The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Chullin, has been dedicated by our good friend Mr. Joey Jamal and his wife in honor of their son Jack’s engagement to Shirley Sutton. With God’s help, may they get married at a good and successful time, and may they merit to build a home filled with much satisfaction, peace in the home, peace, prosperity, and all the blessings. Amen.
Daf 97 is being studied for the elevation of the souls of Avraham ben Esther and Rabbi Moshe ben Luna.
There is a famous rule: when something spreads, it moves throughout the entire item. When you roast certain fats, however, the prohibited flavor remains in place; it does not spread through the entire piece of meat. Soft, melted fat, on the other hand, bubbles and spreads throughout the meat.
The Gemara asks: Is that really so? Wasn’t there a case involving Rabbi Yohanan in the synagogue of Maon? A kid was roasted directly over its fat, and they came and asked Rabbi Yohanan about it. He said, “Eat it until you reach the fat. Continue slicing and eating until you reach the fat.”
But what does that mean? We just said that fat spreads throughout the meat. How could he permit eating all the way until the fat? The Gemara answers that this was an exceptionally lean kid. Although we say that fat spreads, the fat of a lean animal is itself very lean, and therefore it does not spread throughout the meat.
The Gemara gives another answer. That case involved a kidney roasted with the fat attached to it. Even though the fat attached to the kidney is itself fatty, it does not spread into the kidney because a membrane separates the fat from the kidney. The membrane prevents it from penetrating. Therefore, Rabbi Yohanan permitted eating the kidney until one reached the fat.
One might ask: We said that the fat spreads. The answer is that it spreads only where it can penetrate; it cannot break through the membrane. Since the membrane remains intact, there is no concern.
The Gemara gives a third answer. Ravin bar Rav Adda said that the case involved a small fish found in a pot in which meat had been cooked. They asked Rabbi Hanin whether the meat could be eaten, and he said, “Let it be tasted.” In other words, a small fish had fallen into a pot of meat, and they wanted to know whether the meat had absorbed the fish’s flavor. Since the fish was not itself the prohibited sciatic nerve, the question was whether its flavor had entered the meat.
They were told to give the meat to a gentile professional taster. If he did not detect the flavor of fish, the meat was permitted. The Gemara teaches here that one may rely on a gentile’s spontaneous impression. One should not tell him, “We need to know whether you taste fish, because we are forbidden to eat it.” Rather, one gives him the food and asks what it tastes like. According to Rashi, his answer is accepted even without giving him information that could influence his response. He does not need to know why he is being asked to taste the food.
This is the Gemara’s novelty: one may rely on a gentile’s ordinary, unprompted taste. The professional taster is someone knowledgeable and experienced, like a chef, and his judgment can be trusted when he is not told what he is supposed to discover.
Now we return to the original question. We have a classic case involving a meat pot. We know that one may not cook milk in a meat pot. If milk was cooked in a meat pot, the question is whether the meat flavor absorbed in the walls of the pot comes out and gives flavor to the milk. If it does, the milk is prohibited because of the principle that one prohibited substance gives flavor to another substance.
The same question applies to terumah. A priest may eat terumah, but an ordinary Israelite may not. If ordinary food was cooked in a pot that had been used for terumah, the terumah flavor absorbed in the walls of the pot might enter the ordinary food. Again, the issue is whether the flavor is detectable.
In the case of ordinary food and terumah, one can give the food to a priest to taste. But if milk was cooked in a meat pot, who can taste it? A Jew cannot taste it because it may be prohibited. This is why the Gemara’s teaching about the gentile professional taster becomes relevant.
It sounds from the Gemara’s first approach that we do not initially care whether there are sixty times the prohibited substance. We give the food to the gentile to determine whether he detects the flavor. Even if there is less than sixty and he does not taste it, it appears to be permitted; and even if there is sixty, the first approach still speaks about having it tasted. The Gemara is therefore dealing with the question of flavor, not initially with a fixed ratio of sixty.
The Gemara then asks how to reconcile the different formulations used by the Sages. Sometimes the rule is that a prohibited substance gives flavor; sometimes the food is given to a professional taster; and sometimes the rule is that one requires sixty times the permitted substance against the prohibition. How do these statements fit together?
The answer is that the cases are different. When one kind of substance is mixed with another kind, such as terumah and ordinary food, the priest can taste it because the two substances have different flavors. The phrase “one kind mixed with another kind” refers to two distinct types of food, whose flavors can be distinguished.
When the case involves milk and meat, however, the food is given to a gentile professional taster. That is also a case of different types of substances, but a Jew cannot taste it because of the prohibition. Therefore, a gentile is asked to determine whether the flavor is detectable.
When one kind is mixed with the same kind, there is no discernible flavor distinction. Nobody can identify which part came from the prohibited substance because everything has the same taste. In that situation, there is no way to assess the flavor directly, and one uses the measure of sixty.
The same measure of sixty is used when there is no professional gentile taster available in a case involving different types of substances. According to the Gemara, sixty is therefore a secondary method. The first approach is to find a gentile professional taster and ask him to taste the food. If no such person is available, one relies on sixty.
Thus, when the Gemara says that a substance gives flavor, it may mean that a priest or another permitted person tastes it. When it speaks about a professional taster, it refers specifically to a case in which a Jew cannot taste the food, such as milk cooked in a meat pot. When neither tasting nor a professional taster is possible, one applies the measure of sixty.
We now move to another case. Pieces of meat were salted near Rosh HaGolan, and there was a sciatic nerve among them. The nerve was not removed before the meat was salted. Since salting has an effect on meat, perhaps salting is considered similar to cooking. The question is whether the flavor of the nerve spreads through all the pieces.
Rabina prohibited the meat, while Rabbah bar Rav permitted it. They asked Rabbah bar Rav about his reasoning, and he replied that his father had said in the name of his own father that it was permitted.
They then asked him: What is your logic concerning these salted pieces of meat? The principle attributed to Shmuel is that salting is like roasting, while pickling is like cooking. Salting has the halachic status of roasting, and pickling in vinegar or spices has the status of cooking.
Accordingly, one challenged Rabbah bar Rav: You just said that the sciatic nerve spreads through an entire piece only when the meat is cooked. When meat is roasted, one may eat the meat until reaching the nerve itself. If salting is like roasting, why did you prohibit all the pieces of meat?
The answer is that this is indeed a difficulty. Technically, if salting is like roasting, it should be permissible to eat each piece until reaching the nerve. The original case, however, involved an attempt to prohibit all the pieces because the nerve was among the salted meat. One might think that the flavor traveled throughout all the pieces together with the salt.
The conclusion is that salting does not cause the prohibited flavor to spread throughout all the pieces. Salting affects the individual piece in which the nerve is located, but it does not make the flavor travel through the entire group of pieces. Therefore, one may eat the meat of that piece until reaching the nerve itself, and the other pieces are not prohibited merely because they were salted alongside it.
The practical halachic point is that salting does not spread the prohibition throughout the entire vessel. It remains confined to the particular piece, as in roasting, rather than spreading through everything as it would through cooking.
Rabbi Hanina then discusses the measure of sixty. When prohibited matter is mixed with permitted matter and there is no professional taster available, we calculate whether there are sixty parts of permitted substance against it. The question is what should be counted in that sixty.
One counts the gravy, the pieces of meat, the spices, and the other contents of the pot. The pot itself is also mentioned. What does it mean to count the pot itself? One explanation is that a small piece of meat or a small amount of spice became caught at the bottom of the pot. Another explanation is that the walls of the pot themselves absorb flavor.
According to that second explanation, just as the food absorbs the flavor of the prohibited substance, the walls of the pot also absorb flavor. The absorbed material in the walls may therefore be considered part of the permitted substance when calculating the sixty. In other words, one treats the metal of the pot as part of the permitted matter that stands against the prohibition.
There is another possible case. A prohibited substance fell into a pot, and at the time it fell in there were sixty times the permitted substance. During the cooking process, some of the permitted food was absorbed into the walls of the pot. Later, when one examines the pot, it may appear that there are no longer sixty parts of permitted food against the prohibition. The question is whether one may count the permitted food that was absorbed into the walls while it was still in the pot.
According to that opinion, one may count the permitted substance that was absorbed, even though it is no longer present in the visible contents. One determines how much permitted food was in the pot before it was absorbed. Rashi explains that this applies when one saw the prohibited substance fall in before the quantity of food was reduced, and one can determine how much of the permitted food was absorbed by the pot during the cooking process.
There is a disagreement among the early authorities about these two possibilities. One opinion allows the walls of the pot to be counted as part of the permitted substance. Another allows permitted food that was absorbed into the walls to be counted. Since we are dealing with a prohibition, the more stringent approach is to rely on neither. We do not count the metal walls of the pot as part of the sixty, and we do not count permitted food that was absorbed earlier if it is no longer present.
The halachic calculation is made according to what is present before us. If there are not sixty parts of permitted substance, one cannot say that there must have been more food earlier or that the walls of the pot should be added to the calculation. The Gemara will raise this issue as well: if one counts permitted food that was absorbed into the walls, perhaps one must also account for the prohibited substance that was absorbed there. One cannot increase the permitted side while leaving the prohibited side unchanged.
Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that all prohibitions of the Torah are measured as they enter the permitted substance. The Gemara explains that one imagines the prohibited substance as though it were an onion or a sharp vegetable. These items impart flavor strongly, and the question is whether an object of that size would give flavor to the permitted food.
How do we know whether the mixture is permitted? If the flavor can be tasted, then the food is prohibited. The calculation is relevant where the flavor cannot be identified, such as when the prohibited and permitted substances are of the same type, or when there is no professional taster available. In such a case, the Sages established a standard measure. One asks whether the prohibited substance, if it were an onion or a similar sharp item, would impart flavor to the permitted food.
The Mishnah itself teaches that the sciatic nerve is measured according to a turnip. For other prohibitions, the comparison is to an onion or a leek, which are also sharp items that impart flavor. The prohibited substance is therefore treated as though it were an onion or a leek, and if it would impart flavor in that proportion, the mixture is prohibited.
The Gemara asks why onions and leeks were chosen. Why not use peppers or other sharper spices, for which even a thousand parts of permitted food might not be enough to nullify the flavor? Perhaps the standard should be based on the sharpest item rather than on an onion.
The answer is that the Sages established a calculation that applies generally. Regardless of the precise nature of the prohibited substance, they determined that its flavor would not be stronger than the flavor imparted by an onion or a leek in the corresponding proportion. That is the standard measure they gave. The point is not that every prohibition is literally an onion, but that the Sages established this as the benchmark for calculating whether flavor is imparted.
Now consider a sciatic nerve that falls into a pot containing pieces of meat. How much permitted food is required to nullify it? There must be sixty times the permitted substance against the nerve. The nerve itself is not included in the calculation, so in practice there must be sixty parts of permitted food in addition to the nerve.
The Gemara contrasts this with an udder. An udder is a piece of meat that contains milk. Meat is permitted and milk is permitted on its own, but when the udder is cooked, the milk may emerge and combine with the meat, creating a problem of meat and milk.
If an udder falls into a pot of meat, one requires sixty parts against the milk that emerges from the udder. The novelty is that the meat of the udder itself may be included in the sixty parts of permitted food used to nullify the milk that comes out of it. This differs from the sciatic nerve, which is itself a prohibited object. The udder meat is not prohibited in itself; the concern is the milk that emerges from it. Therefore, the udder meat may be counted together with the other permitted meat in the pot against the milk.
The Gemara also says that an egg requires sixty, and the egg itself is not included in the calculation. That sounds straightforward, because the egg is treated as the prohibited substance in that case and cannot be counted as part of the permitted sixty.
The udder itself, however, may not be eaten. Although the udder meat can be counted toward the sixty that nullifies the milk in the pot, the udder contains milk, and the meat of the udder enters its own milk. Since there is more meat than milk, the meat imparts its flavor to the milk. It is therefore impossible to eat the udder itself without consuming some of the milk that has absorbed the flavor of meat.
Thus, the milk is the original problem, but the entire udder is treated as prohibited for purposes of eating. The rest of the food in the pot may be eaten if there are sixty parts against the milk, but the udder itself must be removed. This is different from the sciatic nerve: if one knows where the nerve is, one removes it; if one does not know where it is, it can be nullified in the mixture according to the relevant rules.
A question was raised about whether one prohibited hamburger mixed with two completely kosher hamburgers could be eaten. The answer given was that if the pieces are mixed together and the prohibited piece cannot be identified, the mixture may be eaten according to the laws of nullification. The udder is different because it is itself a piece that cannot be eaten: one cannot consume the udder without consuming the milk inside it.
If the udder falls into a second pot after being removed from the first, it creates a problem in the second pot as well. The Gemara discusses why this should be so. In the first pot, the concern was the milk that came out of the udder. If there were sixty parts against that milk, why should the udder remain prohibited after all the milk has supposedly been nullified? Perhaps what remains is merely a piece of meat.
Rabbi Ashi came to the study hall and raised this issue. When the udder first falls into the pot, how much must be nullified? Is it enough to have sixty against the milk that actually emerges, or must one account for all the milk contained in the udder? The answer is that one must account for all of it. How could we know exactly how much milk emerged during the cooking? One would need to determine how much milk the udder contained and how much was extracted. Since that cannot be established precisely, we assume that all the milk emerged and require sixty against the entire amount.
Once we assume that all the milk came out in the first pot, one might argue that the udder is now a piece of meat without milk. Why, then, should it be prohibited if it falls into a second pot?
The answer is that once the Sages said that the udder itself is prohibited, it is treated like a piece of non-kosher meat. We do not continue to say that only the milk inside it is the problem. The entire udder becomes a prohibited object. Therefore, when it falls into a second pot, it has the status of a prohibited piece of meat, even though one might technically have argued that its milk had already emerged in the first pot.
Before cooking, the milk inside the udder has not yet created the same prohibition. The issue develops through the cooking process: the meat of the udder enters the milk contained within it. Once the udder has been cooked, the meat gives flavor to the milk, and the udder cannot be eaten. Even if there are sixty parts in the surrounding pot, that does not permit eating the udder itself.
There are methods of preparing an udder for consumption, such as cutting it into pieces, pressing it against a surface, and allowing the milk to drain out. But if that was not done, and the udder was cooked while still containing its milk, it remains prohibited. The discussion here concerns an udder that was not properly prepared before cooking.