Torah Community Connections

Week 158 - Tuesday - 3 December 2002

HULLIN: CHAPTER 8: MISHNAH 3

If a drop of milk fell onto a piece and there was enough to impart its flavor to that piece, it is forbidden. If one stirred the pot and there was enough in it to impart flavor within that pot, it is forbidden. The udder - one must cut it open and extract its milk; if he did not cut it open, he has not transgressed. The heart - one must cut it open and extract its blood; if he did not cut it open, he has not transgressed. If one places fowl and cheese on the table, he does not transgress a prohibition.

Kehati

Our mishnah teaches the law regarding a drop of milk which has been absorbed by a piece of meat in a pot.

If a drop of milk fell onto a piece of meat in a boiling pot and the entire piece lay outside the broth, e.g., on top of another piece which partially protruded from the broth (Tosafot, Hameiri), and one neither stirred nor covered the pot so that the drop of milk affected this piece alone, and there was enough milk to impart its flavor to that piece - i.e., the piece of meat did not exceed sixty fold the drop of milk that had fallen into it, it - that piece of meat - is forbidden - i.e., the other pieces in the pot and its other contents do not combine to annul the flavor of the milk, since it penetrated only into the piece of meat onto which it fell, as explained above; hence if one removed that piece from the pot before it could absorb the milk and pass it on to the others, that piece is forbidden, but the rest of the pot is permitted (Hameiri).

If one stirred the pot - directly after the drop of milk had fallen onto the piece of meat and placed the piece of meat into the broth before this piece could absorb the milk and receive its flavor, thus spreading throughout the entire content of the pot; so also if he covered the pot, thus causing the vapor and bubbles of the boiling broth to rise and blend the contents of the pot, and there was enough in it - in the drop - to impart flavor within the entire content of that pot - all of it is forbidden; if there is not enough to impart flavor to the entire pot, the piece on which the drop of milk fell is also permitted, since the entire contents of the pot combine to nullify the flavor of that drop of milk. However, if he did not stir directly but only after the piece of meat had absorbed the drop of milk and received its flavor, then this piece is rendered a hatikha shel issur - a forbidden piece that requires a sixty fold preponderance of the other contents for it to be annulled; otherwise the entire contents of the pot are forbidden.

The udder - one must cut it open and extract its milk - the Torah only forbids the mixing of meat with milk that has left the animal's udder in its lifetime; it does not forbid to mix meat with milk that flows from the animal's udder after it has been slaughtered, since it specifies that this is forbidden "in its mother's milk" (Ex. 23:19 et al.), i.e., not in that of a slaughtered animal (Gemara Hul. 113b). However, by Rabbinic law such milk is also forbidden, as a precautionary measure against eating meat and milk forbidden by Torah law. Hence one may not cook the udder even by itself without any other meat, since this is soaked with its own milk. Hence, our mishnah's statement that before cooking "one must cut it open and extract its milk"; according to the Gemara, one must cut it crosswise and press it against the wall and empty it of its milk, after which it may be cooked, i.e., separately (Hameiri). According to Rambam, it may be cooked in a pot with other meat.

If he did not cut it - the udder - open, and empty it of the milk, and cooked it separately in a pot, he has not thereby transgressed the prohibition of mixing meat with milk. The Gemara elaborates: "He has not transgressed the law and it is permitted," i.e., if he cooked it even lekhathilah, he may eat it; our mishnah's choice of "he has not transgressed," - i.e., after the fact, instead of stating that it is "permitted" - is due to its relevance to the second section regarding the heart. A variant version reads "he has not transgressed but it is forbidden," i.e., lekhathilah one may not eat it. However, the halakhah follows the first version, since it is borne out by a baraita cited in the Gemara (see Hul. 109b).

The heart - according to Tractate Keritot (22a) the heart contains two kinds of blood: a) its own, as in the other organs; b) that which it collects during slaughtering. Whereas its own blood is extracted by salting, as is all other blood, the collected blood is not (Hameiri). Our mishnah teaches that before salting the heart, one must cut it open and extract its blood - and then salt it, whereupon he may cook and eat it;

If he salted it but did not cut it open, he must cut it open after salting, extract its blood, whereafter it may be eaten without salting it again; the heart being smooth, it does not absorb the blood that is in it (Pes. 74b). Even if it was cooked in a pot without previously being torn open, one cuts it open after cooking, and it may be eaten (Gemara). But if he did not cut it open and ate it, he has not transgressed - i.e., he is not liable to karet. Tractate Keritot confines the above to a bird's heart which contains less than an olive's bulk of blood. However, if an animal's heart was not cut open after cooking and one ate it, he is liable to karet.

If one places fowl and cheese on the table at which he eats (see mishnah 1), he does not transgress a prohibition - i.e., he does not risk transgressing a Torah prohibition (Gemara), since even their joint consumption does not infringe a Torah law but only a Rabbinic law, since mixing fowl meat with milk is only a Rabbinic restriction. If, however, one places on the table beef with cheese, he does risk the transgression of a Torah law, as explained in mishnah 1. However, the halakhah follows Bet Hillel's rule that fowl meat may also not be placed on the table together with cheese, as explained (above 8:1).

HULLIN: CHAPTER 8: MISHNAH 4

The flesh of a clean animal with the milk of a clean animal - it is forbidden to cook and it is forbidden to derive benefit. The flesh of a clean animal with the milk of an unclean animal, the flesh of an unclean animal with the milk of a clean animal - it is permitted to cook and it is permitted to derive benefit. R. Akiva says, Undomesticated animals and birds are not, by Torah law, since it is stated three times "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" (Ex. 23:19 and 34:26; Deut. 14:21) to exclude undomesticated animals, birds and unclean animals. R. Yose Hagelili says: "It is stated (Deut. 14:21) "You shall not eat any nevelah" and it is stated, "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" - whatever is forbidden under the law of nevelah is forbidden to be cooked with milk. It might be thought that a bird which is also forbidden under the law of nevelah is forbidden to be cooked with milk. But the Torah says "in its mother's milk," thus excluding birds, which have no mother's milk.

Kehati

Our mishnah teaches which flesh and which milk is subject to the prohibition of mixing.

The flesh of a clean animal with the milk of a clean animal - it is forbidden to cook - i.e., the Torah prohibition of cooking together meat and milk applies only to the meat of clean animals with the milk of clean animals, and if cooked together, it is forbidden to derive from it benefit - the prohibition "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" extends to all clean animals, since any reference to "kid" rather than "kid of the goats" - includes also the cow and the ewe (Gemara).

But the flesh of a clean animal with the milk of an unclean animal - e.g., cow flesh with horse milk, or the flesh of an unclean animal with the milk of a clean animal - and needless to say, the flesh of an unclean animal with the milk of an unclean animal - it is permitted to cook and it is permitted to derive benefit from it - one may sell it to a non-Jew, since the meat and milk prohibition does not apply to clean animas. This is learned from one of the three references to “kid” as implying the exclusion of unclean flesh; so also one of the three references to “in its mother’s milk” is interpreted as excluding the milk of an unclean animal. However, if he eats of such a dish he incurs lashes for eating of an unclean animal.

R. Akiva says, Undomesticated animals and birds are not included in the prohibition of mixing meat and milk by Torah law, since it is stated three times "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" – twice in (Ex. 23:19 and 34:26) and once in (Deut. 14:21) “kid” is stated three times – once to exclude undomesticated animals, - once to exclude birds and once to exclude unclean animals. This is the halakhah.

R. Yose Hagelili says: "It is stated (Deut. 14:21) "You shall not eat any nevelah" and it is stated, in the same verse "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" implying that whatever is forbidden under the law of nevelah is forbidden to be cooked with milk. It might be thought that a bird which is also forbidden under the law of nevelah is forbidden to be cooked with milk. But the Torah says "in its mother's milk," thus excluding from this prohibition birds, which have no mother's milk. Thus, according to R. Yose, undomesticated animals which have mother’s milk and are under the law of nevelah, come under the Torah law of meat and milk – as against R. Akiva who regards the above as merely a Rabbinic restriction. According to some R. Yose Hagelili differs also concerning birds; thus, according to R. Akiva, fowl flesh with milk is forbidden by Rabbinic law, whereas R. Yose Hagelili exempts it from any restriction; thus fowl flesh may be eaten with milk even according to Rabbinic law. The halakhah follows R. Akiva.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives