elazar says: Even if one divided the limb outside his mouth he is liable. This is because the fact that the two pieces are lacking in proximity to each other as they are placed in one’s mouth is not comparable to lacking an action, i.e., it is not comparable to a case where he ate only half an olive-bulk. Since he ate an entire olive-bulk, he is liable.

אמר ר"ש בן לקיש כזית שאמרו חוץ משל בין השינים ורבי יוחנן אמר אף עם בין השינים § The Gemara cites another dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish pertaining to the measure of an olive-bulk with regard to prohibitions involving eating. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The olive-bulk of which the Sages spoke with regard to prohibitions involving eating is measured by the food one actually swallows, aside from the food that remains stuck between the teeth. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it includes even the food that remains stuck between the teeth.

אמר רב פפא בשל בין שינים דכולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בין החניכיים מר סבר הרי נהנה גרונו בכזית ומר סבר אכילה במעיו בעינן In explanation of this dispute, Rav Pappa says: With regard to food that remains stuck between the teeth, everyone agrees that it is not included in measuring an olive-bulk that would render one liable to receive lashes. When they disagree it is with regard to food that remains on the palate, which one tastes but does not swallow. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that since his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk, i.e., he tastes the full olive-bulk, he is liable. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that in order to be liable, we require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e., an olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach.

אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן אכל חצי זית והקיאו וחזר ואכל חצי זית אחר חייב מ"ט הרי נהנה גרונו בכזית § The Gemara quotes another related ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ate half an olive-bulk of a forbidden food and vomited it, and then ate another half an olive-bulk, he is liable. What is the reason? It is because his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk of the forbidden food, even though the full olive-bulk did not actually enter his stomach.

בעא רבי אלעזר מר' אסי אכל חצי זית והקיאו וחזר ואכלו מהו מאי קא מיבעיא ליה אי הוי עיכול אי לא הוי עיכול ותיבעי ליה כזית Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If one ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden food and vomited it, and then ate it again, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: What is the dilemma he is raising? If it is about whether the half-olive-bulk that he ate and vomited up is considered to have been digested, in which case it is no longer considered food, or whether it is not considered to have been digested, let him raise the dilemma with regard to an entire olive-bulk. If one eats an entire olive-bulk and vomits it and then eats it again, if the food is considered not to have been digested the first time, he is liable to be flogged twice.

אלא אי בתר גרונו אזלינן אי בתר מעיו אזלינן ותפשוט ליה מדרבי אסי Rather, his dilemma must be about whether we follow the throat or whether we follow the stomach in measuring how much forbidden food one has swallowed. That being the case, let him resolve the dilemma from that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, which indicates that we follow the throat.

רבי אסי גמריה איעקר ליה ואתא ר' אלעזר לאדכוריה והכי קאמר ליה למה לי חצי זית אחר לימא מר בדידיה דאיכא למשמע מינה תרתי שמעינן מינה דלא הוי עיכול ושמעינן מינה דהרי נהנה גרונו בכזית The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar knew the answer to his question, but Rabbi Asi forgot the statement that he had learned from Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rabbi Elazar came to remind him of what he had known previously. And this is what Rabbi Elazar was saying to him: Why do I need the case where he swallows another half an olive-bulk? Let the Master teach this ruling in a case where he swallows the same half-olive-bulk he had swallowed previously and vomited, as two principles can be derived from the ruling in that case: We can learn from it that the food was not considered to have been digested the first time he swallowed it, and we can learn from it that since his throat derives pleasure from a full olive-bulk, he is liable.

אישתיק ולא א"ל ולא מידי א"ל מופת הדור לא זימנין סגיאין אמרת קמיה דרבי יוחנן ואמר לך הרי נהנה גרונו בכזית: Rabbi Asi was silent and did not say anything. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Wonder of the generation, did you not say this case many times before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he said to you: This person is liable because his throat derives pleasure from a full olive-bulk?

מתני׳ כל הבשר אסור לבשל בחלב חוץ מבשר דגים וחגבים ואסור להעלות עם הגבינה על השלחן חוץ מבשר דגים וחגבים MISHNA: It is prohibited to cook any meat of domesticated and undomesticated animals and birds in milk, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, whose halakhic status is not that of meat. And likewise, the Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to place any meat together with milk products, e.g., cheese, on one table. The reason for this prohibition is that one might come to eat them after they absorb substances from each other. This prohibition applies to all types of meat, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers.

הנודר מן הבשר מותר בבשר דגים וחגבים: And one who takes a vow that meat is prohibited to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers.

גמ׳ הא עוף אסור מדאורייתא כמאן דלא כרבי עקיבא דאי רבי עקיבא האמר חיה ועוף אינו מן התורה GEMARA: Since the mishna does not distinguish between the meat of animals and that of birds, it may consequently be inferred that the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law, just like the meat of animals. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t he say that the prohibition of the meat of undomesticated animals and birds cooked in milk is not by Torah law?

אימא סיפא הנודר מן הבשר מותר בבשר דגים וחגבים הא עוף אסור אתאן לרבי עקיבא דאמר כל מילי דמימליך עליה שליח בר מיניה הוא The Gemara continues: But say the latter clause of the mishna: One who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers. It may consequently be inferred that it is prohibited for him to eat birds. If so, here we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Anything about which an agent sent to purchase a given item would inquire, being unsure whether it qualifies as that type of item, is considered its type.

דתניא הנודר מן הירק מותר בדלועין ור"ע אוסר אמרו לו לר"ע והלא אומר אדם לשלוחו קח לנו ירק והוא אומר לא מצאתי אלא דלועין As it is taught in a mishna (Nedarim 54a): One who takes a vow that vegetables are forbidden to him is permitted to eat gourds, as people do not typically consider gourds a type of vegetable, but Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: But it is a common occurrence that a person says to his agent: Purchase vegetables for us, and the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns and says: I found only gourds. This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.

אמר להן כן הדבר כלום אומר לא מצאתי אלא קטנית אלא שדלועין בכלל ירק ואין קטנית בכלל ירק רישא רבנן וסיפא ר"ע Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves that my opinion is correct. Does the agent return and say: I found only legumes? Rather, it is evident that gourds are included in the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent explains that he found only gourds, and asks whether he should purchase them. But legumes are not included in the category of vegetables, and that is why an agent would not even ask about them. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva should also hold that one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating birds. And if so, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

אמר רב יוסף רבי היא ונסיב לה אליבא דתנאי בנדרים סבר לה כר"ע בבשר בחלב סבר לה כרבנן Rav Yosef said: That is not difficult. The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna according to the opinions of different tanna’im. In the latter clause, with regard to vows, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas in the first clause, with regard to meat cooked in milk, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

רב אשי אמר כולה ר"ע היא והכי קאמר כל הבשר אסור לבשל בחלב מהן מדברי תורה ומהן מדברי סופרים חוץ מבשר דגים וחגבים שאינם לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים: Rav Ashi said a different explanation: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as indicated by the latter clause, concerning vows. And as for the first part of the mishna, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to cook any meat cooked in milk, some types of meat by Torah law, i.e., that of domesticated animals, and some types of meat by rabbinic law, i.e., that of undomesticated animals and birds. This prohibition applies to all types of meat except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, which are not prohibited, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law.

ואסור להעלות [וכו']: אמר רב יוסף שמע מינה בשר עוף בחלב דאורייתא דאי סלקא דעתך דרבנן אכילה גופה גזירה ואנן נגזר העלאה אטו אכילה § The mishna teaches further: And it is prohibited to place any meat with cheese on one table. Rav Yosef said: Conclude from this clause that eating the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind that the prohibition against eating it applies merely by rabbinic law, this would be because the consumption of the meat of birds cooked in milk is itself a rabbinic decree, lest one come to eat the meat of an animal in milk. And would we decree against placing birds together with cheese on one table due to the possibility of consumption, which is itself a decree? The Sages do not enact one decree to prevent the violation of another decree.

ומנא תימרא דלא גזרינן גזירה לגזירה דתנן חלת חוצה לארץ The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not issue one rabbinic decree to prevent violation of another rabbinic decree? The source is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 4:8): Ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, which must be eaten by a priest,

נאכלת עם הזר על השלחן וניתנת לכל כהן שירצה may be eaten with a non-priest present at the same table. The Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting this lest the non-priest partake of the ḥalla, as the separation of ḥalla outside of Eretz Yisrael is itself a rabbinic decree. This proves that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree. And similarly, ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael may be given to any priest that one wishes, even an uneducated priest who would not guard its state of ritual purity. This is in contrast to ḥalla from Eretz Yisrael, which may be given only to priests who observe the halakhot of ritual purity.

אמר ליה אביי בשלמא אי אשמועינן חלת חוצה לארץ בארץ דאיכא למיגזר משום חלת הארץ דאורייתא ולא גזרינן איכא למשמע מינה Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, your inference would be valid if the mishna in tractate Ḥalla had taught us this with regard to ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that had been brought into Eretz Yisrael. As in that case, there could be reason to decree against eating it while a non-priest is at the same table, despite the fact that the non-priest eating it is prohibited only by rabbinic law, due to the concern that one might come to eat ḥalla from Eretz Yisrael, which is prohibited to the non-priest by Torah law, at the same table as a non-priest; and yet we do not decree against this practice. If so, there would be grounds to learn from this mishna that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree.

אלא חו"ל משום דליכא למיגזר הוא אבל הכא אי שרית ליה לאסוקי עוף וגבינה אתי לאסוקי בשר וגבינה ומיכל בשר בחלב דאורייתא But the mishna actually teaches this halakha with regard to ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that remains there. It therefore proves nothing about compound decrees, as it can be claimed that the practice is permitted only because there is no reason to decree. Since by Torah law the obligation of ḥalla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, there is no chance that such behavior will lead to transgression of Torah law. But here, if you permit one to place the meat of birds and cheese on the same table, some might come to place the meat of domesticated animals and cheese on a single table and to eat this meat cooked in milk, thereby transgressing a prohibition by Torah law.

מתקיף לה רב ששת סוף סוף צונן בצונן הוא אמר אביי גזירה שמא יעלה באילפס רותח Rav Sheshet objects to the premise of Rav Yosef’s inference: Even if one were to posit that the meat of birds in milk is prohibited by Torah law, ultimately this is still a decree issued due to another decree, as it is a case of cold food in another cold food, consumption of which is itself prohibited by rabbinic law. Abaye said: It is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a boiling stewpot, which is a manner of cooking and therefore prohibited by Torah law.

סוף סוף כלי שני הוא וכלי שני אינו מבשל אלא גזירה שמא יעלה באילפס ראשון: The Gemara counters: Ultimately, even a stewpot is only a secondary vessel, i.e., not the vessel that was on the fire, and as a rule, a secondary vessel does not cook. Rather, one must say that it is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a stewpot that is a primary vessel, i.e., that was on the fire. This is certainly cooking meat in milk, and it is prohibited by Torah law.

מתני׳ העוף עולה עם הגבינה על השולחן ואינו נאכל דברי ב"ש וב"ה אומרים לא עולה ולא נאכל א"ר יוסי זו מקולי ב"ש ומחומרי ב"ה MISHNA: The meat of birds may be placed with cheese on one table but may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Rabbi Yosei said: This is one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.

באיזה שולחן אמרו בשולחן שאוכל עליו אבל בשולחן שסודר עליו את התבשיל נותן זה בצד זה ואינו חושש: The mishna elaborates: With regard to which table are these halakhot stated? It is with regard to a table upon which one eats. But on a table upon which one prepares the cooked food, one may place this meat alongside that cheese or vice versa, and need not be concerned that perhaps they will be mixed and one will come to eat them together.

גמ׳ רבי יוסי היינו ת"ק וכ"ת אכילה גופה איכא בינייהו דקאמר ת"ק בהעלאה קא מיפלגי באכילה לא פליגי ואמר ליה רבי יוסי אכילה גופה מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי ב"ה GEMARA: The Gemara challenges: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to that of the first tanna. And if you would say that there is a difference between them with regard to the permissibility of eating itself, as the first tanna says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to placing meat of birds with cheese on one table, which indicates that with regard to eating they do not disagree, and Rabbi Yosei said in response to this that they also disagree with regard to the permissibility of eating meat of birds in milk, and this is itself one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, one can refute this claim.

והתניא רבי יוסי אומר ששה דברים מקולי ב"ש ומחומרי ב"ה וזו אחת מהן עוף עולה עם הגבינה על השולחן ואינו נאכל דברי ב"ש ובה"א לא עולה ולא נאכל The refutation is as follows: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says that six matters are included as the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and this is one of them: The meat of birds is placed with cheese on one table, but it may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei agrees that even according to Beit Shammai the meat of birds may not be eaten with cheese.

אלא הא קמשמע לן מאן תנא קמא רבי יוסי כל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם שנאמר (אסתר ב, כב) ותאמר אסתר למלך בשם מרדכי Rather, this is what the mishna teaches us: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei. The identification is important, since whoever reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated with respect to the incident of Bigthan and Teresh: “And Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordecai” (Esther 2:22), and Mordecai was later rewarded for saving the king’s life, paving the way for the miraculous salvation.

תנא אגרא חמוה דרבי אבא עוף וגבינה נאכלין באפיקורן הוא תני לה והוא אמר לה בלא נטילת ידים ובלא קינוח הפה § The Gemara continues discussing the consumption of poultry cooked in milk. The Sage Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely [apikoren], i.e., there is no need to be strict in this matter. The Gemara notes: He, Agra, teaches it and he says it, i.e., explains his statement: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten without washing one’s hands and without wiping the mouth between the consumption of each.

רב יצחק בריה דרב משרשיא איקלע לבי רב אשי אייתו ליה גבינה אכל אייתו ליה בשרא אכל ולא משא ידיה אמרי ליה והא תאני אגרא חמוה דרבי אבא עוף וגבינה נאכלין באפיקורן עוף וגבינה אין בשר וגבינה לא The Gemara relates: Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. They brought him cheese, and he ate it. Next they brought him meat, and he ate it without first washing his hands. The members of Rav Ashi’s household said to him: But didn’t Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, teach only that the meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely? One can infer that with regard to the meat of birds and cheese, yes, one may eat them without washing one’s hands in between, but with regard to the meat of domesticated animals and cheese, no, one may not.

אמר להו הני מילי בליליא אבל ביממא הא חזינא Rav Yitzḥak said to them: This statement of Agra applies only if one eats them at night, as one cannot see whether some of the food of the previous dish still remains on his hands, and he must therefore wash them. But if one eats by day, I can see that no food remains on his hands, and consequently there is no need to wash them.

תניא בית שמאי אומרים מקנח ובית הלל אומרים מדיח מאי מקנח ומאי מדיח It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: Between the consumption of meat and milk one must wipe out his mouth, and Beit Hillel say that he must rinse his mouth. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word: Wipe [mekane’aḥ], and what is the meaning of the word: Rinse [mediaḥ]?

אילימא בית שמאי אומרים מקנח ולא בעי מדיח ובית הלל אומרים מדיח ולא בעי מקנח אלא הא דאמר רבי זירא אין קינוח פה אלא בפת כמאן כב"ש If we say that Beit Shammai say that one wipes out his mouth with solid food and does not need to rinse his mouth with water, since they maintain that wiping is more effective than rinsing, and Beit Hillel say that he rinses his mouth in water and does not need to wipe his mouth, as rinsing is more effective, one can respond: But as for that which Rabbi Zeira said: Wiping of the mouth can be performed only with bread, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, since Beit Hillel do not require wiping. Yet, it is unlikely that Rabbi Zeira would rule in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai rather than Beit Hillel.

אלא בית שמאי אומרים מקנח ולא בעי מדיח ובית הלל אומרים אף מדיח הוי ליה מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל ולתנייה גבי קולי בית שמאי וחומרי בית הלל Rather, one must explain the dispute as follows: Beit Shammai say that one wipes his mouth after eating meat and does not need to rinse his mouth as well, and Beit Hillel say that in addition to wiping one must also rinse. This interpretation is difficult as well, since if so, this constitutes one of the disputes between them that involve leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and consequently, let the tanna of tractate Eduyyot teach it alongside the other disputes listed there that involve leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.

אלא בית שמאי אומרים מקנח והוא הדין למדיח וב"ה אומרים מדיח והוא הדין למקנח מר אמר חדא ומר אמר חדא ולא פליגי Rather, one must interpret their statements as follows: Beit Shammai say that one wipes his mouth after eating meat, and the same is true of rinsing, i.e., one must rinse his mouth as well. And Beit Hillel say that one rinses his mouth, and the same is true of wiping. And one Sage said one statement and one Sage said another statement, and they do not disagree.

גופא אמר רבי זירא אין קינוח הפה אלא בפת והני מילי בדחיטי אבל בדשערי לא § After citing Rabbi Zeira’s statement tangentially, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Zeira says: Wiping of the mouth can be performed only with bread. The Gemara explains: And this statement applies only to bread prepared from wheat flour. But with regard to bread prepared from barley flour, one may not use it for wiping, as barley bread crumbles in the mouth and does not wipe thoroughly.

ודחיטי נמי לא אמרן אלא בקרירא אבל בחמימא משטר שטרי והני מילי ברכיכא אבל באקושא לא והלכתא בכל מילי הוי קינוח לבר מקמחא תמרי וירקא The Gemara adds: And even in the case of bread prepared from wheat flour, we said the halakha only with regard to cold bread, but as for warm bread, it is ineffective for wiping even if made of wheat, as it softens and sticks to the palate, and it does not wipe the mouth properly. And furthermore, even if the bread is cold, this statement applies only with regard to soft bread, but one may not wipe with hard bread, as it also does not clean effectively. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the use of all items constitutes effective wiping, except for flour, dates, and vegetables.

בעא מיניה רב אסי מרבי יוחנן כמה ישהה בין בשר לגבינה א"ל ולא כלום איני והא אמר רב חסדא אכל בשר אסור לאכול גבינה גבינה מותר לאכול בשר אלא כמה ישהה בין גבינה לבשר א"ל ולא כלום § Rav Asi posed a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan: How much time should one wait between eating meat and eating cheese? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: No time at all. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him to eat cheese immediately, but if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay? Rather, Rav Asi actually asked Rabbi Yoḥanan the following question: How much time should one wait between eating cheese and eating meat? In response to this question, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: No time at all.

גופא אמר רב חסדא אכל בשר אסור לאכול גבינה גבינה מותר לאכול בשר אמר ליה רב אחא בר יוסף לרב חסדא בשר שבין השינים מהו After tangentially citing a statement of Rav Ḥisda, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Ḥisda says: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him to eat cheese immediately, as the meat contains fatty substances that stick to one’s mouth and preserve the flavor of meat. But if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay. Rav Aḥa bar Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: In the case of meat that is between the teeth, what is the halakha? Are these remnants considered meat to the extent that one may not eat cheese as long as they are in his mouth?

קרי עליה (במדבר יא, לג) הבשר עודנו בין שיניהם In response, Rav Ḥisda read about him the following verse: “While the meat was yet between their teeth” (Numbers 11:33). This verse indicates that even when the meat is between one’s teeth it is still considered meat, and therefore one may not partake of cheese until that meat has been removed.

אמר מר עוקבא אנא להא מלתא חלא בר חמרא לגבי אבא דאילו אבא כי הוה אכיל בשרא האידנא לא הוה אכל גבינה עד למחר עד השתא ואילו אנא בהא סעודתא הוא דלא אכילנא לסעודתא אחריתא אכילנא Mar Ukva said: I am, with regard to this matter, like vinegar, son of wine, with respect to Father, i.e., my practice is inferior to that of my father. As Father, if he were to eat meat at this time, would not eat cheese until tomorrow at this time. But as for me, only at this meal, during which I ate meat, do I not eat cheese; at a different meal on the same day I will eat cheese.

אמר שמואל אנא להא מלתא חלא בר חמרא לגבי אבא דאילו אבא הוה סייר נכסיה תרי זמני ביומא ואנא לא סיירנא אלא חדא זימנא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל מאן דסייר נכסיה כל יומא משכח אסתירא Similarly, Shmuel said: I am, with regard to this other matter, like vinegar, son of wine, with respect to Father. As Father would patrol his property to examine it twice daily, but I patrol it only once a day. The Gemara notes: In this regard Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: One who patrols his property every day will find an asteira coin.

אביי הוה סייר נכסיה כל יומא ויומא יומא חד פגע באריסיה דדרי פתכא דאופי אמר ליה הני להיכא אמר ליה לבי מר אמר ליה כבר קדמוך רבנן The Gemara relates that Abaye would patrol his property each and every day. One day he encountered his sharecropper carrying a load of wood that the sharecropper intended to take for himself. Abaye said to him: To where are you taking these logs of wood? The sharecropper said to him: To the Master’s house. Abaye, who knew that the sharecropper had intended to take the wood for himself, said to him: The Sages already preempted you when they said that one should patrol his property regularly, and they thereby prevented you from stealing the wood.

רב אסי הוה סייר נכסיה כל יומא אמר היכא נינהו כל הני אסתירי דמר שמואל יומא חד חזא צינורא דבדקא בארעיה שקליה לגלימיה כרכיה אותביה בגוה רמא קלא אתו אינשי סכרוה אשכחתינהו לכולהו איסתרי דמר שמואל: The Gemara likewise relates that Rav Asi would patrol his property every day. He said: Where are all these asteira coins mentioned by Mar Shmuel? This patrol is not reaping me any benefit. One day he saw a water channel that overflowed, causing water to flood onto his land. He took off his cloak, wrapped it, and placed it inside the pipe to block the flow of water. He then raised his voice, and people came and sealed the hole. He said: I have just found all the asteira coins mentioned by Mar Shmuel, as I would have suffered a great loss had I not patrolled my fields.

אמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב יצחק בר אשיין מים ראשונים מצוה ואחרונים חובה § Having mentioned the manner of washing hands during a meal, the Gemara discusses another matter concerning washing hands. Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan says: The first waters, i.e., washing of the hands before eating bread, are a mitzva by rabbinic law, but the final waters, washing of the hands upon conclusion of the meal and before reciting Grace after Meals, are an obligation, a more stringent requirement.

מיתיבי מים ראשונים ואחרונים חובה אמצעיים רשות מצוה לגבי רשות חובה קרי לה The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: The first waters and the final waters are an obligation, whereas the middle waters, between courses during the meal, are optional. Apparently, the first waters are also an obligation, not a mitzva. The Gemara responds: Although the first waters are in fact a mitzva, the tanna calls a mitzva an obligation when compared to an optional requirement.

גופא מים ראשונים ואחרונים חובה אמצעיים רשות ראשונים נוטלין בין בכלי בין על גבי קרקע אחרונים אין נוטלין אלא בכלי ואמרי לה אין נוטלין על גבי קרקע The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. The full text of the baraita is as follows: First waters and final waters are an obligation, whereas middle waters are optional. For first waters, one may wash either by spilling the water into a vessel or onto the ground. But for final waters, one washes only by pouring the water into a vessel. And some say a slightly different version of the baraita: For final waters, one may not wash by pouring the water onto the ground.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו קינסא The Gemara interjects: What is the difference between these two versions? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to pouring the water on thin wood slivers on the ground. According to the first version, which requires that the water be poured into a vessel, one may not use such slivers for this purpose, whereas according to the second version, which merely prohibits pouring the water onto the ground, one may use wood slivers.

מים ראשונים נוטלין בין בחמין בין בצונן אחרונים אין נוטלין אלא בצונן מפני שחמין מפעפעין את הידים ואין מעבירין את הזוהמא: מים ראשונים נוטלין בין בחמין בין בצונן: אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי ינאי לא שנו אלא שאין היד The baraita continues: With regard to first waters, one may wash either with hot water or with cold water. But for final waters, one may wash only with cold water, because hot water softens the hands and does not remove the dirt from them. The Gemara analyzes the statement that for first waters one may wash either with hot water or with cold water: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yannai says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the hand does not

סולדת בהן אבל היד סולדת בהן אין נוטלין בהן recoil [soledet] from the water’s heat. But if the hand recoils from it, one may not wash with it.

ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא אחרונים אין נוטלין אלא בצונן אבל בחמין לא אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי ינאי לא שנו אלא שהיד סולדת בהן אבל אין היד סולדת בהן נוטלין מכלל דראשונים אף על פי שהיד סולדת בהן מותר And there are those who teach a version of this statement with regard to the latter clause of the baraita: For final waters, one may wash only with cold water, but one may not wash with hot water. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yannai says: They taught that one may not use hot water only in a case where the water is so hot that the hand recoils from it, but if the hand does not recoil from it, one may wash with it. The Gemara comments: One can learn by inference from this version of the statement that in the case of first waters, even if the water is so hot that the hand recoils from it, it is permitted to use it for washing.

אמצעיים רשות אמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא בין תבשיל לתבשיל אבל בין תבשיל לגבינה חובה § The baraita states that middle waters are optional. Rav Naḥman says: They taught this only with regard to washing the hands between one cooked dish and another cooked dish served at a meal. But between a cooked dish and cheese there is an obligation to wash one’s hands.

אמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מפני מה אמרו מים אחרונים חובה שמלח סדומית יש שמסמא את העינים אמר אביי ומשתכח כי קורטא בכורא אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי כל מלחא מאי אמר ליה לא מבעיא § The baraita further teaches that final waters are an obligation. Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: For what reason did the Sages say that final waters are an obligation? It is because Sodomite salt is sometimes present, a small amount of which blinds the eyes. Since Sodomite salt could remain on one’s hands, one must wash them after eating. Abaye said: And this type of dangerous salt is present in the proportion of a pinch [korta] in an entire kor of regular salt. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If one measured salt between meals, what is the halakha? Must he wash his hands afterward? He said to him: It is not necessary to say this; he is certainly obligated to do so.

אמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא משו מיא בתראי על ארעא משום זוהמא אמר לי מר משום דשריא רוח רעה עלייהו § Abaye said: At first I would say that this halakha that one may not wash his hands with final waters over the ground is due to messiness. But the Master, Rabba, said to me that it is because an evil spirit rests upon the water and passersby are liable to be afflicted.

ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא שקיל מידי מפתורא כי נקיט איניש כסא למשתי שמא יארע דבר קלקלה בסעודה אמר לי מר משום דקשי לרוח צרדא And Abaye also said: At first I would say that the reason for this statement of the Sages that one should not take anything from the table when a person is holding a cup to drink, is lest a mishap occur at the meal, i.e., the one holding the cup might have wanted the item that was taken, and since he is unable to speak he will choke in his anger. But the Master subsequently said to me that it is because it is bad for one’s health, causing a spirit of pain in half his head, i.e., a migraine.

ולא אמרן אלא דשקיל ולא מהדר אבל משקל ואהדורי לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא חוץ לארבע אמות אבל תוך ארבע אמות לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא מידי דצריך לסעודתא אבל מידי דלא צריך לסעודתא לית לן בה And we said that this practice is prohibited only if one takes an item from the table and does not put it back. But as for taking and putting back, we have no problem with it. And likewise, we said it is prohibited only if one takes the item beyond four cubits of the table. But if one leaves it within four cubits, we have no problem with it. And furthermore, we said this halakha only with regard to an item that is necessary for the meal. But in the case of an item that is not necessary for the meal, we have no problem with it.

מר בר רב אשי קפיד אפילו אאסיתא ובוכנא דתבלי מידי דצריכי לסעודתא The Gemara relates that Mar bar Rav Ashi was particular not to remove any object from the table when someone was holding his cup in hand, even with regard to a mortar [asita] and pestle [bukhna] for spices, like all items that are necessary for the meal.

ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דכנשי נשווראה משום מנקירותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לעניותא And Abaye further said: At first I would say that this practice that people collect the crumbs of bread after a meal is due to cleanliness. But the Master subsequently said to me that it is because leaving them is bad for, i.e., it can increase, a person’s vulnerability to poverty.

ההוא גברא דהוה מהדר עליה שרא דעניותא ולא הוה יכיל ליה דקא זהיר אנשוורא טובא יומא חד כרך ליפתא איבלי אמר השתא ודאי נפל בידאי בתר דאכיל אייתי מרא עקרינהו ליבלי שדינהו לנהרא שמעיה דקאמר ווי דאפקיה ההוא גברא מביתיה The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who was pursued by the ministering angel of poverty, but the angel was unable to impoverish him, as he was exceptionally careful with regard to crumbs. One day that man broke his bread over grass, and some crumbs fell among the blades of grass. The angel said: Now he will certainly fall into my hands, as he cannot collect all the crumbs. After the man ate, he brought a hoe, uprooted the grass, and threw it into the river. He subsequently heard the ministering angel of poverty say: Woe is me, as that man has removed me from my house, i.e., my position of comfort.

ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא שתי אופיא משום מאיסותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לכרסם מישתיה קשה לכרסם מינפח ביה קשיא לרישא מדחייה קשיא לעניותא מאי תקנתיה לשקעיה שקועי And Abaye said: At first I would say that this practice that people do not drink the foam from the top of a beverage is followed because it is repulsive. But the Master said to me that it is followed because it is bad for one’s vulnerability to catarrh. The Gemara comments: Drinking it is bad for catarrh, while blowing off the foam from the drink is bad for head pains, and removing it with one’s hand is bad for poverty. If so, what is its remedy? How may one drink? He should sink the foam inside the beverage and then drink it.

לכרסם דחמרא שיכרא דשיכרא מיא דמיא לית ליה תקנתא והיינו דאמרי אינשי בתר עניא אזלא עניותא The Gemara notes: The treatment for catarrh caused by the foam of wine is beer; the treatment for catarrh caused by the foam of beer is water; and for catarrh caused by the foam of water there is no remedy. And this is in accordance with the adage that people say: Poverty follows the poor. Not only does a pauper have nothing to drink other than water, but there also is no treatment for the disease caused by his beverage.

ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא אכלי ירקא מכישא דאסר גינאה משום דמיחזי כרעבתנותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לכשפים And Abaye said: At first I would say that the reason for this practice that people do not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by the gardener is because it has the appearance of gluttony, as he does not wait to untie the bundle to eat. But the Master said to me that it is because it is bad for one’s vulnerability to witchcraft.

רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא הוו קאזלי בארבא אמרה להו ההיא מטרוניתא אותבן בהדייכו לא אותבוה אמרה מלתא אסרתה לארבא אמרו אינהו מילתא שריוה אמרה להו מאי איעביד לכו דלא מקנח לכו בחספא ולא קטיל לכו כינה אמנייכו ולא אכיל לכו ירקא מכישא דאסר גינאה The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were traveling on a boat. A certain matron said to them: Seat me together with you on the boat, but they did not seat her alongside them. She said something, an incantation, and thereby tied the boat to its spot so that it could not move. They too said something and thereby released it. That matron said to them: What can I do to you? Witchcraft has no power over you, as after attending to your bodily functions, you do not wipe yourselves with an earthenware shard, and you do not kill a louse that you find on your garments, and you do not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by the gardener.

ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא אכלי ירקא דנפל אתכא משום מאיסותא אמר לי מר משום דקשה לריח הפה ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא יתבי תותי מרזיבא משום שופכים אמר לי מר משום דשכיחי מזיקין And Abaye said: At first I would say as follows: The reason for this practice that people do not eat vegetables that fell on the table is because it is replusive. But the Master said to me that it is because it is bad for halitosis. And Abaye said: At first I would say that the reason for this practice that people do not sit under a gutter is because of the waste water that pours out of it. But the Master said to me that it is because demons are commonly found there.

הנהו שקולאי דהוו דרו חביתא דחמרא בעו לאיתפוחי אותבוה תותי מרזיבא פקעה אתו לקמיה דמר בר רב אשי אפיק שיפורי שמתיה אתא לקמיה אמר ליה אמאי תעביד הכי אמר ליה היכי אעביד כי אותביה באונאי The Gemara relates: There were certain porters who were carrying a barrel of wine. When they wanted to rest, they placed it under a gutter and the barrel burst. They came before Mar bar Rav Ashi, who brought out horns and had them blown as he excommunicated the demon of that place. The demon came before Mar bar Rav Ashi, and the Sage said to it: Why did you do this? The demon said to him: How else should I act, when these men place a barrel on my ear?

אמר ליה את בדוכתא דשכיחי רבים מאי בעית את הוא דשנית זיל שלים אמר ליה השתא נמי ליקבע לי מר זימנא ואפרע קבע ליה זימנא כי מטא זימנא איעכב כי אתא אמר ליה אמאי לא אתית בזמנך אמר ליה כל מילי דצייר וחתים וכייל ומני לית לן רשותא למשקל מיניה עד דמשכחינן מידי דהפקרא Mar bar Rav Ashi said to it: What are you doing in a place where many people are found? You are the one who deviated from the norm; go and pay them the value of the barrel of wine. The demon said to him: Let the Master now set a time for me, so that I can find the money, and I will pay. Mar bar Rav Ashi set a time for his payment. When that time arrived, the demon delayed in coming to pay. When the demon eventually came, Mar bar Rav Ashi said to it: Why did you not come at the time set for you? The demon said to him: With regard to any item that is tied up, or sealed, or measured, or counted, we have no authority to take it. We are unable to obtain money until we find an ownerless item. For this reason, it took him a long time to find enough money to pay for the barrel.

ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דשדי מיא מפומא דחצבא משום ציבתא אמר לי מר משום דאיכא מים הרעים And Abaye said: At first I would say that this practice that people pour out a little water from the mouth of a pitcher before drinking from it is followed because of twigs it might contain. But the Master said to me that it is followed because there are foul waters in the pitcher.

ההוא בר שידא דהוה בי רב פפא אזל לאתויי מיא מנהרא איעכב כי אתא אמרו ליה אמאי איעכבת אמר להו עד דחלפי מים הרעים אדהכי The Gemara relates: There was a certain son of a demon that was in Rav Pappa’s house as a servant. It went to bring water from the river, and it delayed in returning. When it came, the members of Rav Pappa’s household said to it: Why did you delay? It said to them: I waited until the foul waters passed. In the meantime,

חזנהו דקא שדו מיא מפומא דחצבא אמר אי הוה ידענא דרגיליתו למיעבד הכי לא איעכבי the demon saw the members of Rav Pappa’s household pouring water from the mouth of the pitcher before drinking from it. The demon said to them: If I had known that you regularly do this, I would not have delayed. I would have brought the water straight from the river, knowing you would pour out the foul waters.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר מים הראשונים האכילו בשר חזיר § When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Due to the failure to wash with the first waters, they ultimately fed a Jew pig meat. This case involved a storekeeper who would sell different meat to his Jewish and gentile customers. When a Jew who came to eat with him neglected to wash before eating, the storekeeper assumed he was a gentile and fed him pig meat.

אחרונים הוציאו את האשה מבעלה And due to the failure to wash with final waters a woman was ultimately divorced from her husband. In this incident, a host who had stolen his guests’ money had lentils on his mustache from a previous meal because he had not washed his hands and mouth after eating. Realizing he had eaten lentils that day, his victims approached the man’s wife and said that her husband had instructed them to tell her to return their money. They then claimed that the man told them to tell her that he had eaten lentils that day as proof that they were telling the truth. They thereby fooled his wife into thinking he wanted her to give their money back. Out of anger, the host divorced his wife.

כי אתא רבין אמר ראשונים האכילו בשר נבלה אחרונים הרגו את הנפש אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וסימניך אתא רב דימי אפקה אתא רבין קטלה When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said the statement slightly differently: Due to the failure to wash with first waters, they fed a Jew meat from an animal carcass, and the failure to wash with final waters killed a person, as in the second incident the host was so angry with his wife that he killed her. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic to remember which Sage said which version is: Rav Dimi came and divorced her from her husband, i.e., according to his version she was divorced, and Ravin came and killed her, since in his version the husband killed his wife.

ר' אבא מתני חדא מהני וחדא מהני לחומרא Rabbi Abba would teach one of these versions involving first waters and one of them with regard to final waters, and in both cases he taught the more severe version, i.e., he specified the meat of a pig and that the husband killed his wife.

איתמר חמי האור חזקיה אמר אין נוטלים מהן לידים ורבי יוחנן אמר נוטלין מהם לידים אמר רבי יוחנן שאלתי את רבן גמליאל בנו של רבי ואוכל טהרות ואמר לי כל גדולי גליל עושין כן A disagreement was stated with regard to water heated by fire: Ḥizkiyya says that one may not wash his hands with such water, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one may wash his hands with it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I asked Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, about this halakha, and he was one who would eat only in a state of ritual purity and was therefore careful about washing his hands; and he said to me that all the great men of the Galilee would do so, i.e., wash their hands in heated water.

חמי טבריא חזקיה אמר אין נוטלין מהם לידים אבל מטבילין בהן הידים ורבי יוחנן אמר כל גופו טובל בהן אבל לא פניו ידיו ורגליו Likewise, with regard to the hot springs of Tiberias, Ḥizkiyya says that one may not wash his hands with water from them before eating, but if there are forty se’a, the requisite size of a ritual bath, then one may immerse the hands directly in them, and this is effective for the ritual of washing the hands before a meal. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that an impure person may immerse his entire body in such water to become pure, but one may still not use it for the immersion of part of his body, such as his face, hands, and feet, as this immersion is not considered equivalent to washing the hands.

השתא כל גופו טובל בהם פניו ידיו ורגליו לא כ"ש אמר רב פפא במקומן דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דשרי משקל מינייהו במנא דכ"ע לא פליגי דאסיר כי פליגי דפסקינהו בבת בירתא מר סבר גזרינן בת בירתא אטו מנא ומר סבר לא גזרינן The Gemara asks: Now that it has been said that one may immerse his entire body in the hot springs of Tiberias, is it not all the more so permitted for his face, hands, and feet? Rav Pappa said: When the water in the hot springs stands in place, everyone, both Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan, agrees that it is permitted to immerse one’s hands in it. Likewise, everyone agrees that to take from these waters in a vessel and wash one’s hands from it is prohibited. They disagree when one draws the waters through a ditch. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that we decree against the use of ditch water due to the concern that one might come to use water in a vessel, and one Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that we do not decree against it.

כתנאי מים שנפסלו משתיית בהמה בכלים פסולים בקרקע כשרין רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף בקרקע טובל בהן כל גופו אבל לא פניו ידיו ורגליו The Gemara comments: This dispute is like a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught: When water that has ceased to be fit for drinking even by an animal is in vessels, it is unfit for washing the hands, but when it is in the ground it is fit for immersion, like a ritual bath. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when the water is in the ground, one may immerse his entire body in it, but he may not immerse his face, hands, and feet.

השתא כל גופו טובל בהן ידיו ורגליו לא כ"ש אלא לאו דפסקינהו בבת בירתא ובהא פליגי דמר סבר גזרינן בת בירתא אטו מנא ומר סבר לא גזרינן As above, one might ask: Now that one may immerse his entire body in the water, is it not all the more so the case that one may immerse his hands and feet in it? Rather, must it not be referring to a case when one draws the waters through a ditch? And if so, they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that we decree against the use of ditch water due to concern that one may come to use a vessel, and one Sage, the first tanna of that baraita, holds that we do not decree against it.

אמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב יצחק בר אשיאן נטילת ידים לחולין מפני סרך תרומה § Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashiyan says: The obligation of washing hands before eating non-sacred food is due to an ancillary decree on account of teruma, the portion of produce designated for the priest, which must be consumed in a state of ritual purity. By rabbinic decree, one’s hands are considered impure with second-degree ritual impurity, as they may have touched impure items. Therefore, they render teruma impure. Consequently, priests who partake of teruma are obligated to wash their hands first. The Sages therefore decreed that all must wash their hands even before eating non-sacred food, so that people not become accustomed to eating without washing their hands, which would in turn lead the priests to partake of teruma without washing their hands.

ועוד משום מצוה מאי מצוה אמר אביי מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים רבא אמר מצוה לשמוע דברי ר"א בן ערך דכתיב (ויקרא טו, יא) וכל אשר יגע בו הזב וידיו לא שטף במים אמר ר"א בן ערך מכאן סמכו חכמים לנטילת ידים מן התורה And the obligation is further due to its being a mitzva. The Gemara asks: What mitzva does it involve? Abaye says: It is a mitzva to listen to and obey the statements of the Sages, who instituted this washing of the hands. Rava says: It is a mitzva to listen to the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh, as it is written with regard to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]: “And whomever he that has the issue touches, without having rinsed his hands in water,” he contracts ritual impurity (Leviticus 15:11), and Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh says: From here the Sages based washing of the hands upon a verse from the Torah.

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן מאי משמע דכתיב וידיו לא שטף במים הא שטף טהור הא טבילה בעי אלא הכי קאמר ואחר שלא שטף טמא Rava said to Rav Naḥman: From where is this inferred? How can this verse, which concerns a zav, be interpreted as referring to washing the hands before a meal? Rava explains: As it is written: “Without having rinsed his hands in water.” Consequently, one could infer that if he rinsed his hands the zav becomes ritually pure. But this cannot be correct, as verses elsewhere prove that a zav requires the immersion of his entire body. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: And there is another type of person who, if he has not rinsed his hands in water, is considered like one who is impure. The verse thereby serves as the basis for washing the hands.

אמר ר' אלעזר אמר רבי אושעיא לא אמרו נטילת ידים לפירות אלא משום נקיות סבור מינה חובה הוא דליכא הא מצוה איכא אמר להו רבא לא חובה ולא מצוה אלא רשות ופליגא דרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן הנוטל ידיו לפירות אינו אלא מגסי הרוח Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: The Sages said that washing of the hands before eating fruit is mandatory only due to cleanliness. The Gemara comments: They understood from this statement that there is no true obligation to wash the hands before eating fruit, but there is a mitzva to do so. Rava said to them: This practice is not an obligation nor a mitzva, but merely optional. And the Gemara notes that Rava disagrees with Rav Naḥman in this regard, as Rav Naḥman said: One who washes his hands before eating fruit is nothing other than one of the arrogant, i.e., it is actually prohibited to do so.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה הוה קאימנא קמיה דרבי אמי ורבי אסי אייתו לקמייהו כלכלה דפירי ואכלו ולא משו ידייהו ולא יהבו לי מידי ובריך חד חד לחודיה שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה אין נטילת ידים לפירות וש"מ אין מזמנין על הפירות ושמע מינה שנים שאכלו מצוה ליחלק Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi when attendants brought a basket of fruit before them, and they ate and did not wash their hands. And they did not give me anything to eat, to enable me to join the zimmun, the quorum required for communal Grace after Meals, and they each recited a blessing after eating, separately. One may learn three halakhot from this incident. Learn from it that there is no washing of the hands before fruit. And learn from it that one does not issue a zimmun on fruit, i.e., the halakha that when three people eat together, one leads the Grace after Meals does not apply when they ate fruit. And finally, learn from it that if only two people ate, it is a mitzva for them to separate, i.e., each should recite the blessing after eating for himself.

תניא נמי הכי שנים שאכלו מצוה ליחלק במה דברים אמורים שהיו שניהם סופרים אבל אחד סופר ואחד בור סופר מברך ובור יוצא The Gemara notes: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: If only two individuals ate, it is a mitzva for them to separate. In what case is this statement said? It is said when they were both scribes, i.e., Torah scholars, who know how to recite Grace after Meals properly. But if one of them was a scribe and one was an ignoramus, the scribe recites Grace after Meals and the ignoramus fulfills his obligation by listening to the scribe.

תנו רבנן נטילת ידים לחולין עד הפרק לתרומה The Sages taught in a baraita: In washing of the hands for consumption of non-sacred food, one must pour the water on the area that extends until the joint of the fingers. In washing hands for consumption of teruma,

עד הפרק קידוש ידים ורגלים במקדש עד הפרק וכל דבר שחוצץ בטבילה בגוף חוצץ בנטילת ידים לחולין ובקידוש ידים ורגלים במקדש he must pour on the area extending until the joint. In sanctifying the hands and feet in the Temple before the service, he must pour the water until another joint, where the palm meets the wrist. And any item that is considered to interpose between one’s skin and the water with regard to immersion of the body in a ritual bath, disqualifying the immersion, likewise interposes with regard to washing the hands for eating non-sacred food and with regard to sanctification of the hands and feet in the Temple.

אמר רב עד כאן לחולין עד כאן לתרומה ושמואל אמר עד כאן בין לחולין בין לתרומה לחומרא ורב ששת אמר עד כאן בין לחולין בין לתרומה לקולא Rav said this halakha to his students while indicating with his hand the joints to which the baraita is referring: One washes until here, the second joint of the fingers, for non-sacred food, and until there, the third joint, where the fingers join the palm, for teruma. And Shmuel disagreed and said: One washes until here both for eating non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more stringent location, the third joint where the fingers join the palm. And Rav Sheshet said: Until here both for the consumption of non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more lenient location, the second joint.

אמר בר הדיא הוה קאימנא קמיה דרבי אמי ואמר עד כאן בין לחולין בין לתרומה לחומרא ולא תימא רבי אמי משום דכהן הוא דהא רבי מיישא בר בריה דרבי יהושע בן לוי הוא ליואי ואמר עד כאן בין לחולין בין לתרומה לחומרא Bar Hedya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami, and he said: One washes until here both for non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more stringent location, the third joint. And do not say that Rabbi Ami acted this way only because he is a priest and acted stringently to avoid confusing teruma and non-sacred food. This cannot be, as Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, is a Levite, and yet he too said: Until here both for non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more stringent location.

אמר רב נוטל אדם את שתי ידיו שחרית ומתנה עליהן כל היום כולו אמר להו רבי אבינא לבני § Rav says: A person may wash both of his hands in the morning and stipulate with regard to them that he may eat on the basis of that washing throughout the entire day, provided he guards his hands from dirt and ritual impurity. It is likewise related that Rabbi Avina said to the inhabitants of

פקתא דערבות כגון אתון דלא שכיחי לכו מיא משו ידייכו מצפרא ואתנו עלייהו לכולא יומא איכא דאמרי בשעת הדחק אין שלא בשעת הדחק לא ופליגא דרב ואיכא דאמרי אפילו שלא בשעת הדחק נמי והיינו דרב the valley of Aravot [pakta da’aravot], where there was a shortage of water: People such as you, for whom water is scarce, should wash your hands in the morning and stipulate with regard to them for the entire day. Some say that Rabbi Avina maintains that in exigent circumstances, yes, one should act in this manner, but when one is not in exigent circumstances, he should not do so. And according to this explanation, Rabbi Avina disagrees with the opinion of Rav, who permitted this practice to all. And some say that Rabbi Avina ruled that one may do so even when not in exigent circumstances, and Rabbi Avina’s opinion is identical to that of Rav.

אמר רב פפא האי אריתא דדלאי אין נוטלין ממנו לידים דלא אתו מכח גברא ואי מיקרב לגבי דולא דקאתו מכח גברא נוטלין ממנו לידים Rav Pappa said: With regard to this irrigation channel [arita dedalla’ei], into which water is poured from a river using buckets, and which then transports the water to the fields, one may not wash his hands in it. The reason is that this water does not come from a person’s force, i.e., it is not poured on the hands by a direct act, as it moves by force of the current in the channel. But if one draws his hands near the bucket itself, in such a manner that the water poured on his hands comes from a person’s force before it begins to flow in the channel, then one may wash his hands with it.

ואי בזיע דולא בכונס משקה מילף ליופי ומטביל בה את הידים ואמר רבא כלי שניקב בכונס משקה אין נוטלין ממנו לידים And if the bucket in which the water is drawn from the river is perforated with a hole large enough to enable liquid to enter the vessel when it is placed in the river, the presence of this hole connects the water in the channel to the water in the river, as they touch through that hole. And therefore, one may immerse his hands in that channel as he would in the river itself. Yet the perforated bucket is invalid for the washing of the hands by pouring, since it is no longer considered a vessel. As Rava says: With regard to a vessel that is perforated with a hole large enough to enable liquid to enter, one may not wash his hands with it.

ואמר רבא כלי שאין בו רביעית אין נוטלין ממנו לידים איני והאמר רבא כלי שאין מחזיק רביעית אין נוטלין ממנו לידים הא מחזיק אע"ג דלית ביה And Rava says: With regard to a vessel that does not have a quarter-log of water in it, one may not wash his hands with it. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rava say: With regard to a vessel that cannot contain a quarter-log of water, one may not wash his hands with it. It may be consequently inferred that as long as the vessel can contain a quarter-log, one may use it even if it does not currently have a quarter-log in it.

לא קשיא הא לחד הא לתרי דתניא מי רביעית נוטלין לידים לאחד ואפילו לשנים The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this former statement, requiring a quarter-log of actual water, is referring to washing for one person, whereas that latter statement, requiring only that the vessel have a capacity of a quarter-log, is referring to washing for two people. If a vessel originally contained a quarter-log of water, then even if less than that amount remains after one person has washed his hands, a second individual may use the remainder, which is considered fit based on the water’s original volume. As it is taught in a baraita: With a quarter-log of water, one may wash the hands of one individual, and even those of two.

אמר ליה רב ששת לאמימר קפדיתו אמנא א"ל אין אחזותא א"ל אין אשיעורא אמר ליה אין Rav Sheshet said to Ameimar: Are you particular about the vessel used for washing hands, that it be wholly intact? Ameimar said to him: Yes. Rav Sheshet further inquired: Are you also particular about the appearance of the water, that it be normal? Ameimar again said to him: Yes. Rav Sheshet further asked: Are you particular about the measure of water, that it be no less than one quarter-log? Ameimar said to him: Yes.

איכא דאמרי הכי אמר ליה אמנא ואחזותא קפדינן אשיעורא לא קפדינן דתניא מי רביעית נוטלין לידים לאחד ואפי' לשנים Some say that this is what Ameimar said to him: We are particular about the wholeness of the vessel and about the water’s appearance, but we are not particular about the water’s measure, as it is taught in a baraita: With a quarter-log of water one may wash the hands of one individual, and even those of two. The baraita indicates that there is no need for a quarter-log for each individual.

ולא היא שאני התם משום דקאתו משירי טהרה The Gemara notes: And it is not so, i.e., one cannot derive from the baraita that the measure of water is immaterial. It is different there because there the water comes from the remainder of a measure initially sufficient for purity. If there was not initially a quarter-log, the water is unfit for even one person.

אתקין רב יעקב מנהר פקוד נטלא בת רביעתא אתקין רב אשי בהוצל כוזא בת רביעתא The Gemara relates: Rav Ya’akov from Nehar Pekod prepared a glass vessel that could contain a quarter-log of water for washing his hands. Rav Ashi in Huzal likewise prepared an earthenware vessel that could contain a quarter-log.

ואמר רבא מגופת חבית שתקנה נוטלין ממנה לידים תניא נמי הכי מגופת חבית שתקנה נוטלין ממנה לידים חמת וכפישה שתקנן נוטלין מהם לידים שק וקופה אע"פ שמקבלים אין נוטלין מהם לידים And Rava says: If one prepared the stopper of a barrel for use as a vessel by hollowing it out until it contained a quarter-log, one may wash his hands with it, even though it was not originally designated for this function. This ruling is also taught in a baraita: If one prepared the stopper of a barrel for this purpose, one may wash his hands with it. Likewise, with regard to a ḥemet and a kefisha, types of leather wineskins, that one prepared for this purpose, one may wash his hands with them, as they were initially designed to hold liquids. But with regard to a sack and a basket, even if they can contain water, one may not wash his hands with them, as no sack or basket is designed to hold water, and most cannot.

איבעיא להו מהו לאכול במפה מי חיישינן דלמא נגע או לא A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to eating with a cloth [mappa] on one’s hands, rather than washing them to purify them? Are we concerned that perhaps he will touch the food with his hands, or not?

ת"ש וכשנתנו לו לרבי צדוק אוכל פחות מכביצה נוטלו במפה ואוכלו חוץ לסוכה ואין מברך אחריו מאי לאו הא כביצה בעי נטילת ידים The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Sukka 26b): And when they gave Rabbi Tzadok on the festival of Sukkot less than an egg-bulk of food, he took the food in a cloth, and he ate it outside the sukka, as he held one is not obligated to eat food of this amount in a sukka. And he did not recite a blessing after eating it, since less than an egg-bulk does not satisfy the verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10). What, is it not to be inferred that consequently, if one eats an egg-bulk, it requires washing of the hands, even if one uses a cloth?

דלמא הא כביצה בעי סוכה ובעי ברכה The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one can conclude from that mishna only that consequently, if one eats an egg-bulk he needs to do so in a sukka and needs to recite a blessing after eating; but he can still use a cloth instead of washing his hands.

תא שמע דשמואל אשכחיה לרב דקאכיל במפה אמר ליה The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from an incident where Shmuel found Rav eating with a cloth rather than washing his hands, and Shmuel said to him:

עבדין כדין אמר ליה דעתי קצרה עלי Do we act in this manner? Rav said to Shmuel: I did wash my hands, but as I am delicate I do not wish to hold food in my bare hands; therefore I covered them with a cloth.

כי סליק ר' זירא אשכחינהו לר' אמי ור' אסי דקאכלי בבלאי חמתות אמר תרי גברי רברבי כוותייכו ליטעו בדרב ושמואל הא דעתי קצרה קאמר The Gemara further relates: When Rabbi Zeira left Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi eating bread while covering their hands with worn pieces of wineskins, rather than washing them. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Could two great men such as yourselves err with regard to the incident of Rav and Shmuel related above? After all, Rav said to Shmuel: I am using a cloth because I am delicate; he did wash his hands beforehand.

אשתמיטתיה הא דאמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל התירו מפה לאוכלי תרומה ולא התירו מפה לאוכלי טהרות ורבי אמי ורבי אסי כהנים הוו The Gemara notes: It escaped Rabbi Zeira’s mind that Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: The Sages permitted the consumption of bread while the hands are wrapped with a cloth rather than washed, specifically to priests who partake of teruma, as they are careful not to touch the bread with their hands. But they did not permit the use of a cloth in this manner to non-priests, even those who are particular to eat non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity, as they do not maintain the same level of diligence as priests. And since Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were priests, it was permitted for them to eat with a cloth.

איבעיא להו אוכל מחמת מאכיל צריך נטילת ידים או לא ת"ש דרב הונא בר סחורה הוה קאי קמיה דרב המנונא בלם ליה אומצא ואכיל אמר ליה אי לאו דרב המנונא את לא ספינא לך A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one eats by means of another feeding him, without himself touching the food, does he need to wash hands before eating or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the following incident where Rav Huna bar Seḥora was standing before Rav Hamnuna and serving him. Rav Huna bar Seḥora cut a slice of meat for Rav Hamnuna and placed it in his mouth, and he ate it. Rav Huna bar Seḥora said to Rav Hamnuna: Were you not Rav Hamnuna, I would not feed you in this fashion.

מאי טעמא לאו משום דזהיר ולא נגע לא דזריז קדים ומשי ידיה מעיקרא The Gemara infers from this episode: What is the reason that it was permitted for Rav Hamnuna to eat in such a manner? Is it not because he was careful not to touch the food with his hands? This indicates that someone may be fed even without washing his hands. The Gemara rejects this: No, one can say that he was vigilant and went ahead and washed his hands at the outset.

תא שמע דאמר רבי זירא אמר רב לא יתן אדם פרוסה לתוך פיו של שמש אא"כ יודע בו שנטל ידיו והשמש מברך על כל כוס וכוס ואינו מברך על כל פרוסה ופרוסה ור' יוחנן אמר מברך על כל פרוסה ופרוסה The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: A person may not place a slice of bread into the mouth of the attendant serving at a meal unless he knows that he has washed his hands. And it was also stated that the attendant recites a blessing over each and every cup of wine presented to him at a meal. This is because he never knows if he will receive another cup, and he cannot intend that his initial blessing apply to a cup he does not know he will receive. But he does not recite a blessing over each and every slice of bread given to him. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he must recite a blessing over each and every slice he receives.

אמר רב פפא בשלמא דרב ורבי יוחנן לא קשיא הא דאיכא אדם חשוב הא דליכא אדם חשוב Rav Pappa said: Granted, the apparent contradiction between the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan is not difficult; one can resolve it by saying that this statement of Rav, that the attendant need not recite a blessing for every slice of bread, is referring to a case where there is an important person at the meal. Since the attendant is confident that the important person will ensure the attendant receives enough to eat, his initial blessing applies to each slice he receives. And that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to a meal where there is no important person. Since the attendant is not confident that he will receive another slice, he must recite a new blessing whenever he does receive one.

מכל מקום הא קאמר אא"כ יודע שנטל ידיו שאני שמש דטריד In any case, Rav first says that one should not place a slice into the attendant’s mouth unless he knows that he has washed his hands. This indicates that one who is fed by another must wash his hands. The Gemara responds: The case of an attendant is different, as he is occupied with his duties and may touch the food inadvertently. Therefore, he specifically may not eat without washing his hands.

תנו רבנן לא יתן אדם פרוסה לשמש בין שהכוס בידו בין שהכוס בידו של בעל הבית שמא יארע דבר קלקלה בסעודה והשמש שלא נטל ידיו אסור ליתן פרוסה לתוך פיו § The Sages taught in a baraita: A person who is a guest may not give a slice of bread from the meal in front of him to the attendant serving, whether a cup is in the attendant’s hand or a cup is in the host’s hand, lest a mishap occur at the meal. The host might become angry or distracted by the concern that there will not remain enough food for his guests, and the cup will fall from his hand. If the cup is in the attendant’s hand, he might drop it while accepting food from the guest. And with regard to an attendant who has not washed his hands, it is prohibited to place a slice of bread into his mouth.

איבעיא להו מאכיל צריך נטילת ידים או אינו צריך § A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does one who feeds another need to wash his hands, since his hands are touching the food? Or perhaps he does not need to wash his hands, as he himself is not eating.

ת"ש דתני דבי מנשה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אשה מדיחה את ידה אחת במים ונותנת פת לבנה קטן אמרו עליו על שמאי הזקן שלא רצה להאכיל בידו אחת וגזרו עליו שיאכיל בשתי ידיו The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which the school of Menashe taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A woman may rinse one hand in water on Yom Kippur, so that she does not touch food before she has washed her hands in the morning, and give bread to her minor son, without concern about violating the prohibition against bathing on Yom Kippur. They said about Shammai the Elder that he did not want to feed his children with even one hand on Yom Kippur, to avoid having to wash it. But due to concerns about the health and well-being of his children, they decreed that he must feed them with two hands, forcing him to wash both. Apparently one who feeds another must wash his hands, even though he himself is not eating.

אמר אביי התם משום שיבתא Abaye said: The reason for the washing there is not on account of the food specifically. Rather, it is due to an evil spirit named Shivta, who contaminates hands that have not been washed in the morning. As long as one washes his hands in the morning, perhaps he need not wash them again to feed another.

ת"ש דאבוה דשמואל אשכחיה לשמואל דקא בכי אמר ליה אמאי קא בכית דמחיין רבאי אמאי דאמר לי קא ספית לבראי ולא משית ידיה ואמאי לא משית א"ל הוא אכיל ואנא משינא The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the following incident, as Shmuel’s father found the young Shmuel crying, and said to him: Why are you crying? Shmuel replied: Because my teacher struck me. His father asked: Why did he strike you? Shmuel responded: My teacher said to me: You are feeding my son, but you did not wash your hands. His father asked: And why did you not wash your hands? Shmuel said to him: Only he, the teacher’s son, is eating, and I must wash my hands?

א"ל לא מיסתייה דלא גמיר מימחא נמי מחי והלכתא אוכל מחמת מאכיל צריך נטילת ידים מאכיל אינו צריך נטילת ידים: Shmuel’s father said to him: Is it not enough that your teacher did not learn the halakha properly, that he even strikes you on account of his error? One who feeds another need not wash his hands if he himself is not eating. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one who eats by means of another feeding him needs to wash his hands, even though he does not touch the food. But one who feeds another does not need to wash his hands.

מתני׳ צורר אדם בשר וגבינה במטפחת אחת ובלבד שלא יהו נוגעין זה בזה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שני אכסנאין אוכלין על שלחן אחד זה בשר וזה גבינה ואין חוששין: MISHNA: A person may bind meat and cheese in one cloth, provided that they do not come into contact with each other. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two unacquainted guests [akhsena’in] may eat together on one table, this one eating meat and that one eating cheese, and they need not be concerned lest they come to violate the prohibition of eating meat and milk by partaking of the food of the other.

גמ׳ וכי נוגע זה בזה מאי הוי צונן בצונן הוא אמר אביי נהי דקליפה לא בעי הדחה מי לא בעי: GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may bind meat and cheese together in one cloth, provided that they do not come into contact with each other. The Gemara asks: And if they come into contact with each other, what of it? It is a case of one cold food in contact with another cold food, and they would not absorb substances from one another. Abaye said: Granted that cold foods do not require the peeling of the place where they came into contact, as they do not absorb substances from one another. Nevertheless, don’t they require rinsing in water? The Sages therefore decreed against the contact of even cold meat and cheese, lest one come to eat them without rinsing them first.

רשבג"א שני אכסנאין אוכלין על שולחן וכו': אמר רב חנן בר אמי אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שאין מכירין זה את זה אבל מכירין זה את זה אסור § The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests may eat together on one table, this one eating meat and that one eating cheese. Rav Ḥanan bar Ami says that Shmuel says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the guests do not know each other, as they will not eat of each other’s food. But in a situation where they know each other, it is prohibited for them to eat together at the same table.

תניא נמי הכי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר ב' אכסנאים שנתארחו לפונדק אחד זה בא מן הצפון וזה בא מן הדרום זה בא בחתיכתו וזה בא בגבינתו אוכלין על שלחן אחד זה בשר וזה גבינה ואין חוששין That opinion is also taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If two guests roomed in one inn, this one coming from the north and that one coming from the south, this one coming with his piece of meat and that one coming with his cheese, they may eat together on one table, this one eating meat and that one cheese, and they need not be concerned.

ולא אסרו אלא בתפיסה אחת תפיסה אחת סלקא דעתך אלא כעין תפיסה אחת The baraita adds: And the Sages prohibited this practice only if they both eat from one parcel. The Gemara adds: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is actually referring to a case where they eat from one parcel? This is obviously prohibited. Rather, it prohibits eating even in a manner as though they were eating from one parcel, i.e., when the diners are somewhat acquainted with each other, since neither would mind if the other ate from his food.

א"ל רב יימר בר שלמיא לאביי שני אחין ומקפידין זה על זה מהו § It was stated above that if two diners are acquainted with each other they may not eat meat and cheese on the same table. Rav Yeimar bar Shelemya said to Abaye: If these diners are two brothers, but they are each particular not to let one another eat of his food, what is the halakha? May they eat separate dishes of meat and cheese at a single table?

אמר ליה יאמרו כל הסריקין אסורין וסריקי בייתוס מותרין Abaye said to him: Your question evokes that of Baitos ben Zunin. The Sages prohibited the baking of elaborately decorated Syrian cakes for Passover, lest people tarry in their preparation and the cakes become leavened. Baitos wished to prepare the cakes in a way that would not lead to a violation of any prohibition, and yet the Sages prohibited it, because people will say: All the decorated Syrian cakes are forbidden, but the Syrian cakes of Baitos are permitted? Here too, to avoid confusion, we will not allow exceptions to the rule.

ולטעמיך הא דאמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן מי שאין לו אלא חלוק אחד מותר לכבסו בחולו של מועד יאמרו Rav Yeimar responded: But according to your reasoning, one may refute that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Although the Sages prohibited laundering on the intermediate days of a Festival, one who has only one shirt is permitted to launder it on the intermediate days of a Festival. Here too, one can claim: People will say metaphorically:

כל הסריקין אסורין וסריקי בייתוס מותרין התם הא אמר מר בר רב אשי איזורו מוכיח עליו: 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.

מתני׳ טיפת חלב שנפלה על החתיכה אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה חתיכה אסור ניער את הקדרה אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה קדרה אסור: 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.

גמ׳ אמר אביי טעמו ולא ממשו בעלמא דאורייתא 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.

דאי סלקא דעתך דרבנן מבשר בחלב מאי טעמא לא גמרינן דחדוש הוא אי חדוש הוא אף על גב דליכא נותן טעם נמי 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.

אמר ליה רבא דרך בשול אסרה תורה 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.

אמר רב כיון שנתן טעם בחתיכה חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבלה ואוסרת כל החתיכות כולן מפני שהן מינה § 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.

אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא מכדי רב כמאן אמר לשמעתיה כרבי יהודה דאמר מין במינו לא בטיל לימא פליגא אדרבא 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?

דאמר רבא קסבר רבי יהודה כל שהוא מין ומינו ודבר אחר סלק את מינו כמי שאינו ושאינו מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו 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.

אמר ליה אי דנפל ברוטב רכה הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן דנפל ברוטב עבה 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.

ומאי קסבר אי קסבר אפשר לסוחטו מותר חתיכה אמאי נעשית נבלה אלא קסבר אפשר לסוחטו אסור 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.

דאיתמר רב ורבי חנינא ורבי יוחנן דאמרי אפשר לסוחטו אסור שמואל ורבי שמעון בר רבי וריש לקיש דאמרי אפשר לסוחטו מותר 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.

וסבר רב אפשר לסוחטו אסור והאיתמר כזית בשר שנפל לתוך יורה של חלב אמר רב בשר אסור וחלב מותר ואי סלקא דעתך אפשר לסוחטו אסור 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,

חלב אמאי מותר חלב נבלה הוא why is the milk permitted? All the milk that the meat absorbed is rendered non-kosher milk in and of itself. When it seeps back out of the meat, it cannot be nullified by the rest of the milk, which is the same substance, as Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. Therefore, the whole pot of milk should be prohibited.

לעולם קסבר רב אפשר לסוחטו אסור ושאני התם דאמר קרא (שמות כג, יט) לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו גדי אסרה תורה ולא חלב The Gemara answers: Rav actually maintains that an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is prohibited, and there, the pot of milk mentioned above is different, as the verse states: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21). The verse teaches that the Torah prohibits only the kid, i.e., the meat, that was cooked in milk, but not the milk that was cooked in meat. The milk is not itself rendered non-kosher.

וסבר רב גדי אסרה תורה ולא חלב והא איתמר חצי זית בשר וחצי זית חלב שבשלן זה עם זה אמר רב לוקה על אכילתו ואינו לוקה על בשולו ואי ס"ד גדי אסרה תורה ולא חלב אאכילה אמאי לוקה חצי שיעור הוא The Gemara challenges: And does Rav really maintain that the Torah prohibits only the kid but not the milk cooked with it? But isn’t it stated: If half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk were cooked together, Rav says: One is flogged for consuming the combined olive-bulk, as he has eaten a whole olive-bulk of forbidden food. But he is not flogged for cooking the two half olive-bulks, as he did not cook items of the minimum size. And if it should enter your mind that Rav holds that the Torah prohibits only the kid but not the milk, why is this individual flogged for consuming only half an olive-bulk of meat? It is only half the prohibited measure.

אלא לעולם קסבר רב חלב נמי אסור והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנפל לתוך יורה רותחת דמבלע בלע מפלט לא פלט Rather, Rav actually maintains that milk cooked in meat is also prohibited, and the reason Rav permits the pot of milk mentioned above is that here we are dealing with a case where the olive-bulk of meat fell into a boiling pot of milk. In such a case the meat absorbs milk, but it does not expel it, and therefore the prohibited milk does not mix with the rest.

סוף סוף כי נייח הדר פליט כשקדם וסילקו The Gemara challenges: Ultimately, when the pot cools from boiling, the meat then expels the prohibited milk. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he first removed the meat before the pot cooled.

גופא חצי זית בשר וחצי זית חלב שבשלן זה עם זה אמר רב לוקה על אכילתו ואינו לוקה על בשולו מה נפשך אי מצטרפין אבשול נמי לילקי אי לא מצטרפין אאכילה נמי לא לילקי The Gemara turns to the matter itself mentioned above: If half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk were cooked together, Rav says: One is flogged for consuming the mixture, but he is not flogged for cooking it. The Gemara objects: Whichever way you look at it, this ruling is problematic. If these two halves of olive-bulks combine to form the requisite measure, then let him be flogged for cooking them as well. And if they do not combine, then let him not be flogged for their consumption either.

לעולם לא מצטרפי ובבא מיורה גדולה The Gemara answers: Actually, half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk do not combine to form the requisite measure, and when Rav says that one is flogged for consuming them, he is referring to a case where they come from a large pot, in which a sizable amount of meat and cheese had been cooked. The mixture is now considered a single prohibited entity, such that half an olive-bulk of the cheese and the meat can combine to constitute the requisite measure to be held liable for consumption.

ולוי אמר אף לוקה על בשולו וכן תני לוי במתניתין כשם שלוקה על אכילתו כך לוקה על בשולו ובאי זה בשול אמרו בבשול שאחרים אוכלין אותו מחמת בשולו And Levi disagrees with Rav on this matter, and says: Half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk can combine to form the requisite measure, and therefore one is also flogged for cooking the mixture. And so Levi teaches in his collection of baraitot: Just as one is flogged for consuming it, so too he is flogged for cooking it. And for what degree of cooking did they say that one is liable to be flogged? It is for a degree of cooking that produces food that others, gentiles, would eat due to its cooking, i.e., cooking that renders it fit for consumption.

ואפשר לסוחטו עצמו תנאי היא דתניא טפת חלב שנפלה על החתיכה כיון שנתנה טעם בחתיכה החתיכה עצמה נעשת נבלה ואוסרת כל החתיכות כולן מפני שהן מינה דברי ר' יהודה § The Gemara returns to the issue previously discussed: And the case of an item that can be wrung to remove an absorbed prohibited substance is itself the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If a drop of milk fell onto a piece of meat, once it imparts flavor to the piece, the piece itself is rendered non-kosher in its own right. And it therefore renders all the other pieces of meat in the pot prohibited, even if they combine to more than sixty times its size; this is because they are of the same type, and a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

וחכ"א עד שתתן טעם ברוטב ובקיפה ובחתיכות And the Rabbis say that even the original piece of meat is not prohibited unless there is enough milk to impart flavor even to the gravy and to the spices and to the other pieces of meat in the pot, since the milk is assumed to diffuse from the first piece until it is evenly distributed throughout the pot.

אמר רבי נראין דברי ר' יהודה בשלא ניער ושלא כסה ודברי חכמים בשניער וכסה With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in a case where one did not stir the contents of the pot and where he did not cover it, both of which would promote the diffusion of the milk throughout the pot. And the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in a case where one stirred the contents of the pot and covered it.

מאי לא ניער ולא כסה אילימא לא ניער כלל ולא כסה כלל מבלע בלע מפלט לא פלט The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: Where one did not stir the pot and did not cover it? If we say that he did not stir the contents of the pot at all and did not cover it at all, in this case the piece of meat onto which the milk fell absorbs the drop of milk but does not expel it. Therefore, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there is no reason to prohibit the other pieces of meat.

ואלא לא ניער בתחלה אלא בסוף ולא כסה בתחלה אלא בסוף אמאי הא בלע והא פלט And if you say rather that he did not not stir the contents of the pot at the beginning, immediately after the milk fell in, but stirred at the end, afterward, and likewise he did not cover the pot at the beginning but at the end, one must ask: Why are all the pieces in the pot prohibited? The same milk that the piece absorbs it subsequently expels, and once the milk diffuses throughout the pot it should be nullified.

קסבר אפשר לסוחטו אסור The Gemara responds: Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that an item that can be wrung remains prohibited. Once the first piece of meat absorbs the milk, it is considered non-kosher in its own right, and even after the milk itself is nullified, the flavor of the forbidden meat renders the rest of the pieces prohibited. The flavor of the meat cannot be nullified by the other meat in the pot, since a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

מכלל דר' יהודה סבר כי ניער מתחלה ועד סוף וכסה מתחלה ועד סוף אסור אמאי הא לא בלע כלל 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.

אימא לא ניער יפה יפה ולא כסה יפה יפה 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.

אמר מר ודברי חכמים כשניער וכסה מאי ניער ומאי כסה אילימא ניער בסוף ולא ניער בתחלה וכסה בסוף ולא כסה בתחלה האמרת נראין דברי ר' יהודה בהא אלא ניער מתחלה ועד סוף וכסה מתחלה ועד סוף § 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.

מכלל דרבנן סברי ניער בסוף ולא ניער בתחלה כסה בסוף ולא כסה בתחלה מותר 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.

אלמא קסברי אפשר לסוחטו מותר 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.

א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא ממאי דבאפשר לסוחטו פליגי דלמא אפשר לסוחטו דברי הכל אסור והכא במין במינו קא מיפלגי ורבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר מין במינו לא בטיל ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי מין במינו בטיל 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.

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא דרבנן במין במינו הכא כרבי יהודה סבירא להו ובאפשר לסוחטו פליגי היינו דקאמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה בהא ודברי חכמים בהא 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.

אלא אי אמרת אפשר לסוחטו דברי הכל אסור והכא במין במינו קמיפלגי האי נראין דברי ר' יהודה ואין נראין מבעי ליה ותו לא מידי: 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.

מתני׳ הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו: גמ׳ 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.

אמר רבי זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ומותר והא אנן תנן אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one did not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it he does not violate the biblical prohibition against eating meat and milk. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: He does not violate the prohibition, and it is altogether permitted to eat the cooked product ab initio. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: He does not violate the prohibition, i.e., he is not held liable after the fact. One can infer from here as follows: He does not violate a prohibition by Torah law, but there is nevertheless a prohibition ab initio by rabbinic law.

בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו התם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו The Gemara explains: By right the mishna should have taught that there is no prohibition here by rabbinic law either. But the tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach in the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition. There it is true that although he does not violate a prohibition by Torah law there is a prohibition by rabbinic law. To preserve linguistic symmetry, he teaches the first clause in this manner as well, stating: He does not violate the prohibition.

לימא מסייע ליה הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports this opinion: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk. 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. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita that it is only the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was not torn beforehand. But the udder does not require tearing after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.

דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite, that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. But tearing after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk.

ואיכא דאמרי א"ר זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ואסור לימא מסייע ליה אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא And some say a different version of the above exchange, based on a different version of Rav’s statement: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: If one does not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it, he does not violate the Torah prohibition, but it is prohibited to eat the cooked product by rabbinic law. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports this opinion, as it states: He does not violate the prohibition, indicating that although he does not violate a Torah prohibition and is not flogged, there is nevertheless a prohibition by rabbinic law.

בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו דהתם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו The Gemara responds: By right the mishna should have taught that there is not even a prohibition by rabbinic law. But the tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition for it. There, it is true that although he does not violate a Torah prohibition there is a prohibition by rabbinic law. He therefore teaches in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: He does not violate the prohibition for it.

ת"ש הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition for it. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita that it is only the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was not torn beforehand, but the udder does not require tearing after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.

דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite, that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. But tearing it after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk. This concludes the second version of the Gemara’s discussion.

תניא כלישנא קמא דרב כחל שבשלו בחלבו מותר קבה שבשלה בחלבה אסור The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the first version of Rav’s statement: An udder that one cooked, i.e., roasted, in its milk is permitted. By contrast, the stomach of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked, i.e., roasted, together with the milk it contains is prohibited for consumption.

ומה הפרש בין זה לזה זה כנוס במעיו וזה אין כנוס במעיו The baraita explains: And what is the distinction between this stomach and that udder? The milk this calf suckled was considered milk the moment it left the mother’s teat, and it was merely collected in the calf’s innards. But that milk in the udder is not defined as milk, since it was never collected in the animal’s innards from outside but is found in the flesh. Consequently, this meat of the udder is not prohibited if it is roasted with the milk it contains, although one should still tear it by rabbinic law ab initio.

כיצד קורעו אמר רב יהודה קורעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל א"ל ר' אלעזר לשמעיה קרע לי ואנא איכול מאי קמ"ל מתניתין היא הא קמ"ל דלא בעינן שתי וערב וטחו בכותל § The Gemara inquires: How must one tear an udder before cooking it? Rav Yehuda says: One tears it lengthwise and widthwise [sheti va’erev] and smears it against a wall to remove all the milk. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar said to his attendant: Tear an udder for me before you roast it, and I will eat it. The Gemara asks: What is this episode teaching us? It is explicitly stated in the mishna that one must do this. The Gemara answers: This story teaches us that according to Rabbi Elazar we do not require one to tear it lengthwise and widthwise and smear it against a wall. Rather, it is enough simply to tear it once, either lengthwise or widthwise.

אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן מכדי כל דאסר לן רחמנא שרא לן כוותיה אסר לן דמא שרא לן כבדא נדה דם טוהר § Yalta said to her husband Rav Naḥman: Now as a rule, for any item that the Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us a similar item. He prohibited to us the consumption of blood, yet He permitted to us the consumption of liver, which is filled with blood and retains the taste of blood. Likewise, God prohibited sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, but permitted sexual intercourse with one’s wife while she discharges the blood of purity. During a particular period after giving birth, even if she experiences a flow of blood she is not rendered ritually impure and remains permitted to her husband by Torah law.

חלב בהמה חלב חיה חזיר מוחא דשיבוטא גירותא לישנא דכורא Furthermore, the Torah prohibits the consumption of the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, but permitted the fat of an undomesticated animal, which has the same flavor. It is prohibited to eat pork, but one may eat the brain of a shibuta fish, which has a similar taste. One may not eat giruta, a non-kosher fish, but one may eat the tongue of a fish, which tastes similar.

אשת איש גרושה בחיי בעלה אשת אח יבמה כותית יפת תאר בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא Likewise, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with the wife of another man but permitted one to marry a divorced woman in her previous husband’s lifetime. The Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with one’s brother’s wife, and yet it permits one to marry his yevama, i.e., his brother’s widow when the brother dies childless. Finally, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with a gentile woman but permitted one to marry a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war (see Deuteronomy 21:10–14). Yalta concluded: The Torah prohibits the consumption of meat cooked in milk; I wish to eat a dish that tastes like meat cooked in milk.

אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי זויקו לה כחלי והאנן תנן קורעו ההוא לקדרה Upon hearing this, Rav Naḥman said to his cooks: Roast udders on a spit for her. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one must tear the udder first? Rav Naḥman did not tell his cooks to tear the udders. The Gemara answers: That requirement was stated only with regard to cooking in a pot, not roasting.

והא קתני שבשלו דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא ה"ה דאפי' לכתחלה ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא קבה The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the baraita cited above: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted? This indicates that after the fact, yes, it is permitted, but one may not roast it ab initio without tearing it. The Gemara answers: The same is true even of roasting ab initio, i.e., it is permitted, and the tanna of the baraita uses this language since he wants to teach in the latter clause: A stomach