Chullin Daf 112 (חולין דף קי״ב)
Daf: 112 | Amudim: 112a – 112b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (112a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of the knife discussion carried over from 111b: sharp foods absorb, but a cucumber can be salvaged by scraping.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאַגַּב חוּרְפֵּיהּ בָּלַע, אֲבָל קִישּׁוּת – גָּרֵיר לְבֵי פְסָקֵיהּ וְאָכֵיל.
English Translation:
as due to its sharpness it absorbs the fat on the knife. But if one cut a cucumber with the same knife, it does not absorb the fat to the same extent. One may therefore simply scrape the place of the cut to remove any fat residue, and then one may eat the cucumber with kutaḥ.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara distinguishes sharp foods (like radish), whose pungency drives absorption of fat deep into the food, from a cucumber, which is not sharp and absorbs only at the surface of the cut. Because the cucumber’s absorption is superficial, no whole prohibition results — scraping away the exposed cut surface (bei pesakei) removes the fat residue and renders it fit to eat with kutaḥ (a dairy dip). This sets up the daf’s governing principle: whether a taste penetrates or stays on the surface determines whether one peels/scrapes or must forbid the whole item.
Key Terms:
- חוּרְפָּא (churpa) = sharpness/pungency; the quality that drives a food to absorb transferred taste
- קִישּׁוּת (kishut) = cucumber
- בֵּי פְסָקֵיהּ (bei pesakei) = the place of the cut
- כּוּתָּח (kutaḥ) = a Babylonian dip containing milk (dairy)
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
The rule extended to turnip stalks and chard, and the mitigating effect of alternating cuts.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קִילְחֵי דְּלִיפְתָּא – שְׁרֵי, דְּסִילְקָא – אֲסִירי, וְאִי פְּתַךְ בְּהוּ דְּלִיפְתָּא – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
English Translation:
Likewise, turnip stalks cut with such a knife are permitted for consumption with kutaḥ. But chard cut with such a knife is prohibited for consumption with kutaḥ, as it absorbs flavor from the knife. And if one alternated between cutting chard and turnip stalks it is permitted, as the turnip stalks nullify the taste of the meat in the knife.
קלאוד על הדף:
Turnip stalks are not sharp, so like the cucumber they do not absorb the meat-fat from the knife and remain permitted with dairy. Chard, however, is sharp and does absorb, so it is forbidden. The Gemara adds a practical mitigation: if one interleaves cutting turnip stalks between the chard cuts, the non-sharp turnip diminishes and nullifies whatever meat-taste clings to the blade, so the chard too is permitted. The absorbed quantity becomes too small to matter once diluted across many cuts.
Key Terms:
- קִילְחֵי דְּלִיפְתָּא (kilḥei d’lifta) = turnip stalks
- סִילְקָא (silka) = chard/beets (a sharp vegetable here)
- פְּתַךְ (patakh) = alternated/interspersed
Segment 3
TYPE: בעיא
Rav Dimi’s inquiry to Rav Naḥman: storing salt next to kutaḥ, and the vinegar variant.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב דִּימִי מֵרַב נַחְמָן: מַהוּ לְאַנּוֹחֵי כַּדָּא דְמִלְחָא גַּבֵּי כַּדָּא דְכַמְכָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָסוּר. דְּחַלָּא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁרֵי.
English Translation:
§ Rav Dimi inquired of Rav Naḥman: What is the halakha with regard to placing a jug of salt, used to salt meat, alongside a jug of kamka, i.e., kutaḥ, a milk dish? Need one be concerned lest some of the kutaḥ fall on the salt without his knowledge and ultimately contaminate his meat? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is prohibited to place the two jugs next to each other. Rav Dimi further inquired: What is the halakha with regard to a similar case involving a jug of vinegar used to season meat? Need one be concerned lest the kutaḥ fall into the vinegar? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is permitted to place these two jugs next to each other.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi worries about a hidden splash of dairy kutaḥ contaminating a substance later used to prepare meat. For a jug of salt, Rav Naḥman forbids storing it beside the kutaḥ; for a jug of vinegar, he permits it. The ruling seems arbitrary until the next segment supplies the principle, and it teaches that concern for undetectable cross-contamination depends on whether the fallen dairy would remain substantively present.
Key Terms:
- כַּדָּא (kadda) = jug
- מִלְחָא (milḥa) = salt (used to kasher/salt meat)
- כַּמְכָּא (kamka) = kutaḥ, the dairy dip
- חַלָּא (ḥalla) = vinegar
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Naḥman’s cryptic answer and its resolution: substantive vs. dissolved prohibition.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא לְכִי תֵּיכוּל עֲלַהּ כּוֹרָא דְמִלְחָא? מַאי טַעְמָא? הַאי – אִיתֵיהּ (איסורא) [לְאִיסּוּרָא] בְּעֵינֵיהּ, וְהַאי – לֵיתֵיהּ (איסורא) [לְאִיסּוּרָא] בְּעֵינֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Dimi asked: And what is different about the vinegar? Rav Naḥman responded: When you have thought about it long enough to eat a kor of salt, you will know the reason. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason then? In this case of the salt, the prohibited substance is substantive, as the traces of kutaḥ are discernible and not nullified by the salt. But in that case of the vinegar, the prohibited substance is not substantive, since the kutaḥ melts away in the vinegar and will no longer impart flavor.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman’s quip — “when you’ve eaten a kor of salt (i.e., pondered long enough), you’ll see it” — introduces the operative distinction. Kutaḥ that falls onto salt stays intact and discernible (issura b’einei, the prohibition in its own substance), so it can later transfer dairy taste to meat. Kutaḥ that falls into vinegar dissolves and loses its flavor-imparting power, so nothing forbidden survives. The measure is whether the dairy remains a real presence or is effectively annihilated.
Key Terms:
- כּוֹרָא (kora) = a kor, a large dry measure (used idiomatically for a long time)
- בְּעֵינֵיהּ / בְּעֵין (b’einei / b’ein) = in its own substance, present and discernible
- לֵיתֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ = the prohibited substance is not present as such (it has dissolved)
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה
The young bird that fell into kutaḥ; Rav Ḥinnana’s lenient ruling and Rava’s praise.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא בַּר גּוֹזָלָא דִּנְפַל לְכַדָּא דְּכַמְכָּא, שַׁרְיֵיהּ רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן חַכִּים לְמִישְׁרֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא, אִי לָאו רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא? קָסָבַר: כִּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל ״מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ״, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ, אֲבָל הַאי כּוּתָּחָא הֲרֵי נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: There was a certain young bird that fell into a jug of kamka, i.e., kutaḥ. Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava of the city of Pashronya, permitted the bird. Rava said about this: Who is wise enough to discern reasons to permit the food in difficult cases like this, if not Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava of Pashronya? He maintains that when Shmuel said that a salted food imparts flavor like a boiling food, that statement applies only to a food so salty that it is not eaten due to its salt, but this kutaḥ can still be eaten due to, i.e., despite, its salt. Therefore, it is as if both foods are cold and unsalted, and they do not impart flavor to one another, provided one rinses the area of contact.
קלאוד על הדף:
A young bird (kosher meat) fell into dairy kutaḥ, and Rav Ḥinnana permitted it — a ruling Rava admired as a subtle piece of reasoning. The key is a qualification of Shmuel’s principle “salted is like boiling” (maliaḥ harei hu k’roteaḥ): salting transmits taste like heat only when the food is so salty it is inedible as-is. Kutaḥ is still eaten despite its saltiness, so it does not count as “salted like boiling”; treated as cold food, it transfers no taste, and rinsing the contact surface suffices to permit the bird.
Key Terms:
- בַּר גּוֹזָלָא (bar gozala) = a young bird/fledgling
- מָלִיחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ = “salted is like boiling” — salting transmits taste as heat does
- נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ = edible despite its salt (the threshold that exempts it from the maliaḥ rule)
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Limits of the leniency: only raw meat; roasting, cracks, and spices forbid the whole.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי חַי, אֲבָל צָלִי – בָּעֵי קְלִיפָה, וְאִי אִית בֵּיהּ פִּילֵי – כּוּלֵּיהּ אָסוּר, וְאִי מְתַבַּל בְּתַבְלִין – כּוּלֵּיהּ אָסוּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only if the bird is raw, but if it is roasted, it requires peeling to remove the outer layer, since roasting softens the meat and causes it to absorb more flavor. And if it has cracks [pilei], it is entirely forbidden, because the milk is absorbed into the cracks. And if it has been flavored with spices it is likewise entirely forbidden, because the spices soften the meat and render it absorbent.
קלאוד על הדף:
The leniency of the previous segment is bounded. Only raw meat is permitted by mere rinsing. Roasted meat, softened by heat, absorbs deeper and needs peeling (kelipah) of the outer layer. If the meat has cracks, the dairy seeps in beyond reach and the whole is forbidden. And spiced meat, whose seasonings open and soften the flesh, likewise absorbs throughout and is entirely forbidden. Physical state governs how far a taste penetrates and therefore what remedy — if any — is available.
Key Terms:
- חַי (ḥai) = raw
- צָלִי (tzli) = roasted
- קְלִיפָה (kelipah) = peeling off the outer layer
- פִּילֵי (pilei) = cracks/fissures
- מְתַבַּל בְּתַבְלִין (metubal b’tavlin) = seasoned with spices
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Shmuel: a loaf on which meat was cut may be prohibited — and its four qualifications.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כִּכָּר שֶׁחָתַךְ עָלֶיהָ בָּשָׂר – אָסוּר לְאׇכְלָהּ, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַסְמֵיק, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַבְרְיֵהּ, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַסְמְכֵיהּ, אֲבָל קְלִישְׁתָּא – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel says: It is prohibited to eat a loaf of bread upon which one cut unsalted roasted meat, since the blood expelled from the roasted meat is absorbed in the loaf. The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only if the meat is ruddy from the blood it contains. And furthermore, this statement applies only if so much blood was absorbed in the loaf that it passed through from one side of the loaf to the other and was visible from both sides. And furthermore, this statement applies only if the liquid emitted by the roasted meat is viscous. But if it is runny, we have no problem with it, i.e., the loaf is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel forbids eating a loaf on which unsalted roasted meat was cut, because expelled blood soaks into the bread. But three narrowing conditions apply: the meat must be ruddy (asmeik) with retained blood; the blood must have soaked clear through the loaf and be visible on both faces (avryeih); and the emitted liquid must be viscous (asmecheih) — a thick blood, not thin. If the liquid is runny (kelishta), it is presumed to be mere juice rather than blood, and the loaf is fine. The prohibition is thus tightly limited to cases of genuine, substantial blood.
Key Terms:
- כִּכָּר (kikar) = loaf of bread
- אַסְמֵיק (asmeik) = it reddened; the meat is ruddy with blood
- אַבְרְיֵהּ (avryeih) = it passed through (blood visible on both sides)
- אַסְמְכֵיהּ / אַסְמֵיךְ = thick/viscous
- קְלִישְׁתָּא (kelishta) = thin/runny
Segment 8
TYPE: מעשה
How three Sages handled such a loaf: Shmuel, Rav Huna, and Rava.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁמוּאֵל שָׁדֵי לֵיהּ לְכַלְבֵּיהּ, רַב הוּנָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי שְׁרֵי – לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא שְׁרֵי, אִי אֲסִיר – לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֲסִיר! שָׁאנֵי רַב הוּנָא דַּאֲנִינָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ. רָבָא אָכֵיל לֵיהּ, וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ ״חֲמַר בָּשָׂר״.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Shmuel would throw to his dog such a loaf of bread that he held was prohibited. Rav Huna would not eat the loaf himself but would rather give it to his attendant. The Gemara objects: Whichever way you look at it, Rav Huna’s behavior is problematic: If the loaf is permitted, it is permitted for everyone, including Rav Huna himself. And if it is prohibited, then it is prohibited for everyone, and he should not give it to his attendant. The Gemara explains: In fact, the loaf is permitted for consumption, and Rav Huna is different, as he is of delicate constitution and did not want to eat the loaf himself. The Gemara further relates: Rava would eat a loaf of this type, and he would call the red liquid meat wine.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three attitudes illustrate the spectrum of stringency. Shmuel, consistent with his own ruling, threw the loaf to his dog. Rav Huna gave it to his attendant — prompting the Gemara’s mah nafshakh: it must be either permitted (then eat it yourself) or forbidden (then don’t feed it to another). The resolution: it is genuinely permitted; Rav Huna was simply squeamish (anina da’atei) and personally averse, not treating it as forbidden. Rava, at the lenient extreme, ate it outright and playfully dubbed the reddish liquid “meat wine.”
Key Terms:
- שָׁדֵי לְכַלְבֵּיהּ = throws it to his dog
- שַׁמָּעֵיהּ (shamma’eih) = his attendant/servant
- מָה נַפְשָׁךְ (mah nafshakh) = “whichever way you look at it” — a two-pronged logical challenge
- אֲנִינָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ (anina da’atei) = of delicate/fastidious constitution
- חֲמַר בָּשָׂר (ḥamar basar) = “meat wine” (Rava’s playful term for the red drippings)
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Catching drippings of roasting meat: wait until the redness dissipates.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין מַנִּיחִין כְּלִי תַּחַת בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה כׇּל מַרְאֵה אַדְמוּמִית שֶׁבּוֹ. מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מִשֶּׁתַּעֲלֶה תִּימְרָתוֹ.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: One may not place a vessel under roasting meat to catch the drippings of fat until all the ruddiness of the meat’s appearance has dissipated. Beforehand, though, one must be concerned that blood will fall with the drippings into the vessel, rendering the mixture and the vessel prohibited. The Gemara asks: How do we know when all the meat’s redness has disappeared? Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: As soon as its smoke rises, one can be sure that all the blood has been expelled from the meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
When roasting meat over a fire, one may not set a vessel beneath it to collect the dripping fat until all visible redness is gone, lest blood drip in and forbid both the collected fat and the vessel. The practical sign, per Mar Zutra citing Rav Pappa, is the rising of the meat’s smoke (timrato): once it smokes, the blood has been driven off and only fat remains to drip. This gives a workable, observable threshold for a common kitchen practice.
Key Terms:
- אֵין מַנִּיחִין כְּלִי תַּחַת בָּשָׂר = one does not place a vessel beneath the meat (to catch drippings)
- מַרְאֵה אַדְמוּמִית (mareh admumit) = the appearance of redness
- תִּימְרָתוֹ (timrato) = its column of smoke (the sign the blood is spent)
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ashi’s objection about uneven roasting and his remedy of salt lumps.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא תַּתָּאָה מְטָא, עִילָּאָה לָא מְטָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא, אֶלָּא מִשְׁדֵּא בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי גַּלְלֵי מִלְחָא,
English Translation:
Rav Ashi objects to this: But perhaps the underside of the meat, which is closest to the coals, has been fully roasted, but its upper part is still not roasted and still expels blood at this stage. Rather, Rav Ashi said: One who wishes to collect the drippings has no remedy except to place two lumps of salt in it, i.e., one in the receptacle under the meat and one on top, in the meat itself.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi challenges the smoke sign: the smoke might come from the fully roasted underside near the coals while the upper part is still raw and expelling blood, so smoke does not prove the whole piece is done. His remedy is to place two lumps of salt (galei milḥa) — one in the collecting vessel below and one on the meat above — so that any blood still emitted will be absorbed and neutralized by the salt rather than pooling with the fat. The completion of this remedy carries over to 112b.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ (matkif lah) = raises a strong objection
- תַּתָּאָה / עִילָּאָה (tataa / ilaa) = the lower / upper (part of the meat)
- תַּקַּנְתָּא (takkanta) = remedy/solution
- תַּרְתֵּי גַּלְלֵי מִלְחָא (tartei galei milḥa) = two lumps of salt
Amud Bet (112b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Completion of Rav Ashi’s remedy: tilt gently to separate fat from blood.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִשְׁפְּיֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Doing this will allow the blood dripping from the meat to stick to the salt on the sides of the vessel, while the fat will float to the top. And when emptying the receptacle, he should tilt it gently to pour the fat into another vessel without it mixing with the blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
This one-word conclusion (u’mishpyeih — “and he pours it off gently”) completes Rav Ashi’s method from 112a. The salt causes any residual blood to cling to the vessel’s sides while the lighter fat floats to the top; the collector then decants the fat slowly and carefully into a second vessel, leaving the blood behind. The result is usable fat without the risk of blood contamination — a clean, practical procedure built on the physical separation of the two liquids.
Key Terms:
- וּמִשְׁפְּיֵיהּ (u’mishpyeih) = and he pours/decants it off gently (skimming the fat)
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Aḥa’s challenge from the loaf ruling, and Rav Ashi’s reconciliation via the knife’s pressure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כִּכָּר שֶׁחָתַךְ עָלֶיהָ בָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְאׇכְלָהּ! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאַגַּב דּוּחְקָא דְסַכִּינָא פָּלֵיט.
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said to Rav Ashi: And did Shmuel really say this, that once the meat’s ruddiness has dissipated it is permitted to place a receptacle underneath it? But didn’t Shmuel say: It is prohibited to eat a loaf of bread upon which one cut roasted meat? Apparently he holds that meat contains blood even after it has finished roasting. Rav Ashi replied: Shmuel holds that the meat no longer emits blood after its ruddiness has dissipated. And as for his ruling with regard to a loaf of bread, it is different there, as due to the pressure of the knife the meat expels more blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Aḥa notes an apparent contradiction in Shmuel: if roasted meat stops emitting blood once its redness fades (Segment 9), why is the loaf on which such meat was cut forbidden (Segment 7)? Rav Ashi harmonizes: ordinarily, post-redness meat indeed emits no more blood, so drippings may be collected safely. The loaf is exceptional because the pressure of the knife (duḥka d’sakina) forcibly squeezes out additional blood that would not otherwise flow. Mechanical pressure, not residual bleeding, explains the loaf’s stringency — leaving both of Shmuel’s rulings intact.
Key Terms:
- וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי = “and did Shmuel really say this?” (a challenge from a contradictory statement)
- שָׁאנֵי הָתָם (shani hatam) = “it is different there” (a distinguishing resolution)
- דּוּחְקָא דְסַכִּינָא (duḥka d’sakina) = the pressure/force of the knife
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Naḥman: fish and birds salted together — the fish are forbidden; the Gemara’s dilemma.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת שֶׁמְּלָחָן זֶה עִם זֶה – אֲסוּרִין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי בִּכְלִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְנוּקָּב – אֲפִילּוּ עוֹפוֹת וְעוֹפוֹת נָמֵי אֲסִירִי, אִי בִּכְלִי מְנוּקָּב – אֲפִילּוּ דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת נָמֵי שְׁרֵי.
English Translation:
§ Rav Naḥman says: If one salted fish and birds together, the fish are prohibited for consumption due to the blood they absorb from the birds. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this ruling? If they were placed in an unperforated vessel, in which the blood emitted by the birds will pool, then even if one salted a bird and another bird together they should be prohibited, as the blood expelled from one bird will be absorbed by the other. And if the case involves a perforated vessel, out of which the blood can flow, then even if fish are salted with birds the fish should be permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman rules that fish and birds salted together render the fish forbidden, since the fish absorb the birds’ blood. The Gemara presses on the vessel: in an unperforated vessel where blood pools, even two birds salted together should be forbidden (each absorbs the other’s blood) — so why single out fish? And in a perforated vessel where blood drains away, even the fish should be permitted. The apparent contradiction demands a more refined account of timing, supplied next.
Key Terms:
- דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת (dagim v’ofot) = fish and birds/fowl
- כְּלִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְנוּקָּב = an unperforated vessel (blood pools)
- כְּלִי מְנוּקָּב (keli menukav) = a perforated vessel (blood drains out)
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: fish and birds bleed on different timetables; the fish absorb afterward.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם בִּכְלִי מְנוּקָּב, וְדָגִים מִשּׁוּם דִּרְפוּ קְרָמַיְיהוּ קָדְמִי וּפָלְטִי, וְעוֹפוֹת קְמִיטִי, בָּתַר דְּנָיְחִי דָּגִים פָּלְטִי עוֹפוֹת, וַהֲדַר בָּלְעִי מִינֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Actually, the ruling is referring to a perforated vessel. And the fish are prohibited because their skin is soft, and therefore when they are salted they expel their blood first, whereas the skin of birds is hard. After the fish finish expelling their blood, the birds continue to expel their blood, and then the fish absorb blood from them. If one salts two birds together, they expel their blood simultaneously, and neither will absorb blood from outside while expelling its own.
קלאוד על הדף:
The case is a perforated vessel after all, and the resolution turns on timing. Fish have soft skin (rafu keramaihu), so they release their blood first and quickly finish. Birds have tough skin (kemiti) and bleed slowly, continuing after the fish are done. Once the fish have stopped expelling and settled (batar d’nayḥi), they can now absorb the blood the birds are still emitting — hence the fish are forbidden. Two birds together bleed in tandem and never reach a stage of absorbing while another still bleeds, so they remain permitted. The rule of thumb: a food expelling its own blood does not simultaneously absorb from without.
Key Terms:
- רְפוּ קְרָמַיְיהוּ (rafu keramaihu) = their membranes/skin are soft
- קָדְמִי וּפָלְטִי (kadmei u’faltei) = they precede and expel (first)
- קְמִיטִי (kemiti) = tough/tightly closed (the birds’ skin)
- בָּתַר דְּנָיְחִי (batar d’nayḥi) = after they have settled/rested (stopped bleeding)
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Mari bar Raḥel: kosher meat salted with tereifa meat, brought before Rava.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל אִימְּלַח לֵיהּ בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה בַּהֲדֵי בְּשַׂר טְרֵפָה, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Meat of a slaughtered animal was salted for Rav Mari bar Raḥel together with prohibited meat of an animal that had a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [tereifa], in a perforated vessel, as meat is generally salted. He came before Rava to ask whether the kosher meat was prohibited, as perhaps it would not have absorbed flavor from the non-kosher meat while itself expelling blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
A practical case: Rav Mari bar Raḥel’s kosher (shechuta) meat was salted together with forbidden tereifa meat in a perforated vessel. He brings the question to Rava, reasoning that perhaps the kosher meat, busy expelling its own blood, would not have absorbed the forbidden juices — the very principle established for fish and birds in the previous segment. Whether that logic extends to the transfer of actual forbidden taste (not merely blood) is what Rava must decide.
Key Terms:
- בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה (besar shechuta) = meat of a properly slaughtered (kosher) animal
- בְּשַׂר טְרֵפָה (besar tereifa) = meat of a tereifa (a fatally defective, non-kosher animal)
- אִימְּלַח לֵיהּ (immlaḥ leih) = was salted for him
- אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ (ata l’kamei) = he came before (to ask)
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rava’s ruling: the definite article “hatemeim” forbids the juice, gravy, and spices of non-kosher food.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ – לֶאֱסוֹר צִירָן, וְרוֹטְבָן, וְקֵיפֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן.
English Translation:
Rava said to him: When the verse states, with regard to forbidden foods: “These are the unclean to you” (Leviticus 11:31), the added definite article serves to prohibit not only their flesh but also their juice emitted by salting, and their gravy, and their spices with which they are cooked. Even while the kosher meat is emitting its blood, it still absorbs the juices of the non-kosher meat, which are absorbed more easily than blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava forbids the kosher meat, rejecting the analogy to blood-expulsion. He derives from the definite article in “hatemeim” (“the unclean,” Leviticus 11:31) that the Torah forbids not just the flesh of non-kosher creatures but their tzir (salting juice), rotev (gravy), and keifa (spice-sediment) as well. The crucial point: the forbidden tzir is absorbed more readily than blood is expelled, so even meat still busy releasing its own blood can simultaneously drink in the non-kosher juices. The “expelling-precludes-absorbing” rule of the fish/bird case does not shield against a substance that enters this easily — hence the kosher meat is forbidden.
Key Terms:
- הַטְּמֵאִים (hatemeim) = “the unclean ones” — the definite article expands the prohibition
- צִיר (tzir) = juice/brine emitted by salting
- רוֹטֵב (rotev) = gravy
- קֵיפָה (keifa) = the spice-and-sediment layer that settles in cooking