THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
CHULIN 111-112 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
1) HALACHAH: ROASTING LIVER OR UDDER WITH MEAT
OPINIONS: Mereimar teaches that the Halachah is that both the liver and
the udder may be roasted with meat l'Chatchilah as long as it is placed
beneath the meat. It is prohibited l'Chatchilah to place the liver or
udder above the meat and roast it, but b'Di'eved one may eat the roasted
food. It is clear from the Sugya and from RASHI that the Gemara is
discussing *roasting* the meat over fire (as opposed to cooking it in a
When Mereimar rules that the udder may be roasted with meat as long as it
is placed beneath the meat, does he mean that it is permitted only when it
was ripped open (lengthwise and widthwise) and pressed against a wall to
remove the milk, or even if it was not ripped open? If he is referring
only to an udder that was ripped open, then why does he prohibit roasting
it above the meat? An udder that was ripped open may even be cooked in a
pot together with meat! If he is referring even to an udder that was not
ripped open, then how can it be permitted even beneath the meat? The gravy
from the meat will drip onto the udder and mix with the milk inside,
prohibiting it! (TOSFOS DH Tusi)
(a) TOSFOS (DH Tusi) and the ROSH (8:27) write that Mereimar is discussing
an udder that was ripped open in the proper manner to remove the milk.
Even though it is permitted to *cook* such an udder with meat, it is not
permitted to roast it above meat, because some of the milk remaining
inside will drip onto the meat, and the milk on the meat will be
recognizable (in which case the Isur d'Rabanan of udder-milk with meat
will apply). In contrast, when the udder is cooked in a pot with meat, the
udder-milk is not recognizable in the mixture, and thus the Isur d'Rabanan
does not apply.
HALACHAH: The BEIS YOSEF (YD 90) cites both opinions, and rules (SHULCHAN
ARUCH YD 90:4) that we must be stringent like the opinion of Tosfos and
Similarly, a liver that was ripped open in the proper manner to remove the
blood may be roasted only beneath meat, because some blood might drip out
of the liver (TOSFOS DH Kavda). Therefore, it is prohibited l'Chatchilah
to roast a liver or udder above a piece of meat, even though it was ripped
open in the proper manner.
(b) The RASHBA (DH v'Asikna) explains that Mereimar is discussing a liver
or udder that was *not* ripped open to remove its blood or milk. Why,
then, is it permitted b'Di'eved to eat the meat that was roasted beneath
such an udder, if the milk falls onto the meat? The Rashba explains that
it is only a small amount that actually falls onto the meat; most of the
milk of the udder falls into the fire. The Rabanan did not apply the Isur
d'Rabanan of udder-milk with meat in such a situation, where the amount of
udder-milk that falls onto the meat is so small. (In contrast, it is Asur
even b'Di'eved to cook an udder (that was not ripped open) in a pot with
meat, since all the milk of the udder becomes mixed with the meat.)
Similarly, b'Di'eved one may eat the meat that was roasted beneath a liver
that was not ripped open before roasting, because, as the Gemara here
says, the blood of the liver slips away and does not become absorbed in
3) AN EARTHENWARE VESSEL THAT ABSORBED THE TASTE OF FORBIDDEN FOOD
QUESTION: The Gemara relates that when Ravin came to Eretz Yisrael, he
said in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that salting is not considered like
roasting, and pickling is not considered like cooking.
4) HALACHAH: "NOSEN TA'AM BAR NOSEN TA'AM"
Abaye says that the Halachah does not follow the opinion of Ravin in the
name of Rebbi Yochanan. Abaye relates that there was a "Pincha" (an
earthenware plate) in the house of Rebbi Ami in which meat was salted in
order to remove its blood, and afterwards Rebbi Ami broke the plate
(because of the blood absorbed in it). Since Rebbi Ami was a student of
Rebbi Yochanan, it must be that he broke the plate because he heard from
Rebbi Yochanan that salting is like roasting (and since the plate was not
perforated to allow the blood to flow out, as the Gemara later (113a)
requires, the plate became forbidden due to the blood absorbed in it
through the process of salting).
It is not clear, though, why it was necessary for Rebbi Ami to break the
(a) First, why did he not leave the plate unused for twenty-four hours?
The forbidden taste absorbed in the plate would then be considered "Nosen
Ta'am li'Fegam" (an Isur that spoils the taste of the permitted food in a
mixture), and thus it would not prohibit any food subsequently cooked in
(b) Second, even if he did not want to use the plate for cooking food, he
could have perforated the plate, making holes in it so that it could be
used for salting meat!
(c) Third, even if he did not want to use the plate for cooking food or
for salting meat, he could have left the plate to be used only for cold
foods, since cold foods do not absorb the forbidden taste in the plate!
(a) From the fact that Rebbi Ami did not simply leave the plate unused for
twenty-four hours, we learn that "Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam" is forbidden
l'Chatchilah. It is only b'Di'eved that the Torah permits a mixture that
contains a bad taste of Isur. (See RAN in Pesachim, 8a of the pages of the
Rif, and BEIS YOSEF YD 95.)
(b) The earthenware plate could not be perforated, since it would break
(c) From the fact that Rebbi Ami did not keep the plate to be used for
cold food, we learn that any utensil that has absorbed the taste of a
forbidden food may not be kept in one's possession, since one might forget
and use it for a hot food. The RAN writes that it is for this reason that
Rav rules in Pesachim (30a) that earthenware dishes used for Chametz must
be broken or discarded on Pesach. It is not permitted to use those dishes
on Pesach for cold food, because one might forget and use them with hot
food as well. (See TESHUVOS HA'RADVAZ 3:1043, KAF HA'CHAYIM 95:13-14.) (D.
QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that it is permitted to eat fish with milk
when the fish absorbed the taste of meat by being placed on a hot plate
that had been used for meat. This is because the taste of the meat in the
fish is "Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am." This refers to a secondary transfer
of the original taste of the meat. The taste was first transferred from
the meat to the plate, and then it was transferred from the plate to the
fish. (It is "Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am l'Hetera," since the taste in
the fish does not prohibit the fish. When the secondary taste of the food
is prohibited, either because the mixture is prohibited or because the
taste itself is one of a forbidden food, this is "Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen
Ta'am l'Isura" and is forbidden.)
Is every case of "Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am" (l'Hetera) permitted?
ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Hilchesa) quotes the RIVAN who says that RASHI
prohibited eating fish with milk when the fish was *cooked* in a pot used
previously for meat. Even though such a case is also a transfer of taste
of "Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am," the process of cooking transfers the
taste between the pot and the food much more than contact between a cold
food and a hot plate (or a hot food and a cold plate).
This, however, is not the view of most other Rishonim, including the
RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 9:23), RAN (page 41a of the pages of the
Rif), RA'AVYAH (cited by the MORDECHAI 8:710), and ROSH (8:29) and TUR in
the name of Rashi.
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 95:1-2) writes that the Heter of "Nosen
Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am" applies even to a food that was *cooked* in a pot
used for meat or for milk. Thus, according to the Shulchan Aruch, it is
permitted to eat fish with milk when the fish was cooked in a pot used for
meat (as long as the pot was clean). However, the Rishonim (cited by the
BEIS YOSEF and SHACH #3) point out that one may not cooked fish in such a
pot with specific intent to eat the fish with milk. Only when one decided
to eat the fish with milk after it was already cooked in the pot is it
permitted. This is based on the wording of the Gemara here, that says
"fish that *were placed* on a plate...," implying that the fish is
permitted with milk only b'Di'eved.
(The Poskim dispute whether or not the Chachamim penalized one who
intentionally cooks the fish in a meat in order to eat the fish with milk.
Some (see PRI MEGADIM in Mishbetzos Zahav 95:4) rule that the person is
penalized and is prohibited from eating the fish with milk. Others (see
PRI CHADASH 95:2) rule that he may still eat the fish with milk, even
though he did the wrong thing by cooking it in a meat pot with intention
to eat it with milk. See DARCHEI TESHUVAH 95:16, and KAF HA'CHAYIM 95:5.)
The REMA, however, cites the opinion of the Rivan in the name of Rashi
that a food cooked in a pot used for meat may not be eaten with milk. The
Rema writes that the practice is to prohibit it l'Chatchilah, but
b'Di'eved it is permitted (for example, when the food that was cooked in a
meat pot was already placed into a dairy food, one may eat the mixture).
This is the practice followed by Ashkenazim. (See also TAZ 95:3-4, SHACH