Previous daf

1)

(a) With reference to Rebbi's opinion based on the Chachamim's ruling, Rebbi cannot mean that the pot was stirred or covered only at the end - because he has already expressed his preference for Rebbi Yehudah's opinion in that particular case.

(b) If he is therefore referring to where it was stirred or covered from beginning to end, the Rabbanan themselves must then be speaking - where it was only done at the end.

(c) In which case, the Chachamim hold - Efshar Lesochto, Mutar. (d) We have now clarified - that the Rabbanan hold 'Efshar Lesochto Mutar', whereas Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi hold ' ... Asur'.

(a) Rav Acha mi'Difti suggests - that perhaps even the Rabbanan hold 'Efshar Lesochto Asur', and they permit the other pieces in the pot, because they hold 'Miyn be'Miyno Bateil'.

(b) The ramifications of the two interpretations in the Rabbanan are - whether the initial piece is Bateil too ('Efshar Lesochto Mutar') or not (Miyn be'Miyno Bateil), since, according to Rav Acha mi'Difti's suggestion, they will agree that 'Efshar Lesochto, Asur'.

(c) Consequently, the interpretation of 'ad she'Titein Ta'am be'Rotav ... ' will differ too. According to our interpretation, it refers to - the drop of milk, which does not even render the piece Asur if there is Shishim in the pot; whereas according to Rav Acha mi'Difti's suggestion - it refers to the piece, which remains Asur, only it does forbid the other pieces.

(a) Ravina replied - that had the Rabbanan held Efshar Lesochto Asur, Rebbi would have had to say 've'Ein Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Yehudah be'she'Lo Ni'er' (and not 've'Nir'in Divrei Chachamim ... ').

(b) That is because, seeing as (based on the fear that perhaps he did not stir it properly) the Rabbanan would agree that the first piece remains Asur (even though he stirred from beginning to end), how could Rebbi say that he agrees with the Rabanan, when they agree with Rebbi Yehudah in this point? As a matter of fact, he would then hold like neither of them.

(c) The Sugya concludes - 've'Su Lo Midi', meaning that this is final and there is nothing more to say about this matter.

(a) Aside from the fact that Rebbi agrees with Rebbi Yehudah that 'Efshar Lesochto, Asur', we rule like that - because Rav, Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chanina hold like that, too (and Rav overrules Shmuel, and Rebbi Yochanan, Resh Lakish - who both hold 'Efshar Lesochto, Mutar').

(b) If half a k'Zayis of milk falls on to a piece of meat, and there are more pieces in the pot which amount to Shishim, and one stirred or covered the pot ...

1. ... after the first piece became Asur - the first piece and all the other pieces are Asur (even though they are not subject to Malkos, because it is only Chatzi Shiur).
2. ... from the moment that the milk fell into it - the milk is Bateil (not like Rebbi Yehudah who decrees an Isur in this case).

(c) Bearing in mind that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish (in Avodah Zarah) hold 'Miyn be'Miyno Bateil', we nevertheless follow the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who hold 'Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil' - because t Abaye and Rava (in Avodah-Zarah) hold like Rav and Shmuel.

(a) Before eating an udder or a heart, our Mishnah require one to tear it open, to allow the 'milk' and the blood to drain.

(b) In the event that one ate either of them without tearing it open - he is Patur ...

(c) ... in the case of ...

1. ... the udder - because the contents of the udder are not considered milk.
2. ... the heart - because the Tana is talking about the heart of a chicken, which does not contain a k'Zayis of blood (for which one is not Chayav Malkos or Kareis, even though it is forbidden min ha'Torah).

(d) Neither is he Chayav for eating the heart, which is the size of a k'Zayis - because a heart is smooth, and does not absorb the blood that it contains.

6)

(a) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav comments on our Mishnah 'ha'Kechal ... Lo Kar'o, Eino Over Alav' ... 'u'Mutar'. The problem with that is - that 'Eino Over Alav' implies that it is Asur Lechatchilah.

(b) We nevertheless justify his comment, in view of the Seifa - where the same statement ('Eino Over Alav') regarding the heart really does mean Bedieved (and the Tana tends to use the same Lashon in the Reisha for uniformity sake, as he often does).

(c) 'Eino Over Alav' with regard to ...

1. ... the udder means - that it is Mutar Lechatchilah. 2 ... the heart means - that it is not subject to Kareis (or even Malkos), though it is Asur (mi'd'Oraysa), because of Chatzi Shiur (as we have already explained).

(a) If one cooked a heart without first tearing it open - the Beraisa requires that one still does so before eating it, which it does not do with an udder.

(b) We refute the proof from there that the 'milk' in the udders is permitted Lechatchilah - by suggesting that perhaps the Tana makes no mention of tearing open the udder after it has been cooked, because tearing it open would not achieve anything ...

(c) ... because unlike the heart, which is smooth (and does not absorb the blood), the udder is soft, in which case it would be futile to tear it open afterwards, since the milk has already been absorbed into the flesh.

(d) According to the second Lashon, Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav comments - ('Eino Over Alav') 've'Asur' (and we now refute the Kashya and the proof [which are now reversed] in the same way as we did in the first Lashon).

(a) In the Beraisa that we cite in support of the first Lashon of Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav, - the Tana permits the udder of an animal that was cooked together with its milk, but forbids the stomach of a lamb or a calf, because whereas the former was not gathered in its stomach (and is therefore not yet termed milk), the latter was.

(b) Even though the milk in the udders of an animal is not considered milk, our Mishnah nevertheless requires its removal Lechatchilah - mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) According to Rav Yehudah, when the Tana says 'Kor'o u'Motzi es Chelbo', he means - that one must tear it open horizontally and vertically, and then squeeze it against the wall (to extract the 'milk' from inside the meat).

(d) Rebbi Elazar disagrees with that. When he instructed his servant to 'tear it open and he would eat it', he meant (not to repeat the Mishnah, but) - that simply tearing it open one way was sufficient (and that it was unnecessary to follow Rav Yehudah's instructions).

(a) Yalsa said to Rav Nachman - her husband, that everything that the Torah forbids has an equivalent with the same taste, which it permits.

(b) The Torah permits a taste of ...

1. ... blood - in the liver.
2. ... Nidah - in Dam Tohar (the blood that a Yoledes sees from seven days after the birth of a boy and fourteen after the birth of a girl).
3. ... Cheilev of a Beheimah - in the Cheilev of a Chayah.

(c) The Torah gives us the taste of Chazir in the brain of the Shivuta fish, and that of a Girusa (a Tamei bird) in the tongue of a fish, and of ...

1. ... Eishes Ish - in a divorcee in the lifetime of her ex-husband.
2. ... Eishes Ach - in a Yevamah.
3. ... a Nochris - in an Eishes Y'fas Tohar.

(a) When Yalsa told Rav Nachman that she fancied a taste of Basar be'Chalav, he responded - by ordering the chef to prepare her an udder on a spit-rod.

(b) We reconcile that with our Mishnah, which requires that one first tears it open - by confining that to cooking (where whatever exudes from the meat enters the pot), but not by roasting.

(c) Rav Nachman ...

1. ... establishes the Beraisa 'K'chal she'Bishlo be'Chelbo Mutar' - by roasting (which is not uncommon, see Tosfos DH 'ha'Hu').
2. ... and he explains it to mean Lechatchilah (even though the Lashon implies Bedi'eved), like Rav Zeira Amar Rav explained our Mishnah in the first Lashon.

(d) And he interprets our Mishnah (which is speaking about cooking, and not roasting like the Beraisa) - like the second Lashon of Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav.