Chullin Daf 111 (חולין דף קי״א)
Daf: 111 | Amudim: 111a – 111b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (111a)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
Abaye’s unresolved question, carried over from daf 110b: does the liver transmit blood the way it transmits fat?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִשּׁוּם שַׁמְנוּנִיתָא. מִשּׁוּם דְּמָא, מַאי?
English Translation:
And the other food is not forbidden due to the liver’s blood, but rather due to the fat of the liver it absorbed. But if permitted liver is cooked with another piece of meat, and the concern is only that the meat might be prohibited due to the meat absorbing excess blood from the liver, what is the halakha? Perhaps blood is absorbed less easily than fat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens mid-question, resolving the previous case by explaining that the prohibition there flowed from the liver’s absorbed fat, not its blood. That resolution immediately generates a sharper question: strip away the fat issue and ask only about blood. The whole sugya hinges on whether the liver is a one-way organ that expels its blood into whatever cooks with it, or whether the blood stays locked inside. Note the implicit assumption driving the question — fat and blood may travel differently through cooking meat, so a ruling about one does not automatically settle the other.
Key Terms:
- שַׁמְנוּנִיתָא (shamnunita) = the fatty residue or greasiness of the liver, as distinct from its blood
- דְּמָא (dama) = blood; here the excess blood held in the liver’s tissue
- בעיא (be’aya) = a formal Talmudic question raised for resolution
Segment 2
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Safra returns to Eretz Yisrael and receives an answer from lived practice rather than argument.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי הֲדַר סְלֵיק, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי זְרִיקָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי נָמֵי לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דַּאֲנָא וְיַנַּאי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי אִיקַּלְעַן לְבֵי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, וְקָרִיבוּ לַן קַנְיָא בְּקוֹפֵיהּ, וַאֲכַלְנָא.
English Translation:
When Rav Safra again ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Zerika once more and asked him about liver cooked with another piece of meat. Rabbi Zerika said to him: You need not ask this question either, as I and Yannai, son of Rabbi Ami, arrived at the house of Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and they brought before us the windpipe of an animal with all the parts attached to it, i.e., the lungs, heart, and liver, all of which had been cooked together, and we ate it. This proves that the blood emitted from the liver does not render prohibited other pieces of meat cooked with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zerika answers not with a ruling but with a meal — the standard Talmudic move of settling a question through the observed practice of recognized scholars. The dish itself is the argument: a windpipe served with lung, heart, and liver still attached means all of them cooked in a single pot, and the liver’s neighbors were eaten without hesitation. That the diners were themselves scholars, in the home of another scholar, is what converts a family dinner into halakhic evidence. Notice that Rav Safra had asked this question before and had to ascend again to get his answer, a small window into how questions traveled between Bavel and Eretz Yisrael.
Key Terms:
- סְלֵיק (selik) = ascended, the standard term for traveling up to Eretz Yisrael
- קַנְיָא בְּקוֹפֵיהּ (kanya b’kofeih) = the windpipe together with everything attached to it — lungs, heart, and liver
- מעשה (ma’aseh) = a recorded incident cited as halakhic precedent
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Ashi dismantles the proof by supplying two innocent explanations for the meal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל מִזְּרוּקִינְיָא: וְדִלְמָא פִּי קָנֶה חוּץ לִקְדֵרָה הֲוָה, אִי נָמֵי מִיחְלָט הֲוָה חָלֵיט לֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא, כִּי הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא חָלְטִי לֵיהּ בְּחַלָּא, וְרַב נַחְמָן חָלְטִי לֵיהּ בְּרוֹתְחִין.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi, and some say Rabbi Shmuel from Zerokinya, objects to this conclusion: But perhaps in that incident the mouth of the windpipe was positioned outside of the pot, allowing the liver’s excess blood to run out of the pot rather than being absorbed by the other pieces of meat. Alternatively, perhaps they poured boiling liquid on the liver at the outset, before it was cooked with the lung and heart, like that custom of Rav Huna, for whom they would pour boiling vinegar on liver, and that of Rav Nachman, for whom they would pour boiling water on liver. This would cook the excess blood into the liver and prevent it from diffusing into the other pieces. Abaye’s question remains unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi does not deny the meal happened; he denies that it proves anything, since two ordinary kitchen circumstances would fully explain it. Either the windpipe’s opening protruded from the pot, giving the blood an escape route, or the liver had been scalded beforehand, sealing the blood inside. The two named practices are the sugya’s most durable practical legacy: Rav Huna scalded liver in boiling vinegar, Rav Nachman in boiling water. Because the proof is neutralized rather than refuted, Abaye’s question closes without resolution.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף (matkif) = raises a forceful objection, typically to a proof rather than a ruling
- חֲלִיטָה (chalita) = scalding — pouring boiling liquid over food to seal its surface
- חַלָּא (challa) = vinegar
- רוֹתְחִין (rotchin) = boiling liquid
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rava refutes Rav Pappa with a reductio: if the vinegar absorbs, the liver would reabsorb.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּסְבַר רַב פָּפָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא לְמֵימַר: חַלָּא אֲסִיר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי חַלָּא אֲסִיר – אִיהוּ נָמֵי אֲסִיר, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּפָלֵיט – הֲדַר בָּלַע.
English Translation:
And with regard to the pouring of boiling vinegar on the liver, Rav Pappa, when he was a student before Rava, thought to say that the vinegar becomes prohibited for consumption in the process, since it absorbs blood from the liver. Rava said to Rav Pappa: If you claim that the vinegar is prohibited, then the liver itself should also be prohibited, since just as the liver expels blood and prohibits the vinegar, so too it then absorbs the blood back from the forbidden vinegar. Rather, one must say that no blood is expelled from the liver during this process at all, which is why the liver is permitted afterward.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s argument is a clean reductio ad absurdum. Rav Pappa’s premise — that the scalding vinegar draws blood out and becomes forbidden — cannot stop there, because the liver is still sitting in that now-forbidden liquid and would absorb from it in turn. Since the universal practice is to eat scalded liver, the premise must be wrong: the expulsion never happens. This establishes the sugya’s working assumption that scalding seals rather than extracts, which is precisely why chalita functions as a preparation method instead of a contamination risk.
Key Terms:
- פָּלֵיט (paleit) = expels, discharges absorbed substance
- בָּלַע (bala) = absorbs
- קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא (kameih d’Rava) = before Rava, i.e., while studying as his disciple
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה
A dinner-table vignette: Rav Nachman insists his guest eat the liver he has ruled permitted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב בַּר שְׁבָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב נַחְמָן, אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ כַּבְדָּא שְׁלִיקָא, וְלָא אֲכַל. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: בַּר בֵּי רַב דִּלְגָיו לָא אָכֵיל, וּמַנּוּ? רַב בַּר שַׁבָּא. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: גַּאמוּ לְשַׁבָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav bar Shabba visited the house of Rav Nachman. They brought him cooked liver, but Rava bar Shabba did not partake of it. The members of the household said to Rav Nachman: There is a student of Torah inside who is not eating. And who is he? Rav bar Shabba. Rav Nachman said to them: Feed Shabba against his will.
קלאוד על הדף:
The story illustrates the practical stakes of the preceding discussion: Rav bar Shabba abstains from cooked liver out of the very concern the Gemara has been debating, and Rav Nachman, who holds it permitted, will not indulge the stringency at his own table. His instruction is characteristically blunt, a host asserting that unwarranted scruples about a permitted dish should not stand. Placing the anecdote here reinforces that the leniency was not merely theoretical but was enforced in the home of a leading amora.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלִיקָא (shalika) = thoroughly cooked or stewed
- בַּר בֵּי רַב (bar bei rav) = a student of the beit midrash
- גַּאמוּ (ga’amu) = feed him, even against his will
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
The unresolved question is mapped onto an existing tannaitic dispute.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַנָּאֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַכָּבֵד אוֹסֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפּוֹלֶטֶת וְאֵינָהּ בּוֹלַעַת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: מְתוּבֶּלֶת – אוֹסֶרֶת וְנֶאֱסֶרֶת, שְׁלוּקָה – אוֹסֶרֶת וְנֶאֱסֶרֶת.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: Abaye’s question above with regard to liver cooked with other meat is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The liver that was cooked with other pieces of meat prohibits them, but it itself is not prohibited, because it expels blood as it cooks but does not absorb it again. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, says: If the liver was spiced when cooking, it prohibits the other meat and it becomes prohibited as well, as the spices cause the liver to reabsorb the blood that was expelled. Likewise, if the liver was stewed, i.e., heavily cooked, it renders the other pieces prohibited and is itself prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now shows that Abaye’s question was never new — it divides tanna’im. Rabbi Eliezer treats the liver as a strictly one-way organ, an emitter that never takes anything back, which is why it can forbid its neighbors while remaining permitted itself. Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka holds that sufficiently aggressive cooking conditions reverse the flow: spices or prolonged stewing open the liver to reabsorption, so it is both an agent and a victim of the prohibition. Framing the amoraic question as k’tanna’ei is a standard technique that both explains why it could not be settled and anchors it in earlier authority.
Key Terms:
- כְּתַנָּאֵי (k’tanna’ei) = the question is already the subject of a tannaitic dispute
- מְתוּבֶּלֶת (metubelet) = spiced or seasoned
- אוֹסֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת (oseret v’einah ne’eseret) = it prohibits but is not itself prohibited
Segment 7
TYPE: אגדתא
A Shabbat hospitality scene that sets the stage for the liver ruling that follows.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אִקְּלַע לְבֵי רַבָּה בַּר רַב נַחְמָן, אַיְיתִי לְקַמֵּיהּ תְּלָת סָאוֵי טַחְאֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִי הֲוָה יָדְעִיתוּ דְּאָתֵינָא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מִי עֲדִיפַתְּ לַן מִינַּהּ, דִּכְתִיב: “וְקָרָאתָ לַשַּׁבָּת עֹנֶג”!
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Rav Huna visited the house of Rabba bar Rav Nachman and dined with him on Shabbat. They brought before him three se’a of fine bread that had been kneaded in oil and honey. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the members of Rabba bar Rav Nachman’s household: Did you know that I was coming, that you prepared such superior food? They said to him: Are you more distinguished than Shabbat, as it is written with regard to Shabbat: “If you proclaim Shabbat a delight, the sacred day of God honored” (Isaiah 58:13).
קלאוד על הדף:
This aggadic interlude supplies the setting for the halakhic ruling in the next segment, but it carries its own lesson. The guest assumes such lavish fare must be in his honor; the household gently corrects him that Shabbat itself already commands this standard, quoting Isaiah’s oneg Shabbat. The rebuke is a memorable articulation of the principle that honoring the day is not contingent on who happens to be at the table. Only after this exchange does Rabba bar Rav Huna notice the improperly prepared liver among the dishes.
Key Terms:
- תְּלָת סָאוֵי טַחְאֵי (telat sa’avei tach’ei) = three se’a of fine flour kneaded with oil and honey
- עֹנֶג שַׁבָּת (oneg Shabbat) = the delight of Shabbat, derived from Isaiah 58:13
- אִקְּלַע (ikla) = happened to visit, arrived as a guest
Segment 8
TYPE: הלכה למעשה
The practical rule for preparing liver: blood in the ducts must be drained.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּהָכִי, אַשְׁכַּח הָהוּא כַּבְדָּא דַּהֲוָה בַּהּ סִמְפּוֹנָא דִּבְלִיעָא דְּמָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אַמַּאי עָבְדִיתוּ הָכִי? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אֶלָּא הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? אֲמַר לְהוּ: קְרַעוּ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב, וְחִיתּוּכָא לְתַחַת.
English Translation:
Meanwhile, Rabba bar Rav Huna found among the dishes before him a certain liver that contained an artery suffused with blood. He said to the members of the household: Why do you do this? Although the blood absorbed in the liver is permitted, that which is collected in the blood vessels is prohibited. The members of the household said to him: Rather, what should we do in order to prepare the liver? Rabba bar Rav Huna said to them: First tear the liver lengthwise and widthwise, and position the side with the tear downward, so that the blood will flow out when you place it on the fire.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment introduces the sugya’s most consequential distinction: blood diffused through the liver’s tissue is permitted, but blood standing collected inside its ducts and vessels is genuinely prohibited. The difference is between blood absorbed into flesh, which the Torah’s prohibition does not reach in this form, and blood that remains a discrete quantity of liquid within a channel. The remedy is mechanical rather than conceptual — cut the liver crosswise so every duct is opened, then roast it with the cut face downward so gravity carries the blood out. This instruction becomes the foundation of the standard halakhic procedure for preparing liver.
Key Terms:
- סִמְפּוֹנָא (simponah) = a duct, artery, or vessel within the liver
- שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב (sheti va’erev) = lengthwise and widthwise, i.e., a crosswise cut
- חִיתּוּכָא לְתַחַת (chitucha l’tachat) = the cut side facing downward
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Limiting the rule: the spleen is not subject to it, since it holds fat rather than blood.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי כַּבְדָּא, אֲבָל טְחָלָא – שׁוּמְנָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, כִּי הָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל עָבְדִי לֵיהּ תַּבְשִׁילָא דִטְחָלֵי בְּיוֹמָא דְּעָבֵיד מִלְּתָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: And this statement applies only to liver, due to the blood that collects in its blood vessels; but there is no need to tear the spleen in this manner, as it merely contains fat. And this ruling accords with that which is reported about Shmuel, that his attendants would prepare a dish of spleens for him on the day that he performed the practice of bloodletting.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws a boundary around the liver ruling so it is not over-extended. Despite its dark red appearance, the spleen is classified as fat rather than a blood reservoir, so it requires no cross-cutting. Shmuel’s practice supplies the confirming evidence, and the detail is medically telling: he ate spleen precisely on bloodletting days, when a food understood to be blood-laden would have been the last thing chosen. The Talmud here is classifying organs by their halakhic behavior rather than their appearance.
Key Terms:
- טְחָלָא (techala) = spleen
- שׁוּמְנָא בְּעָלְמָא (shumna b’alma) = merely fat, nothing more
- יוֹמָא דְּעָבֵיד מִלְּתָא (yoma d’aveid milta) = the day one performs the procedure, i.e., bloodletting
Segment 10
TYPE: אתמר
A new sugya on roasting order: what may be positioned above the meat on the spit.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִתְּמַר: כַּבְדָּא עִילָּוֵי בִּשְׂרָא – שְׁרֵי, דְּמָא מִשְׁרָק שָׁרֵיק. כַּחְלָא עִילָּוֵי בִּשְׂרָא – אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? חָלָב סָרוֹכֵי מְסָרֵיךְ.
English Translation:
§ It was stated: If liver and other meat are roasted on spits in an oven such that the liver is positioned on top of the meat, the meat is permitted even though blood from the liver flows onto it. This is because the blood that flows from an item roasting in the oven slides over meat located underneath it and is not absorbed. But if an udder is positioned on top of the meat when roasted in the oven, the meat is prohibited. What is the reason? It is that the milk expelled by the roasting udder adheres to and is absorbed by the meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya shifts from cooking in a pot to roasting on spits, where vertical arrangement determines everything. The operative distinction is physical rather than legal: blood is thin and runs off the surface below it, while milk is viscous and clings long enough to be absorbed. Hence liver above meat is permitted while an udder above meat is not — a ruling grounded in observed behavior of liquids under heat. The next two segments will contest exactly this reasoning.
Key Terms:
- עִילָּוֵי (illavei) = above, on top of
- מִשְׁרָק שָׁרֵיק (mishrak sharik) = it slides right off without being absorbed
- כַּחְלָא (kachla) = udder, which retains milk and raises meat-and-milk concerns
- סָרוֹכֵי מְסָרֵיךְ (sarochei mesareich) = it adheres and clings
Segment 11
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rav Dimi inverts the ruling, reasoning from the severity of the prohibitions rather than the physics.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא מַתְנֵי אִפְכָּא: כַּחְלָא עִילָּוֵי בִּשְׂרָא – שְׁרֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא? חֵלֶב שְׁחוּטָה דְּרַבָּנַן, כַּבְדָּא עִילָּוֵי בִּשְׂרָא – אֲסִיר, דָּם דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
English Translation:
Rav Dimi from Neharde’a would teach the opposite: Whenever an udder is positioned on top of the meat, the meat is permitted. What is the reason? The prohibition of meat cooked in milk of a slaughtered animal applies by rabbinic law, and is treated less stringently. But if liver is positioned on top of the meat, the meat is prohibited, as the prohibition of blood applies by Torah law, and one must be concerned that perhaps the meat will absorb blood from the liver.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi reverses both rulings by shifting the analytical axis entirely. Rather than asking which liquid clings, he asks which prohibition is graver: milk of an already-slaughtered animal cooked with its own meat is only rabbinically forbidden, whereas blood is prohibited by Torah law. On that scale the udder earns leniency and the liver earns stringency, the exact opposite of the previous ruling. The clash between a physical criterion and a severity-of-prohibition criterion is what Mareimar will have to resolve.
Key Terms:
- חֵלֶב שְׁחוּטָה (chelev shechuta) = milk of a slaughtered animal, forbidden with meat only by rabbinic decree
- דְּרַבָּנַן (d’rabbanan) = by rabbinic enactment
- דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא (d’oraita) = by Torah law
- מַתְנֵי אִפְּכָא (matnei ipcha) = teaches the reverse version
Segment 12
TYPE: הלכה
Mareimar resolves the dispute with a public ruling distinguishing lechatchila from bediavad.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּרֵשׁ מָרִימָר: הִלְכְתָא, בֵּין כַּבְדָּא בֵּין כַּחְלָא, תּוּתֵי בִּשְׂרָא – שְׁרֵי, עִילָּוֵי בִּשְׂרָא – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא.
English Translation:
Mareimar taught in public: The halakha is: Whether in the case of liver or in the case of an udder, if it is underneath the meat, the meat is permitted, but if it is on top of the meat, then after the fact, yes, the meat is permitted, but ab initio, no, one may not situate them in this manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mareimar cuts through the dispute by collapsing the distinction between liver and udder and reframing the question along a different axis entirely. Rather than deciding which of the two is more dangerous above the meat, he rules that both are unproblematic below and both are merely tolerated above. The lechatchila and bediavad split is the classic instrument for honoring a stringency without invalidating food already prepared. That this was taught publicly (darash) signals it was intended as operative guidance for ordinary households, and it is the version the later codes adopt.
Key Terms:
- דָּרֵשׁ (darash) = expounded publicly, delivered as a ruling to the community
- תּוּתֵי (tutei) = underneath
- דִּיעֲבַד (bediavad) = after the fact, once already done
- לְכַתְּחִלָּה (lechatchila) = from the outset, as a planned course of action
Segment 13
TYPE: מעשה
A case testing Mareimar’s ruling in practice, beginning on this amud and completed on 111b.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא חֲמוּהּ, חַזְיֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא דְּקָא
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi arrived at the house of his father-in-law Rami bar Abba, and he saw that the son of Rami bar Abba was
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud ends mid-sentence, a common feature of the printed Talmud where the page break falls inside a narrative. Rav Ashi has arrived at his father-in-law’s home and observes his brother-in-law preparing food; the incriminating detail waits for the first line of 111b. Contextually the story is positioned as the immediate test case for Mareimar’s ruling — someone is about to be caught doing lechatchila what the halakha permits only bediavad.
Key Terms:
- חֲמוּהּ (chamuh) = his father-in-law
- אִיקְּלַע (ikla) = happened to arrive, visited
Amud Bet (111b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Ashi rebukes the deliberate arrangement of liver above meat.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁפֵיד כַּבְדָּא עִילָּוֵי בִּשְׂרָא, אָמַר: כַּמָּה יְהִיר הַאי מֵרַבָּנַן! אֵימַר דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן דִּיעֲבַד, לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִי אֲמוּר?
English Translation:
skewering liver on top of meat for roasting. Rav Ashi said: How haughty is this Sage! Even if you say that the Sages stated that one may eat meat roasted under liver after the fact, did they say that one may roast them in this manner ab initio?
קלאוד על הדף:
The story begun at the end of 111a lands: the young scholar is skewering liver above meat by design, precisely the arrangement Mareimar permitted only after the fact. Rav Ashi’s sharp word, yahir (haughty), is aimed at the presumption of treating a concession as a license. The rebuke articulates a principle that reaches well beyond this case: a bediavad allowance describes how to evaluate what has already happened, not how to plan what has not.
Key Terms:
- שָׁפֵיד (shafeid) = skewers, threads onto a spit
- יְהִיר (yahir) = haughty, presumptuous
- אֵימַר דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן (eimar da’amur rabbanan) = granted that the Sages permitted it — but only in the limited case
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
A stringency: a drip pan below reverses the usual leniency.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אִיכָּא בֵּי דוּגֵי, בִּשְׂרָא עִילָּוֵי כַּבְדָּא נָמֵי אֲסִיר.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: And if there is a receptacle under the spit for the drippings of fat, then even if the meat is on top of the liver it is also prohibited to roast the meat, as the blood from the liver will fall into the fat in the vessel, and one might come to eat the mixture.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara adds a case Mareimar’s ruling did not address. Where a receptacle sits beneath the spit collecting the rendered fat, the safe arrangement becomes unsafe: liver blood drips down into the pooled fat regardless of what is positioned where, producing a mixture someone may later consume. The concern is no longer absorption between adjacent pieces but contamination of the collected drippings, which is why even meat above liver becomes prohibited here.
Key Terms:
- בֵּי דוּגֵי (bei dugei) = a vessel placed beneath the spit to catch drippings
- נָמֵי אֲסִיר (nami asir) = is likewise prohibited
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why liver blood in the drippings differs from ordinary meat blood.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִדְּמָא דְּבִשְׂרָא? דְּמָא דְּבִשְׂרָא – שָׁכֵן, דְּמָא דְּכַבְדָּא – קָפֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from roasting a piece of meat by itself over such a vessel, which is permitted? Here too the blood of the meat drips into the fat in the vessel. The Gemara answers: Blood of most meat sinks to the bottom of the vessel, while the fat floats on top. Since the fat can be separated from the blood, it is permitted. By contrast, the blood of the liver floats above the fat and cannot be removed from it, and therefore the entire mixture is prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
The obvious objection is that any roasting meat drips blood into such a pan, yet nobody prohibits that. The answer is observational and elegant: ordinary blood is denser and sinks beneath the fat, so the fat can be poured or skimmed off cleanly, while liver blood floats on the surface and disperses through the fat beyond separation. The halakhic outcome turns on a physical property — whether the forbidden component can be isolated — rather than on the quantity involved.
Key Terms:
- שָׁכֵן (shachein) = sinks, settles to the bottom
- קָפֵי (kafei) = floats on the surface
- מַאי שְׁנָא (mai shna) = what is the difference — the standard formula introducing a distinction
Segment 4
TYPE: הלכה
Shmuel on the slaughtering knife, and a two-version dispute about cold food.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סַכִּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ, אָסוּר לַחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ. צוֹנֵן – אָמְרִי לַהּ בָּעֲיָא הַדָּחָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לָא בָּעֲיָא הַדָּחָה.
English Translation:
§ Rav Nachman says that Shmuel says: The knife with which one slaughtered an animal absorbs blood due to its heat, and it is therefore prohibited to cut any boiling food with it, since that food will in turn absorb the blood from the knife. If one cut cold food with this knife, some say that the piece he cut requires rinsing before one may eat it, and some say that it does not require rinsing.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new topic opens: the knife used for slaughtering has absorbed blood through the heat generated at the moment of slaughter, so cutting hot food with it would draw that blood back out into the food. Cold food raises a milder question, and the Gemara preserves two transmitted versions — one requiring rinsing (hadacha) of the cut piece, one dispensing with it. Recording both versions without resolving them is characteristic; the sugya is more interested in mapping the mechanism of absorption than in closing every branch.
Key Terms:
- סַכִּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ (sakin sheshachat bah) = the knife with which one slaughtered
- רוֹתֵחַ (rotei’ach) = boiling hot food
- צוֹנֵן (tzonen) = cold food
- הַדָּחָה (hadacha) = rinsing
Segment 5
TYPE: הלכה
The salting bowl, and Shmuel’s two governing principles of non-thermal transfer.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קְעָרָה שֶׁמָּלַח בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ, וְכָבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites other statements of Shmuel. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to a bowl in which meat was salted to remove its blood before cooking, it is prohibited to eat any boiling food placed in it, as that food absorbs blood of the meat from the bowl. And in this Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: A salted food imparts its flavor like a boiling food, and a food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like absorbs flavor from the liquid or vessel as would a cooked food.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel extends the same logic to a vessel: a bowl used for salting meat has absorbed blood-laden liquid and may no longer receive hot food. The reasoning rests on two formulations that became foundational categories in the laws of forbidden mixtures. Maliach harei hu k’rotei’ach holds that salt drives flavor through a substance the way boiling heat does, and kavush harei hu kimvushal holds that prolonged soaking accomplishes what cooking accomplishes. Both assert that transfer of taste does not require fire.
Key Terms:
- קְעָרָה (ke’ara) = a bowl or dish
- מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ (maliach harei hu k’rotei’ach) = salted food is treated like boiling food
- כָּבוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוּשָּׁל (kavush harei hu kimvushal) = marinated or soaked food is treated like cooked food
- לְטַעְמֵיהּ (l’ta’meih) = consistent with his own reasoning stated elsewhere
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Abaye refutes Ravin’s report from a bowl Rabbi Ami actually destroyed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָלִיחַ אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹתֵחַ, וְכָבוּשׁ אֵינוֹ כִּמְבוּשָּׁל. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָא דְּרָבִין לֵיתַהּ, דְּהַהִיא פִּינְכָּא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּמָלַח בֵּיהּ בִּשְׂרָא, וְתַבְרֵיהּ. מִכְּדֵי, רַבִּי אַמֵּי תַּלְמִיד דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲוָה, מַאי טַעְמָא תַּבְרֵיהּ? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר: מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ!
English Translation:
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yochanan said: A salted food is not considered like a boiling food, and a marinated food is not considered like a cooked food. Abaye said: I can prove that this ruling that Ravin cited is not correct, as there was a certain bowl [pinka] in Rabbi Ami’s house in which meat was salted, and Rabbi Ami broke it so that it would no longer be used. Now Rabbi Ami was a student of Rabbi Yochanan. What is the reason he broke that bowl? Is it not because he heard that Rabbi Yochanan said: A salted food is considered like a boiling food? Ravin’s citation was evidently in error.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravin brings back from Eretz Yisrael a report that Rabbi Yochanan rejected both of Shmuel’s principles. Abaye disproves the transmission not by argument but by conduct: Rabbi Ami, a direct student of Rabbi Yochanan, broke a bowl in which meat had been salted, and one does not destroy a permitted vessel. The inference is that Rabbi Ami had heard the opposite from his teacher, so Ravin’s version must be garbled. This is a fine example of the Talmud treating a scholar’s actions as reliable testimony about his teacher’s rulings.
Key Terms:
- פִּינְכָּא (pinka) = a bowl or dish
- תַּבְרֵיהּ (tavreih) = he broke it
- לֵיתַהּ (leitah) = it is not so — this report is rejected
- כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין (ki ata Ravin) = when Ravin came, i.e., brought traditions from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel
Segment 7
TYPE: הלכה
Rav Kahana pairs the salting bowl with the radish, permitting the latter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַב כָּהֲנָא אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: קְעָרָה שֶׁמָּלַח בָּהּ בָּשָׂר – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ, וּצְנוֹן שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ בְּסַכִּין – מוּתָּר לְאׇכְלוֹ בְּכוּתָּח.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana, the brother of Rav Yehuda, sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said: With regard to a bowl in which meat was salted, it is prohibited to eat any boiling food placed in it. And he added: With regard to a radish that one cut with a knife used for cutting meat, it is permitted to eat it with kutach, a food that contains milk, even though the sharpness of the radish causes it to absorb the fat of the meat from the knife.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana states two rulings together: the salting bowl remains forbidden for hot food, but a radish cut with a meat knife may be eaten with kutach. The pairing is deliberate, since both involve taste transferred without cooking. Sharpness (charifut) is understood to act like heat, drawing the fat out of the blade and driving it through the radish, which makes the leniency surprising and demands the explanation that follows. Note that the final ruling on 111b will reverse this second clause entirely.
Key Terms:
- צְנוֹן (tzenon) = radish, the paradigm case of a sharp food
- כּוּתָּח (kutach) = a Babylonian dip containing milk
- חָרִיף (charif) = sharp or pungent, a quality that drives absorption
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye grounds the distinction in what was absorbed: permitted versus forbidden.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי – הֶיתֵּרָא בָּלַע, וְהַאי – אִיסּוּרָא בָּלַע.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reason to distinguish between blood absorbed in a bowl and fat absorbed by the radish? Abaye said: This radish absorbed a permitted substance, as the fat on the knife is permitted for consumption by itself, but that bowl in which meat was salted absorbed a prohibited substance, i.e., blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye offers a categorical answer: the radish took in fat, which is entirely permitted in itself, whereas the bowl took in blood, which is forbidden. On this view the radish never became a carrier of prohibition at all, and the problem would arise only from the later encounter with dairy. The distinction between heteira bala and issura bala is conceptually attractive and will be central to much later halakhic literature, but Rava is about to show that it does not resolve this case.
Key Terms:
- הֶיתֵּרָא בָּלַע (heteira bala) = it absorbed a permitted substance
- אִיסּוּרָא בָּלַע (issura bala) = it absorbed a forbidden substance
Segment 9
TYPE: דחייה
Rava rejects Abaye’s distinction and substitutes a practical criterion.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: כִּי בָּלַע הֶיתֵּרָא, מַאי הָוֵי? סוֹף סוֹף, הַאי הֶיתֵּרָא דְּאָתֵי לִידֵי אִיסּוּרָא הוּא, דְּאִיסּוּרָא קָאָכֵיל! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי אֶפְשָׁר לְמִטְעֲמֵיהּ, וְהַאי לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְמִטְעֲמֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rava said to Abaye: And if the radish absorbed a permitted substance, what of it? Ultimately, if one desires to eat the radish with kutach, it is a permitted substance that leads to a prohibition, as he will eat a prohibited substance. Rather, Rava said: The distinction is that with regard to this radish, it is possible for a Jew to taste it before eating it with milk to see if it has acquired the flavor of meat. But with regard to that bowl, it is not possible for a Jew to taste its contents to see whether they have absorbed blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s objection is direct: the permitted status of the absorbed fat is irrelevant once that fat is about to meet dairy, since the person will end up eating a forbidden combination either way. He replaces the conceptual distinction with an evidentiary one — the radish is available to be tasted, so its actual condition can be determined, while nothing absorbed invisibly into a bowl’s walls can be assessed the same way. The shift from a question about the nature of the absorbed substance to a question about what we can know is the sugya’s pivotal move.
Key Terms:
- אֶפְשָׁר לְמִטְעֲמֵיהּ (efshar l’mit’ameih) = it is possible to taste it
- אָתֵי לִידֵי אִיסּוּרָא (atei lidei issura) = it comes to result in a prohibition
- סוֹף סוֹף (sof sof) = ultimately, when all is said and done
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Pappa: a professional cook can taste it — citing the Tosefta on pots.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וְלִיטְעֲמֵיהּ קַפִּילָא אֲרַמָּאָה, מִי לָא תְּנַן: קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חָלָב, וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, בִּשֵּׁל בָּהּ תְּרוּמָה לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חוּלִּין, וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said to Rava: But let a gentile cook taste the contents of the bowl to see whether they have the taste of blood. Didn’t we learn in the Tosefta (Terumot 8:12): With regard to a pot in which one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it, and if he cooked milk in it, the meat absorbed in the pot renders the milk forbidden if it imparts flavor to the milk. Likewise, if one cooked teruma in the pot, he may not cook non-sacred food in it, and if he cooked non-sacred food in it, the non-sacred food is prohibited if there is sufficient teruma absorbed in the pot to impart flavor to the non-sacred food.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa presses Rava’s own criterion against him. If everything turns on whether tasting is possible, a kapeila — a non-Jewish professional cook, whose palate is trained and who has no stake in the outcome — can be asked to taste the bowl’s contents. He supports this from a Tosefta about a pot used for meat and then for milk, and for teruma and then for non-sacred food, where the question in both cases is whether flavor was actually imparted (notein ta’am). The citation establishes that taste determinations are made by tasting, not only by estimation.
Key Terms:
- קַפִּילָא אֲרַמָּאָה (kapeila aramaa) = a non-Jewish professional cook
- נוֹתֵן טַעַם (notein ta’am) = imparting flavor — the operative standard for prohibition in mixtures
- תְּרוּמָה (teruma) = the priestly portion, which non-priests may not eat
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava concedes, limiting his statement to where no such cook is available.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמְרִינַן: בִּשְׁלָמָא תְּרוּמָה – טָעֵים לַהּ כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב – מַאן טָעֵים לַהּ? וַאֲמַר לַן: לִיטְעֲמֵיהּ קַפִּילָא! הָכִי נָמֵי לִיטְעֲמֵיהּ קַפִּילָא! הָכִי נָמֵי, כִּי קָאָמֵינָא – דְּלֵיכָּא קַפִּילָא.
English Translation:
And we said with regard to this baraita: Granted, one can know whether the non-sacred food has acquired the flavor of teruma, as a priest can taste it. But with regard to the prohibition of meat cooked in milk, who can taste it? And you, Rava, said to us: Let a gentile cook taste it. So too here, with regard to the food in the bowl, let a gentile cook taste it. Rava responded: Indeed, a gentile cook can discover whether the food in the bowl has absorbed the taste of blood. When I said my statement I was referring to a case where there is no gentile cook available.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes the earlier discussion Rav Pappa alluded to: teruma poses no difficulty since a priest may taste it, but a meat-and-milk mixture is forbidden to every Jew, and there Rava himself had ruled that a professional cook may be relied upon. Rava accepts the correction gracefully and narrows his position: he was addressing the case where no such taster is at hand. The exchange leaves in place a striking principle, that direct sensory evidence takes precedence over fixed proportional estimates whenever it can be obtained.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא (bishlama) = granted, it is understandable regarding…
- דְּלֵיכָּא קַפִּילָא (d’leika kapeila) = where there is no professional cook available
- טָעֵים לַהּ כֹּהֵן (ta’im lah kohen) = a priest can taste it
Segment 12
TYPE: אתמר
The central machloket: hot fish placed into a bowl previously used for meat.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר: דָּגִים שֶׁעָלוּ בַּקְּעָרָה, רַב אָמַר: אָסוּר לְאָכְלָן בְּכוּתָּח, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מוּתָּר לְאָכְלָן בְּכוּתָּח.
English Translation:
§ It was stated: If a fish was removed from the fire and placed, still hot, in a bowl in which meat had been eaten, Rav says: It is prohibited to eat the fish with the milk dish kutach, since the fish has absorbed meat from the bowl. And Shmuel says: It is permitted to eat the fish with kutach.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the sugya that generated one of the most consequential categories in the laws of meat and milk. Fish is taken directly from the fire and set into a bowl that had held meat; the fish is hot enough to draw absorbed meat flavor out of the bowl’s walls. Rav prohibits eating it with kutach, Shmuel permits it. The case is carefully constructed so that the meat flavor reaches the fish only through an intermediary, which is exactly the point of dispute.
Key Terms:
- דָּגִים שֶׁעָלוּ בַּקְּעָרָה (dagim she’alu bak’ara) = fish that came up hot into a bowl used for meat
- אִתְּמַר (itmar) = it was stated — introducing a recorded amoraic dispute
Segment 13
TYPE: טעמא
The reasoning behind each position: flavor, or flavor of a flavor.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָמַר: אָסוּר, נוֹתֵן טַעַם הוּא; וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מוּתָּר, נוֹתֵן טַעַם בַּר נוֹתֵן טַעַם הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Rav says that it is prohibited to eat the fish with kutach because this is a case of imparted flavor, i.e., from the meat to the fish. And Shmuel says that it is permitted because the flavor is first imparted to the bowl, and only then from the bowl to the fish. This is therefore a case of imparted flavor derived from imparted flavor.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara supplies the analytical basis. Rav treats the transfer as ordinary notein ta’am: meat flavor is now in the fish, and adding dairy creates a genuine prohibited combination. Shmuel counters that the flavor has passed through two stages — meat into bowl, bowl into fish — and such twice-removed flavor, notein ta’am bar notein ta’am, is too attenuated to carry prohibition. Every later discussion of using a meat vessel for a pareve food traces to this two-line exchange.
Key Terms:
- נוֹתֵן טַעַם בַּר נוֹתֵן טַעַם (notein ta’am bar notein ta’am) = flavor derived from flavor, transferred at second remove
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Rav’s position was inferred from an anecdote, and the inference is rejected.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא דְּרַב, לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר. דְּרַב אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא בַּר בְּרֵיהּ, חַשׁ בְּעֵינֵיהּ, עֲבַדוּ לֵיהּ שְׁיָיפָא בְּצָעָא, בָּתַר הָכִי רְמוֹ לֵיהּ בִּשּׁוּלָא בְּגַוַּוהּ, טָעֵים לֵיהּ טַעְמָא דִּשְׁיָיפָא, אֲמַר: יָהֵיב טַעְמָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי. וְלָא הִיא, שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּנְפִישׁ מְרָרֵהּ טְפֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And this opinion of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference. As Rav arrived at the house of Rav Shimi bar Chiyya, the son of his son. He felt pain in his eyes, and they prepared for him an ointment in an earthenware bowl as a remedy. Later they placed a dish for him in that same bowl. Rav tasted in that dish the flavor of the ointment and said: It imparts so much flavor! Those present inferred that according to Rav, imparted flavor derived from imparted flavor is strong enough itself to impart flavor. The Gemara rejects this: But that is not so, and one cannot reach any general conclusions from this story. It is different there, as the ointment was very bitter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara discloses that Rav never stated this ruling explicitly; it was reconstructed from an incident in which an eye ointment prepared in an earthenware bowl left a detectable taste in food later placed in that same bowl, prompting Rav to remark on how strongly it imparted flavor. Since that too was a case of flavor at second remove, students inferred that Rav considers such flavor potent. The Gemara dismisses the inference on the grounds that the ointment was exceptionally bitter and therefore not representative. The passage is a useful caution about deriving general rulings from a scholar’s offhand remark in an unusual case.
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָלָא (miklala) = by inference, rather than by explicit statement
- שְׁיָיפָא (shayafa) = an ointment or salve
- נְפִישׁ מְרָרֵהּ טְפֵי (nefish mareireih tfei) = its bitterness was exceptionally great
Segment 15
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Elazar declines Shmuel’s dish, then verifies with Rav himself.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הֲוָה קָאֵים קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דָּגִים שֶׁעָלוּ בַּקְּעָרָה, וְקָא אָכֵיל בְּכוּתָּח. יָהֵיב לֵיהּ וְלָא אֲכַל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְרַבָּךְ יְהַבִי לֵיהּ וַאֲכַל, וְאַתְּ לָא אָכְלַתְּ? אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַר בֵּיהּ מָר מִשְּׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַס לֵיהּ לְזַרְעֵיהּ דְּאַבָּא בַּר אַבָּא דְּלִיסְפֵּי לִי מִידֵּי וְלָא סְבִירָא לִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar was standing before Mar Shmuel, and they brought before Shmuel a fish that had been removed directly from the fire and placed into a bowl used previously for meat, and he ate it together with kutach. Shmuel gave Rabbi Elazar some of this dish, but Rabbi Elazar did not eat it, as he was a student of Rav, who prohibited such mixtures. Shmuel said to him: To your teacher, Rav, I gave this dish and he ate from it, yet you will not eat? Later Rabbi Elazar came before Rav, and said to him: Did the Master retract this halakha? Do you permit this? Rav said to him: God forbid that the progeny of Abba bar Abba, i.e., Shmuel, would feed me something that I do not hold to be permitted. Shmuel never fed me such a dish.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar, loyal to his teacher Rav’s stringent position, refuses the fish Shmuel is eating with kutach. Shmuel’s challenge — that Rav himself had eaten this very dish at his table — would, if true, undermine the entire attribution. Rav’s reply is a model of collegial respect: he does not accuse Shmuel of misleading anyone, but affirms that Shmuel, whom he calls the progeny of Abba bar Abba, would never have served him something Rav held forbidden. The implication is that whatever Rav was served must have been prepared differently.
Key Terms:
- חַס לֵיהּ (chas leih) = God forbid, far be it from him
- זַרְעֵיהּ דְּאַבָּא בַּר אַבָּא (zar’eih d’Abba bar Abba) = the offspring of Abba bar Abba, i.e., Shmuel
- הֲדַר בֵּיהּ מִשְּׁמַעְתֵּיהּ (hadar beih mishma’teih) = did he retract his ruling
Segment 16
TYPE: מעשה
Two Sages eating on opposite banks of the Sura ford, each observing the other.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי, חַד בְּהַאי גִּיסָא דְּמַבָּרָא דְּסוּרָא, וְחַד בְּהַאי גִּיסָא דְּמַבָּרָא. לְמָר אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ דָּגִים שֶׁעָלוּ בַּקְּעָרָה וַאֲכַל בְּכוּתָּח, לְמָר אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה, וַאֲכַל וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Chiyya bar Ashi were sitting down to eat. One of them was sitting on this side of the ford of the Sura River, and the other one was sitting on that side of the ford. They brought one Sage a fish that had been removed from the fire and placed into a bowl previously used for meat, and he ate it together with kutach. They also brought the other Sage figs and grapes during the meal, and he ate them but did not recite a separate blessing over them, even though these foods were usually consumed following the main portion of the meal before reciting Grace after Meals, and a separate blessing was made on them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The staging is precise and almost cinematic: two scholars dining within sight of each other across a river crossing, each able to observe the other’s plate but not to converse quietly. One eats the disputed fish with kutach; the other eats figs and grapes during the meal without pronouncing a separate blessing over them, though such foods ordinarily required one. Each therefore witnesses what appears to be a plain breach, and neither knows the reasoning behind it.
Key Terms:
- מַבָּרָא דְּסוּרָא (mabara d’Sura) = the ford or ferry crossing of the Sura River
- בְּתוֹךְ הַסְּעוּדָה (b’toch has’euda) = during the meal proper
- וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ (v’la barich) = and he did not recite a blessing
Segment 17
TYPE: אגדתא
Each calls the other an orphan; both turn out to have impeccable authority.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: יַתְמָא! עֲבַד רַבָּךְ הָכִי? וּמָר אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: יַתְמָא! עֲבַד רַבָּךְ הָכִי? מָר אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: אֲנָא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל סְבִירָא לִי, וּמָר אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: אֲנָא כְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא סְבִירָא לִי, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: פַּת פּוֹטֶרֶת כׇּל מִינֵי מַאֲכָל, וְיַיִן פּוֹטֵר כׇּל מִינֵי מַשְׁקִין.
English Translation:
One Sage said to his colleague: Orphan! Student without a teacher! Would your teacher do this, i.e., eat such fish with kutach? And the other Sage said to his colleague: Orphan! Would your teacher do this, i.e., eat these fruits during a meal without reciting a blessing over them? One Sage said to his colleague: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who permits eating such fish with kutach. And the other Sage said to his colleague: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Chiyya, as Rabbi Chiyya teaches: The blessing over the bread exempts all the other types of food eaten during a meal, including those usually eaten separately following bread, and likewise the blessing over wine exempts all types of drinks.
קלאוד על הדף:
Yatma, orphan, is a pointed insult in this context: it accuses the other of having no teacher, since only an unmentored student would eat that way. The resolution is the passage’s charm — each was following a named master. One holds like Shmuel that twice-removed flavor is permitted; the other holds like Rabbi Chiyya, who taught that the blessing over bread covers every food of the meal and the blessing over wine covers every drink. Apparent ignorance turns out to be disciplined adherence to a different but legitimate tradition, a lesson the Talmud delivers through narrative rather than statement.
Key Terms:
- יַתְמָא (yatma) = orphan — here, one who has no teacher
- פַּת פּוֹטֶרֶת (pat poteret) = bread exempts, i.e., its blessing covers other foods
- סְבִירָא לִי (sevira li) = I hold in accordance with
Segment 18
TYPE: הלכתא
Chizkiyya in Abaye’s name issues the operative ruling, reversing Rav Kahana.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה מִשּׁוּם אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכְתָא דָּגִים שֶׁעָלוּ בַּקְּעָרָה – מוּתָּר לְאוֹכְלָן בְּכוּתָּח, צְנוֹן שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ בְּסַכִּין שֶׁחָתַךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר – אָסוּר לְאוֹכְלוֹ בְּכוּתָּח.
English Translation:
Chizkiyya says in the name of Abaye: The halakha is: If a fish was removed from the fire and placed into a bowl used for meat, it is permitted to eat it together with kutach. But with regard to a radish that one cut with a knife with which he had cut meat, it is prohibited to eat that radish with kutach, contrary to Rav Kahana’s statement above.
קלאוד על הדף:
The halakha is fixed on both cases at once, and the pairing inverts Rav Kahana’s earlier statement precisely. The fish from the meat bowl is permitted with kutach, following Shmuel, because twice-removed flavor does not prohibit. The radish cut with a meat knife is forbidden with kutach, because the radish’s sharpness draws the fat directly out of the blade — a first-remove transfer, not an attenuated one. Read together, the two rulings articulate a single coherent principle: what matters is not whether a utensil was involved but how many stages the flavor actually crossed.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכְתָא (hilkheta) = the operative halakha
- מִשּׁוּם (mishum) = in the name of
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
A limitation begins, carrying over to daf 112.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי צְנוֹן,
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And this statement applies only to a radish,
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes mid-clause as the Gemara begins to restrict the radish ruling to radish specifically, implying that other foods cut with a meat knife will be treated differently. The qualification that follows on 112a develops the category of davar charif, sharp food, as the operative variable: sharpness is what converts a knife’s residue into genuinely transferred flavor. The abrupt break leaves the reader with the ruling stated but its boundaries still open.
Key Terms:
- וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי (v’hanei milei) = and these words apply only to — the standard formula introducing a limitation
- דָּבָר חָרִיף (davar charif) = a sharp or pungent food, the category developed on the next daf