Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 112

1) HALACHAH: SHARP FOODS

QUESTIONS: The Gemara (end of 111b) teaches that a cold radish that was cut with a knife that was used to cut a meat may not be eaten with a dairy food. The sharpness of the radish, with the pressure of the knife, causes it to absorb the taste of meat from the knife.

(a) How much of the radish absorbs the taste of meat from the knife? If one wants to eat or cook the radish with a dairy food, does it suffice to remove any part of it, or is the entire radish prohibited to be eaten with milk?

(b) Similarly, if one already placed the radish into a pot of dairy food, how much dairy food must be in the pot in order to annul the taste of the meat?

ANSWERS:

(a) There are three opinions in the Rishonim regarding how much taste of meat the sharp food absorbs from the knife.

1. The ROSH (8:31) maintains that the radish absorbs the taste of the meat only in its most outer layer ("Kedei Kelipah"). Therefore, according to the Rosh, one may remove the outer layer of where the cut was made and then eat the radish with dairy food.

2. The RA'AVAD (cited by the RAN and RASHBA) maintains that the taste of the meat penetrates into the radish as much as "Kedei Netilah," which is defined as the width of the thumb (2 or 2.5 centimeters, depending on the differing Halachic opinions). Therefore, one may remove "Kedei Netilah" at both sides of the place where the cut was made, and then one may eat the radish with dairy food.

3. The RASHBA maintains that the entire radish absorbs a large amount of taste of meat from the knife, and the entire radish is considered to be a meat food. None of it may be cooked or eaten with milk. The Rashba's proof for this is that the Gemara does not say what amount of the radish becomes forbidden, but rather it says merely that the radish is forbidden to be eaten with dairy food, implying that the entire radish is forbidden.

(b) When the radish, cut into many pieces with a meat knife, was accidentally cooked in a pot of dairy food, how much dairy food is necessary in order to annul the taste of the meat? The TUR (YD 96) writes that it suffices to have sixty times more dairy food than the absorbed taste of meat in the radish, and it is not necessary to have sixty times more than the entire size of the radish. (This amount of absorbed taste is measured by the size of the blade used to cut the radish. However, if the radish is smaller than the knife, then it suffices to have sixty times more than the size of the radish.

When, however, the radish was cut in only one place (as opposed to being cut into many pieces), according to the Ra'avad it suffices to have sixty times more than a "Kedei Netilah" of the place of the cut if that is smaller than the size of the knife.

(It should be noted that the Poskim dispute whether or not the radish itself may be added to the dairy food in the calculation of sixty times more than the taste of meat, or more than the "Kedei Netilah"; see TAZ 96:5, SHACH 94:23, and PRI MEGADIM in Sifsei Da'as 94:23, in contrast to the KEREISI 94:17. See also KAF HA'CHAYIM 96:19.)

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 96:1) rules like the Ra'avad, l'Chatchilah, and requires that "Kedei Netilah" be removed from the radish in order to cook it or eat it with dairy food. However, if it was already placed into the pot with dairy food, then b'Di'eved it suffices to have sixty times more than the *lesser* amount -- "Kedei Netilah" of the radish, or the amount of taste absorbed in the knife (measured by the size of the blade).

The REMA, however, rules like the Rashba, l'Chatchilah, and prohibits a radish cut with a meat knife from being cooked or eaten with a dairy food. However, if it was already placed into the pot with dairy food, then b'Di'eved the Rema relies on the Ra'avad's opinion and permits the dairy food as long as there is sixty times more than the "Kedei Netilah" of the radish.

This Halachah applies, however, only when the knife used to cut the radish was a Kosher knife, but contained the taste of meat (or milk). According to the Rema, the Halachah is different when the knife used to cut the radish belonged to a Nochri and contained the taste of forbidden food. In such a case, there must be sixty times more than the entire radish in order for the food in the pot to be permitted, even b'Di'eved. This is because the taste absorbed in the radish is the taste of Isur (and not merely the taste of meat), and the Rema (YD 92:4) rules that "Chatichah Na'asah Neveilah" applies to other Isurim besides the Isur of meat and milk. Therefore, the entire radish becomes Asur. According to the Shulchan Aruch (YD 92:4), though, who rules that "Chatichah Na'asah Neveilah" applies only to the Isur of meat and milk, it suffices to have sixty times more than the absorbed taste of forbidden food in the radish, and it is not necessary to have sixty times more permitted food than the entire radish.

There is another relevant point regarding the Halachah of a sharp food cut with a meat (or milk) knife. The Rishonim argue whether or not a sharp food absorbs the taste of the meat from the knife even when the knife was not used to cut meat within the past twenty-four hours ("Eino Ben Yomo"), in which case the taste of the meat in the knife is "Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam" (it gives a bad taste). The SEFER HA'TERUMAH cited by the Tur rules that a sharp food revives and enhances the latent taste of an "Eino Ben Yomo" taste. This is based on the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (39a) which ascribes this ability to the "Chiltis" (a very sharp-tasting fruit). This is also the view of the RASHBA (Teshuvos 1:497) cited by the PRI MEGADIM (Mishbetzos Zahav 96:1).

The MAHARAM MI'ROTENBURG cited by the Tur, however, says that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah is referring only to "Chiltis." Other sharp foods do not absorb the taste from the knife when the taste is "Eino Ben Yomo."

The Shulchan Aruch cites both opinions, and the Halachah follows that of the Sefer ha'Terumah, that even an "Eino Ben Yomo" taste of meat in a knife will cause a radish to be prohibited to be cooked with milk (SHACH 96:19; there are, however, certain situations in which one may be lenient -- see KAF HA'CHAYIM 96:10, ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN 96:4, and CHOCHMAS ADAM 49:7).

(If the knife was used only to cut *cold* meat, and it is clean when it is used to cut the radish, then the radish may be eaten with dairy food. This is because the knife did not absorb the taste of meat from the cold meat. See KAF HA'CHAYIM YD 96:48.)

QUESTION: Rav Dimi asked Rav Nachman whether or not one may place a jar of salt next to a jar of Kamcha (the same as Kutach, a dip that is prepared by cooking whey with stale bread and salt). As RASHI explains, Rav Dimi was asking whether or not we are concerned that some of the Kamcha will fall into the salt without the person's knowledge, and he will then unknowingly use the salt for meat.

Rav Nachman answered that it is forbidden to place a jar of salt next to a jar of Kamcha.

Rav Nachman's ruling, however, seems to contradict the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (end of 11b). The Gemara there relates that the Chachamim did not object to a Jew placing his pot next to the pot of a Nochri. Rabah bar Ula explains that the Chachamim were not concerned that particles of food would splash from the Nochri's pot into the Jew's pot. RASHI there (DH Rabah) writes that such a splash is infrequent, and even if it does happen it would involve only a small amount which would be Batel in the Jew's pot.

Why does Rav Nachman rule that one may not place a jar of Kamcha next to a jar of salt out of concern that some Kamcha might fall into the salt? The Gemara in Avodah Zarah clearly implies that we are not concerned for such a thing.

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAN (41a of the pages of the Rif) answers that there is a difference between a practice that is done frequently, and a practice that is done only occasionally. Jars of salt and Kamcha are used daily, and thus Rav Nachman is stringent and prohibits placing them next to each other. In contrast, it was not common for a Jew and a Nochri to place their pots on the same fire. It happened only occasionally. Since it was considered uncommon for food from the Nochri's pot to splash into the Jew's pot, the Chachamim did not prohibit placing the pots next to each other.

(b) The Ran cites RABEINU CHANANEL who understands Rav Dimi's question differently. Rav Dimi's questions was whether or not one may place a jar of salt directly adjacent to, and touching, a jar of Kamcha. Will the salt absorb some of the Kamcha through the wall of the jar, since the jars are placed so close together? Rav Nachman answered that the salt indeed is capable of absorbing the milk that is placed next to it. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 9:25) also understands the Gemara this way.

According to this explanation, the Rav Nachman's ruling does not contradict the Gemara in Avodah Zarah, because it is obvious that the Jew's pot will not absorb the contents of the Nochri's pot, even if they happen to be touching (see REMA 92:8).

(c) The RITVA writes that even though it is not prohibited to place permitted food next to forbidden food, and we are not concerned that some of the forbidden food will fall into the permitted food, nevertheless placing a jar of salt next to a jar of milk is different. Placing a permitted food next to a forbidden food is permitted, because people are very cautious with forbidden food, and they will make sure that the forbidden food does not become mixed with the permitted food. In addition, Jews do not use the forbidden food at all, and thus it is very unlikely that it will fall into the permitted food. In contrast, both salt and milk are permitted by themselves, and, moreover, both are permitted when each one becomes mixed with the other. In addition, they are both foods that are used frequently. Therefore, the Chachamim prohibited placing them next to each other because of the concern that some milk might fall into the salt. We find that the Chachamim made such enactments to distance a person from the Isur of meat and milk (see, for example, 103b and Insights to Chulin 103:2). (D. Bloom)

QUESTION: The Gemara relates that a bird fell into a container of Kamcha (the same as Kutach, a dip that is prepared by cooking whey with stale bread and salt). Rav Chinena brei d'Rava permitted the dairy food and bird (after it was removed) to be eaten. Even though the Kutach contained salt, the rule that "salting is like cooking" applies only when the quantity of salt in the food is so great that it cannot be eaten (such as the amount of salt used for salting meat; see following Insight ). Kutach can be eaten with its salt, and thus the quantity of salt is not enough to constitute cooking, and the Kutach did not absorb any taste from the bird, and the bird did not absorb any taste from the milk.

The Gemara says that the food is permitted only when the bird was raw. If the bird was roasted, then the bird may not be eaten until its outer layer is peeled ("Kelipah"), since it absorbs milk from the Kutach. Why does a roasted bird absorb more than a raw one?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RITVA and other Rishonim explain that the Gemara is discussing a roasted bird that is still *hot*. Since it is hot, it absorbs milk upon contact. (See also SHULCHAN ARUCH YD 91:7.)

If the bird was hot, then why is it permitted once the outer layer is peeled off? The milk should become absorbed throughout the entire bird!

The reason why it suffices to remove the outer layer is because the Kutach into which the bird fell was *not* hot. Since it was not hot, the principle of "Tata'a Gavar" applies. "Tata'a Gavar" means that the temperature of the substance on the bottom "overpowers" the temperature of the substance on the top, so that if a hot substance falls into a cold substance, the cold overpowers and cools the hot. Accordingly, the Kutach and bird are not considered to have been cooked together. However, in such a case a small amount is always absorbed before the hot food has cooled off (Pesachim 76a), and therefore one must peel off the outer layer of the bird.

(b) TOSFOS (Chulin 96b, DH Ad) explains that even when the roasted bird is cold it absorbs milk, since a young bird ("Bar Gozla") is soft and absorbs milk upon contact even when cold.

Why does Tosfos not give the more simple explanation of the other Rishonim? (REBBI AKIVA EIGER, 96b)

The CHASAM SOFER explains that according to Tosfos, if the bird was hot when it fell into the Kutach, it would suffice to peel off its outer layer. Since the bird sinks to the bottom of the Kutach it becomes the "lower" of the two foods, and thus when the bird is hot, the bird and the Kutach are considered to be cooked together.

Alternatively, perhaps Tosfos inferred from the Gemara that the bird that fell into the Kutach was cold. The Gemara differentiates between a bird that is "roasted" and one that is "raw" bird. If, as the Ritva and other Rishonim explain, there is a difference between a hot bird and a cold bird, the Gemara should differentiate between a "hot" bird and a "cold" bird. The fact that the Gemara does not mention this difference implies that the temperature of the bird is not consequential. (M. Kornfeld)

OPINIONS: The Gemara relates that the principle that "salting is like cooking" applies only when the quantity of salt in the food is so great that it cannot be eaten. When the amount of salt in the food does not render the food inedible, the salt does not effect a transferal of taste and is not considered cooking.

How much salt makes a food considered to be unfit for eating?

(a) RASHI (DH d'Eino) explains that the amount that renders food inedible is the amount of salt used for preserving meat.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Hani) quotes RABEINU TAM who questions Rashi's explanation. There are many cases mentioned in the Gemara where the rule of "salting is like cooking" is applied, and it is unreasonable to suggest that in all of those cases the foods were salted to the degree of salting to preserve food.

Rabeinu Tam explains instead that the quantity of salt normally used for the Melichah process (salting meat to remove its blood) suffices to render a food inedible, and it is that quantity of salt that has the status of cooking. This is also the view of the ROSH (8:33) and MORDECHAI (#714).

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 91:5) rules like Rabeinu Tam.

The REMA cites an opinion that says that we are no longer experts in the matter and we do not know what quantity of salt is necessary to have the status of Rose'ach. Therefore, we should consider even the relatively small amount of salt placed on meat before roasting as enough to be considered Rose'ach. The Rema concludes that it is best to follow this opinion, except in a situation of a great financial loss.

QUESTION: Shmuel rules that when roasted meat is cut over a loaf of bread, and the bread becomes saturated with thick, red liquid that flows from the meat, the bread becomes forbidden.

We know that roasting meat is effective in extracting the blood and permitting the meat to be eaten. Why, then, should the loaf of bread be prohibited, if the roasting of the meat already removed the blood?

ANSWER: The RITVA and RE'AH explain that the meat is certainly permitted when its blood is extracted through roasting. Shmuel says only that the *bread* is prohibited, but not the meat. The reason why the bread is prohibited is not because we are concerned that it actually absorbed some blood, but merely because of "Mar'is ha'Ayin." People will see the bread and might think that it absorbed blood.

The RAMBAN adds that this is the intention of the Gemara when it says that the reason why Rava argued with Shmuel and permitted the loaf of bread is because the bread contained "the wine of the meat," meaning that there was no concern for "Mar'is ha'Ayin" that people might think that it was dipped in blood. (Z. Wainstein)

112b

OPINIONS: Rav Nachman teaches that when fish and fowl are salted together, the fish becomes forbidden. The Gemara explains that even though the vessel in which they are salted contains holes, the fish nevertheless absorbs the blood of the fowl, because fish has soft skin and thus it emits all of its brine before the fowl finishes emitting all of its blood. The fish, since it is no longer in the process of discharging its brine, absorbs the blood of the fowl.

According to this logic, it should be permitted to salt different pieces of meat together only when they were placed in the salting basin at the same time. It should be prohibited to add a piece of meat to the pile being salted, since that piece of meat will continue to discharge its blood after the others have stopped discharging their blood, and the others consequently will absorb the blood of the last piece of meat. Is this indeed the Halachah?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH v'Dagim) explains that it is permitted to add a piece of meat to the pile being salted, because meat is different from fish. After meat finishes discharging its blood, it continues to discharge Tzir (fatty liquids). As long as meat is discharging Tzir, it does not absorb blood. Fish, however, finishes discharging both blood and Tzir long before the fowl that is salted with them finishes discharging its blood.

(b) Tosfos cites RABEINU YOSEF of Orleans who explains that as long as *some* meat in the pile is still discharging blood, the pores of the meat placed in the pile earlier continue to discharge any re-absorbed blood. Fish, however, finish discharging blood before the fowl salted with it even *begins* to discharge blood. Once the pores of the fish have closed, they will not reopen to discharge the blood that the fish absorbs from the fowl, once the fowl begins to discharge its blood.

(Tosfos remains in doubt regarding whether the blood of the meat placed in the pile later becomes absorbed in, and then discharged from, the meat placed there earlier, or whether the blood does is not become absorbed in the earlier meat in the first place.)

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 70:1) rules, like Tosfos, that since meat continues to discharge Tzir, it is permitted to salt multiple pieces together even though some were added later to the pile.