Commentary for Chullin 8:7

כל הבשר אסור לבשל בחלב – there are those of them, from the words of the Torah, such as the flesh–meat of cattle. But there are those of them from words of the Scribes, such as the meat–flesh of fowl.

Introduction Three times the Torah states, “Do not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.” While the Torah speaks specifically about cooking a kid in its own mother’s milk, all of the rabbis agree that the prohibition is much broader. First of all, it applies to the meat and milk of all domesticated animals (sheeps, goats and cows). Second of all, all rabbis agree that it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from milk and meat that have been cooked together the prohibition is not just against cooking. However, beyond that, there are several issues that are not clear, and about which rabbis debate. These debates and the rules concerning milk and meat are in our chapter.

חוץ מבשר דגים וחגבים – which are not either from the words of the Torah nor from the words of the Scribes.

Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. There are several categories of meat: 1) Domesticated animals, sheep, goats and cows; 2) Wild animals, such as deer; 3) Fowl; 4) Fish and locusts. When it comes to the prohibition of cooking meat and milk, our mishnah draws the line before category four. Although wild animals and fowl are quite dissimilar from goats, the animal mentioned in the verse itself, it is still prohibited to cook them in milk. Indeed, fowl and milk are prohibited even though birds don’t have milk! In my opinion, the mishnah defines “meat” as anything that needs to be slaughtered. Since fish and locusts are not slaughtered, they can be cooked and eaten with milk. This rule is recognizable today because it is the rule we follow. However, we should note that not all rabbis agreed and there were some rabbis who held that it was either not prohibited by the Torah to cook and eat fowl and meat, or that it was completely permitted. This opinion was held by a few during the talmudic period, but was not accepted in later times.

ואסור להעלותן עם הגבינה על השלחן – and even the flesh–meat of fowl whose eating is forbidden [with cheese] from the words of the Sages, it is forbidden to bring them up with the cheese on the table. It is a decree lest one brings cheese with the flesh–meat of cattle in a boiling tightly-covered pot, which is forbidden from the Torah, which is considered cooking.

And it is also forbidden to place it upon the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. Any meat which may not be cooked with milk, may also not be placed on the same table as a dairy product, lest someone come to eat the two of them together. We can see here that the prohibition of cooking milk and meat is clearly also a prohibition of eating them together.

הנודר מן הבשר – in vows, he went after the language of human beings. And for every type of meat that a person calls “meat”, except for the meat of fish and locusts.

Fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese but may not be eaten with it, the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel say: it may neither be placed [upon the table together with cheese] nor eaten with it. Rabbi Yose said: this is one of the leniencies of Bet shammai and the stringencies of Bet Hillel . Bet Shammai is more lenient than Bet Hillel when it comes to fowl. It seems likely that according to Bet Shammai the prohibition of eating fowl and milk is only derabanan, of rabbinic authority. Bet Hillel might hold that it is of toraitic origin, and therefore they rule more strictly. Alternatively, they are simply stricter than Bet Shammai, but agree that fowl and cheese is only prohibited by rabbinic authority. In any case, Rabbi Yose points out that this is one of the unusual cases where Bet Hillel rules more strictly than Bet Shammai.

Concerning what table did they speak? Concerning the table upon which one eats; but on the table whereon the food is set out one may place the one beside the other, and not be concerned. This section refers to the table mentioned in sections two and three. When it is prohibited to place meat and milk on the same table--that is on a table which people eat off of. Meat and milk can be placed next to each other on tables that are used to prepare foods.

ובלבד שלא יהיו נוגעים זה בזה – for if they (i.e., meat and cheese) touch–come in contact, even though it is something cold with something cold, they require rinsing.

A person may wrap up meat and cheese in one cloth, provided they do not touch one another. As long as the meat and cheese don’t touch, they may be wrapped together, without concern that someone will eat the two of them together.

שני אכסנאין אוכלין על שלחן אחד – specifically if they don’t know one another, but if they know each other, it is forbidden, for perhaps one of them will take from that of his colleague and will eat it. But the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: two people at an inn may eat at the same table, the one meat and the other cheese, without concern. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that meat and cheese should not be placed on the same table. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that if people are eating at an inn, they may eat off the same table. The reason that this is allowed is that people at an inn do not know each other and there is no concern that one person will come to eat from the other person’s food. If the two people do know each other, the mishnah would seem to not allow them to eat off of the same table.

טיפת חלב שנפלה – into the pot of one of the pieces for all of it is outside of the sauce, and he did not stir the pot nor did he cover it. The taste of the drop [of milk] was not divided–spread other than upon that piece alone.

If a drop of milk fell on a piece of meat and it imparted a flavor into that piece, it is forbidden. If milk is mixed in with meat, the mixture is prohibited if the milk imparts a taste to the meat. Thus if a drop of milk falls onto a piece of meat in a pot, the meat is prohibited only if one could taste the milk.

אם יש בנותן טעם באותה חתיכה – meaning to say, if there is not in that piece alone sixty [parts] to nullify the drop, the piece [of meat] is immediately forbidden and prohibits [the pieces] next to it, and it requires sixty [parts] corresponding the entire [piece of] meat.

If he stirred up the pot, then it is forbidden only if [the drop of milk] imparted a flavor into [all that was in] the pot. If he stirs the pot, then the small drop of milk will spread out to the entire mixture. In such a case, the meat is prohibited only if there is enough milk to impart a taste to the entire pot. But if there is not enough milk to give its taste to the entire pot, then even the piece of meat onto which the drop of milk fell is permitted, because that drop of milk has now spread out to the entire pot.

ניער את הקדרה – that he stirred it immediately, before the piece actually absorbed the taste from the drop [of milk], for now, the drop [of milk] has been mixed with everything.

The udder: he must cut it open and empty it of its milk; If he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on its account. The udder is a problematic part of the animal because it is flesh filled with meat. If one wishes to eat the udder, he must cut it open before cooking it and empty it of all of the milk gathered in it. Then he can cook it. If he doesn’t open it, and then he cooks it with the milk, he is not liable for cooking or eating milk and meat, since the milk that is inside the flesh is not considered to be milk until it has been expelled through the animal’s udders.

אם יש בנותן אעם באותה קדרה – meaning to say, there isn’t power in the drop [of milk] to prohibit all of it, other than if it has the flavor to give to the entire pot.

The heart: he must cut it open and empty it of its blood; If he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on its account. The same problem exists when it comes to the heart it is meat (permitted) filled with blood (forbidden). He should cut it open and empty out the blood before he eats it, but if he cooks it in its blood, and eats it, he has not transgressed the biblical prohibition of eating blood.

הכחל – the nipples [of the breast] of the cow.

One who puts fowl onto a table with cheese has not transgressed a negative commandment. Mishnah one taught that it is forbidden to put meat and milk on the same table. Our mishnah points out that while this is forbidden, one who does put them on the same table has not transgressed a negative commandment.

קורעו ומוציא את חלבו – tears it by its warp (i.e., longitudinal direction) and woof (i.e., latitudinal direction) and squeeze it–fasten it into the wall and he is permitted afterwards to cook it with the meat in the pot.

לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו – of he cooked it alone in the pot, and it is permissible to do this even ab initio, but since it (i.e., the Mishnah) is required to teach the concluding clause regarding the heart, if he didn’t tear it, he doesn’t violate anything regarding it, but nevertheless, there is a prohibition, it is also taught in the opening clause, that he doesn’t violate anything, but if he cooked it with the meat without tearing it, we estimate it by sixty [parts], and the nipple itself is part of the count, but the nipple remains always forbidden.

הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו. לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו – to be in extirpation, and in Tractate Keritot [22a], it establishes it with the heart of a fowl that does not have an olive’s bulk of blood, but the heart of cattle, one is liable for extirpation if he did not eat it and did not tear it after cooking it. But the flesh of the heart is not forbidden, for the heart is part but does not absorb.

אינו עובר לבא תעשה – he cannot come to [the violation of] a negative commandment, meaning to say, one should not worry lest he eat it and transgress it; or alternatively he consumes it and does not transgress the negative commandment.

מותר לבשל ומותר בהנאה – there is nothing in it because of meat with milk, for “a kid” (“You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” is written three times (i.e., Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21) relating to the prohibition of meat in milk. And one of them is to exclude the unclean–levitically impure, for if he cooked the meat of unclean cattle, even in the milk of pure cattle it is permitted, but, however, regarding eating, it is prohibited because of unclean meat. And similarly, also, as the words “in its mother’s milk” is written three times, and one of those is to exclude impure milk, and even if the meat is pure.

Introduction Strictly speaking, the Torah prohibits boiling only a kid (a baby goat) in its mother’s milk. As I stated in the introduction to this chapter, all rabbis agree that the prohibition is broader. In our mishnah there are two arguments: 1) whether or not the prohibition includes fowl and wild animals; 2) how the extensions to this prohibition are derived (the midrash).

פרט לחיה ולעוף ולבהמה טמאה – a “kid,” excluding fowl which is not cattle. A “kid,” excluding a beast of chase, and even though a beast of chase is included within cattle. An additional Biblical verse comes to exclude it. A “kid,” and not unclean cattle, and we derive if from what is written (Genesis 27:16): “with the skins of the kids;” “Judah sent the kid [by his friend the Adullamite]” (Genesis 38:20) – here the Biblical verse explains to you that this “kid” is from the goats. But if he did not explain this, there is by implication, even the rest of the cattle, hence it was necessary for him to explain this.

It is forbidden to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of a clean animal or to derive any benefit from it. But it is permitted to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of an unclean animal or the meat of an unclean animal in the milk of a clean animal and to derive benefit from it. A kid and its mother are both clean (kosher) animals. The rabbis use the kid as a paradigm for all other clean animals. The prohibition of meat and milk applies only to the meat and milk of clean animals. But if one boils pig meat in milk or cow meat in camel milk, he has not transgressed any violation. He may also derive benefit from it (by selling it). Of course, he can’t eat it because pig and camel aren’t kosher. But as long as he doesn’t eat the mixture, he has not transgressed.

נאמר לא תאכלו כל נבלה – and it is stated in that same [Biblical] verse: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk, which implies that everyone who practices this prohibition of a carrion (i.e., an animal that has died a natural death), it has because of [the prohibition] of meat with milk. And there is a difference between Rabbi Yosi Haglili and Rabbi Akiva, for Rabbi Yosi Haglili holds that a beast of chase is according to Torah, for everything that is forbidden because of being a carrion, it also has the [prohibition of] meat with milk, except for the fowl, which has no mother’s milk. But Rabbi Akiva holds that beasts of chase are not from the Torah; alternatively, there is a difference between them concerning fowl according to the Rabbis. Rabbi Akiva who explained that it is not from the Torah, implying that it is from the Rabbis where regarding it there is a prohibition, but Rabbi Yosi Haglili did not explain this language and permitted it completely. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Akiva says: wild animals and fowls are not included in the prohibition of the Torah, for it is written three times, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk;” to exclude wild animals, fowl, and unclean animals. Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is that the prohibition does not extend to wild animals or fowl, which are in a different category from the kid. Rabbi Akiva derives this midrashically from the fact that the Torah prohibits boiling a kid in its mother’s milk three times each time the Torah excludes something that is not similar to a kid. Note that Rabbi Akiva does not state that it is permitted to boil or eat chicken and milk. He only says that doing so is not forbidden by the Torah it is forbidden by the rabbis.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, it is said, “You shall not eat any nevelah” and [in the same verse] it says, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21) anything that is prohibited because of nevelah it is forbidden to cook in milk. Fowl which is prohibited because of nevelah, it might also be forbidden to cook in milk, Scripture says, “In its mother’s milk;” this excludes fowl which has no mother's milk. Rabbi Yose the Galilean disagrees with Rabbi Akiva on two counts. First of all, he holds that the wild animal is prohibited by the Torah, since it is prohibited to eat a wild animal that was not slaughtered properly, meaning one that is a nevelah. He derives this from the juxtaposition of the prohibition of nevelah with the prohibition of meat and milk. Secondly, he seems to hold that it is permissible to eat fowl and milk, whereas Rabbi Akiva seemed to think that this was prohibited by the rabbis. Indeed, in the Talmud it states that in Rabbi Yose the Galilean’s place people used to actually eat fowl and milk. However, this is not the accepted halakhah. According to the accepted halakhah, chicken and milk is prohibited “derabanan” by the rabbis, as was stated by Rabbi Akiva.

קיבה – congealed milk that is within the maw.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with the milk that is found inside the stomach of an animal. This sour milk contains enzymes that were used to curdle milk and make cheese. Similarly, the lining of the stomach was also used in this process.

נכרי ושל נבלה – this is what he said, the maw [of the stomach] slaughtered by a heathen is carrion and this is prohibited.

The [milk in the] stomach [of an animal] of a Gentile or [in the stomach of] a nevelah is forbidden. This milk is prohibited because the animal is prohibited.

המעמיד – milk.

If a man curdled milk with the skin of the stomach of an animal that was validly slaughtered and it imparted its flavor [to the milk] it is forbidden. The skin of the stomach of an animal is considered to be meat. Therefore, if a meaty taste is imparted to the cheese then the cheese is considered to be meat mixed with milk and it is forbidden. If there is no taste of the meat, then the cheese is permitted.

בעור של קיבה – which is meat.

The [milk in the] stomach of a validly slaughtered animal which had suckled from a terefah animal is forbidden. The [milk in the] stomach of a terefah animal which had suckled from a kosher animal is permitted, because the milk is collected inside. The milk in the stomach of an animal is considered to have come from the mother from whom the animal suckled. Thus if milk is found in the stomach of an animal that was validly slaughtered, but it is known that the milk came from a terefah (an animal that cannot be eaten because it will die from a defect/wound) then the milk is prohibited. In contrast, if the slaughtered animal was a terefah, but the animal from which it suckled was valid, then the milk is permitted. We should note that this mishnah has many ramifications for later halakhah, specifically with regard to the issue of making cheese. There are various opinions among medieval commentators with regard to whether the milk found in the stomach of an animal, which is called rennet, can be used to make cheese if it comes from a non-kosher animal. However, this is not the place to expand upon such an issue. For more information, you might want to look on the Rabbinical Assembly’s website for a teshuvah concerning the use of rennet in making cheese.

אם יש בה – to impart a flavor with milk, it is prohibited, and if not, it is permitted, and even though he curdles [milk] since the flesh itself is of something permitted, and its prohibition is not other than on account of another matter that was combined with it, and we don’t say in this that everything follows after the curdling. But if he curdled the cheese in the flesh of the maw of a carrion, even if it doesn’t have what to impart a flavor in the milk, it is prohibited because the curdling is prohibited, and its prohibition is on account of itself. Therefore, [the Rabbis] prohibited the heathen cheeses because they curdle it in the skin of the maw of a carrion. But the rennet itself which is the congealed milk that is within the maw. We wind up that there isn’t a prohibition at all, that it is a mere secretion (see Tractate Hullin 116b). Maimonides wrote this, but Rashi wrote that the milk that is found congealed in the skin of the maw that we salt it in its hide. I would be wont to permit it until this point, for as long as no other milk is placed in it. But I would err in this for I would think as we state [in Talmud Avodah Zarah 29b -see Mishnah Avodah Zarah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5) regarding the rennet from a whole [burnt] offering of a Kohen who is not squeamish sucks it out raw, we learn from it that it is a mere secretion and it is not forbidden. But it is not complete milk, as it is taught in our Mishnah that it is fit, when one sucked it from an animal with an organic inflicted disease, it is prohibited, we learn from it that it is milk. And the rennet of a burnt offering which is permitted, because it is not part of its body but rather that which is quaffed from its mother, and it is an entrance into the bowels like it is placed into a dish and it is permitted.

שחחלב מועלין בו – and even offerings of lesser sanctity (I.e., individual peace offerings, the thanks-offering, the Nazirite’s ram, the male firstborn of a kosher animal, animal tithes, and the Paschal lamb) which are the money of their owners, there is no sacrilege during their lifetimes, [but] there is sacrilege with the portions of the offerings consumed on the altar (i.e., portions of sin-offerings, guilt-offerings and peace offerings consumed on the altar such as the fats, the kidneys and the fat-tail, etc.) after their blood has been sprinkled, as it is written regarding offerings of lesser sanctity (Leviticus 3:16): “All fat is the LORD’s,” and thus it is written for them “the LORD’s,” to state that we call them the holy things of God, regarding sacrilege–misappropriation.

Introduction The last mishnah in our chapter has nothing to do with the subject of milk and meat. It deals with the prohibitions of forbidden fat (helev) and blood and compares the applicability of the two.

וטמא – if he ate it with an impure body, he is liable for two sin-offerings; one because of fat and one because of impurity of an impure body.

In certain respects the prohibition of the fat is stricter than the prohibition of the blood, and in certain respects the prohibition of the blood is stricter than the prohibition of the fat. This section introduces the structure of the mishnah which compares the prohibition of forbidden fat with that of blood.

משא"כ בדם (see Tractate Meilah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3) – for relating to blood, it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “[For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you] for making expiation for your lives upon the altar,” for expiation–atonement it was given, but not that it should be called, “mine” to make sacrilege–misappropriation, for it does not endure other than to atone for yourselves, but it does not have [anything] because of a sacrifice that is disqualified by improper intention [of the officiating Kohen] (i.e., “piggul”) for another thing permits it, such as the meat of holy things as the blood permits it to the Kohanim with his sprinkling of it, and like the example of the burnt offering whose blood permits it to the altar, for if its blood was not sprinkled, its limbs are not offered, as it is written (Leviticus 17:6): “That the priest may dash [the] blood against the altar of the LORD [at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting],” and afterwards, “and turn the fat into smoke as a pleasing odor [to the LORD].” These have in them [the possibility of] an offering disqualified by improper intention. But blood which in and of itself permits, they are not liable for regarding an offering disqualified by improper intention. But they don’t have an offering left over [after the time permitted for it to be eaten – punishable by extirpation] and impure also, as it is written, “with blood” twice to exclude. – “him” and “they” – one to exclude from an offering left over, and one to exclude from defilement.

The prohibition of the fat is stricter, in that the fat is subject to the law of sacrilege, and one is obligated over it for piggul, notar, and uncleanness which is not the case with the blood. One who eats the forbidden fat of a sacrificial animal is liable for sacrilege, meaning he has made illicit use of sacred property. The fat is supposed to be burned on the altar. Thus if one eats this fat he has transgressed twice: 1) sacrilege; 2) eating forbidden fat. He is also obligated for transgressing the other prohibitions associated with sacrificial animals. When a priest, while offering a sacrifice, intends to eat it after it may no longer be eaten, he makes it into piggul. Notar is remnant sacrificial meat that has been left over after it can no longer be eaten. One who eats forbidden fat from an animal that is piggul and notar is liable for transgressing piggul and notar and for eating forbidden fat. He is also liable if he eats the fat while he is unclean or while the meat is unclean. None of these prohibitions apply to blood. If one eats blood of a piggul or notar animal, or in a state of uncleanness he has only transgressed the prohibition of eating blood. The blood is not treated as if it were the flesh of the animal.

אלא בבהמה טמאה – as it is written (Leviticus 7:25): “[If anyone eats the fat of] animals from which offerings by fie may be made to the LORD [the person who eats it shall be cut of from his kin].”

And the prohibition of the blood is stricter, for it applies to cattle, wild animals and fowl, whether clean or unclean; but the prohibition of the fat applies to clean cattle only. The prohibition of forbidden fat applies only to clean (permitted) cattle: sheep, goats and cows (see Leviticus 7:23). It does not apply to wild animals or birds. In contrast, the blood prohibition applies to all living things: cattle, wild animals and birds.