Chullin 109

Meet Yalta, wife of Rav Nahman, daughter of the Exilarch. She is strong, witty, a feminist who knows here Torah. You may remember her from Berakhot 51 when she smashed a few hundred jugs of wine when Ulla failed to give her the cup of blessing because she was a woman. In Niddah, she didn’t like the ruling of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, so she brought the case to Rav Yitzḥak. In Kiddushin Rav Yehuda visited her husband and not only did not great Yalta, but argued that men should not talk to women at all – and she ordered ehr husband, “Release him and conclude your business with him, so that he not equate you with another ignoramus.” This girl is a-ma-zing. So, because she is on our daf, we are going to learn from the real master.

Today we get a new Mishna that teaches, One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk, and only then is it permitted to cook it. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive lashes for it, as the halakhic status of the milk in the udder is not that of milk.

Here is Yalta’s wisdom:

Yalta said to her husband Rav Naḥman: Now as a rule, for any item that the Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us a similar item. He prohibited to us the consumption of blood, yet He permitted to us the consumption of liver, which is filled with blood and retains the taste of blood. Likewise, God prohibited sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, but permitted sexual intercourse with one’s wife while she discharges the blood of purity. During a particular period after giving birth, even if she experiences a flow of blood she is not rendered ritually impure and remains permitted to her husband by Torah law. Furthermore, the Torah prohibits the consumption of the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, but permitted the fat of an undomesticated animal, which has the same flavor. It is prohibited to eat pork, but one may eat the brain of a shibuta fish, which has a similar taste. One may not eat giruta, a non-kosher fish, but one may eat the tongue of a fish, which tastes similar. Likewise, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with the wife of another man but permitted one to marry a divorced woman in her previous husband’s lifetime. The Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with one’s brother’s wife, and yet it permits one to marry his yevama, i.e., his brother’s widow when the brother dies childless. Finally, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with a gentile woman but permitted one to marry a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war (see Deuteronomy 21:10–14). Yalta concluded: The Torah prohibits the consumption of meat cooked in milk; I wish to eat a dish that tastes like meat cooked in milk. Upon hearing this, Rav Naḥman said to his cooks: Roast udders on a spit for her.

Her lesson is a good one. We often associate lives of faith and halakhah with deprivation. Yalta tells us no, if you follow God’s path, you are not missing out on anything! True faith can only enrich your life. Don’t get jealous of what others have. Now, go and enjoy your Ubre Asada (a south American dish where they roast cow udders on spits).

Chullin 108

The daf is discussing if a small drop of milk lands into a large amount of meat, if it’s still kosher to eat it. There are two ideas, the first is that if the meat to milk ration is at least 60:1, it’s fine as long as the taste is not effected. On today’s daf we see that this all depends: if the milk fell on a single piece of meat, the 1:60 ratio and question of imparting taste is solely between the milk and that particular piece of meat. If, however, the milk fell into the pot and then the pot was mixed up, the question will be whether the entire mixture has a 60:1 ratio of meat to milk.

Where’s the gem? The Talmud is asking us to pay attention to the boundaries of influence. It’s asking: Where did it land? What has it actually touched? Has it remained localized, or has it entered the whole mixture?

This is important for us today. We have all been in a situation where something said in a group setting targets one person, but maybe effects the entire room/dynamic. The daf is suggesting that, when something isn’t “kosher” or appropriate socially, we need to ask: who does it effect? If someone says something hurtful, does it affect only the person who was directly addressed? Or does it change the atmosphere of the whole room If, someone posts something terrible online, is it simply one person’s statement? Or, once it gets shared, reposted, commented on, and amplified, has it become part of the larger social environment?

It makes me think of Maimonides and his rules for teshuvah. In particular, he says that, if you insulted someone in front of others, you need to gather those same people together when you apologize to the person you hurt.

So next time you mess up, please think about the person you hurt, but also those who may have been affected just by being witness or hearing about the incident. You are, in effect, stirring the pot. Now it’s your job to make it kosher again.

Chullin 107

Today’s daf has an amazing section that teaches us to put the well being of our kids before strict adherence to halakhah; we get evil spirit; and we get a crying kid running to daddy when he is punished by his teacher! Let’s read:

Come and hear, the school of Menashe taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A woman may rinse one hand in water on Yom Kippur, so that she does not touch food before she has washed her hands in the morning, and give bread to her minor son, without concern about violating the prohibition against bathing on Yom Kippur. They said about Shammai the Elder that he did not want to feed his children with even one hand on Yom Kippur, to avoid having to wash it. But due to concerns about the health and well-being of his children, they decreed that he must feed them with two hands, forcing him to wash both!

Love this. I can’t imagine being the kid of Shammai. He is notoriously strict about everything. Here we get a glimpse of his parenting style – he won’t wash even one hand to feed his infant child on Yom Kippur. Thank God for the other rabbis who respond by saying, “Oh, you wouldn’t wash one hand? Well, then we decree that you have to wash both!” The lesson being that we should never be so obsessed with ritual that we neglect the whole reason we do the rituals – to make ourselves more compassionate, loving people.

And not, the evil spirit . . .

Abaye said: The reason for the washing there is due to an evil spirit named Shivta, who contaminates hands that have not been washed in the morning.

No profound insight, but I love it! Before we knew what germs were, we knew something wicked happens when you’re dirty and don’t wash your hands. (Maybe we shoudl have called Covid, Shivta . . . )

And now the kid running to dad to complain about his teacher:

Come and hear: Shmuel’s father found the young Shmuel crying, and said to him: Why are you crying? Shmuel replied: Because my teacher struck me. His father asked: Why did he strike you? Shmuel responded: My teacher said to me: You are feeding my son, but you did not wash your hands. His father asked: And why did you not wash your hands? Shmuel said to him: Only he, the teacher’s son, is eating, and I must wash my hands?

Just a quick recap – Shmuel fed another kid but didn’t wash his hands because he wasn’t the one eating! Clearly Shmuel thinks if you feed someone else, you don’t need to wach your hands (clearly he did not grow up surrounded by restaurant signs saying “employees must wash hands.”).

Shmuel’s father said to him: Is it not enough that your teacher did not learn the halakha properly, that he even strikes you on account of his error?

Daddy’s got Shmuel’s back!

One who feeds another need not wash his hands if he himself is not eating. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one who eats by means of another feeding him needs to wash his hands, even though he does not touch the food. But one who feeds another does not need to wash his hands.

Why is this a gem? I like that Dad’s reaction is not just to side with the teacher, but to listen to his son and take him seriously.

Do I like that he rules that you don’t have to wash your hands when you’re feeding someone else? No. Not at all. But science has proved him wrong, so yay progress.

Chullin 106

Wash your hands before you eat!

Why? Not because of germs. But because if you don’t, you might end up being fed pig meat instead of cow, or you might end up divorced or even dead!!!

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Due to the failure to wash with the first waters, they ultimately fed a Jew pig meat. This case involved a storekeeper who would sell different meat to his Jewish and gentile customers. When a Jew who came to eat with him neglected to wash before eating, the storekeeper assumed he was a gentile and fed him pig meat. And due to the failure to wash with final waters a woman was ultimately divorced from her husband. In this incident, a host who had stolen his guests’ money had lentils on his mustache from a previous meal because he had not washed his hands and mouth after eating. Realizing he had eaten lentils that day, his victims approached the man’s wife and said that her husband had instructed them to tell her to return their money. They then claimed that the man told them to tell her that he had eaten lentils that day as proof that they were telling the truth. They thereby fooled his wife into thinking he wanted her to give their money back. Out of anger, the host divorced his wife. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said the statement slightly differently: Due to the failure to wash with first waters, they fed a Jew meat from an animal carcass, and the failure to wash with final waters killed a person, as in the second incident the host was so angry with his wife that he killed her.

Ha! While these examples (especially the second with the married couple) are extreme, we do learn that we should wash up after eating. That image of the man with lentils stuck in his beard is nasty. We also are taught that what one Jew does can represent the entire community to the non-Jew. If they think Jews wash hands after meals and you don’t? You must not be Jewish. On the flip side, you might be the only Jew tha someone meets, so represent us well!

Chullin 105

If you say you keep kosher, most people would understand that an aspect of that is not eating milk and cheese together. But how long do you have to wait between one to eat the other?

We find out today!

Rav Asi posed a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan… How much time should one wait between eating cheese and eating meat? In response to this question, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: No time at all.

So, meat after milk?You don’t need to wait. But what if you want ice-cream after your steak dinner?

Rav Ḥisda says: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him to eat cheese immediately, as the meat contains fatty substances that stick to one’s mouth and preserve the flavor of meat. But if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay… Mar Ukva said: I am, with regard to this matter, like vinegar, son of wine, with respect to Father, i.e., my practice is inferior to that of my father. As Father, if he were to eat meat at this time, would not eat cheese until tomorrow at this time. But as for me, only at this meal, during which I ate meat, do I not eat cheese; at a different meal on the same day I will eat cheese.

From this we learn that it’s pretty standard to wait 6 hours! That’s a long wait. If you ate dinner at 6pm, you wouldn’t have your ice-cream until midnight! The lesson? Eat desert first.

Chullin 104

Today’s daf explains why chicken parmesan is not kosher while grasshopper parmesan would be. And the rabbis seem to weigh in on the viral vegetable debate! (Are there such a thing as vegetables? Broccoli = flower; green beans = legume, squash = gourd, etc.)

It is prohibited to cook any meat of domesticated and undomesticated animals and birds in milk, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, whose halakhic status is not that of meat. And likewise, the Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to place any meat together with milk products, e.g., cheese, on one table. The reason for this prohibition is that one might come to eat them after they absorb substances from each other. This prohibition applies to all types of meat, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers. . . Gemara adds: It is prohibited to cook any meat cooked in milk, some types of meat by Torah law, i.e., that of domesticated animals, and some types of meat by rabbinic law, i.e., that of undomesticated animals and birds. This prohibition applies to all types of meat except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, which are not prohibited, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law.

Now the question becomes, why didn’t the rabbis allow birds to be eaten with cheese? After all birds don’t lactate and therefore cannot break the rule of “don’t boil a kid in it’s mother’s milk.”

But here, if you permit one to place the meat of birds and cheese on the same table, some might come to place the meat of domesticated animals and cheese on a single table and to eat this meat cooked in milk, thereby transgressing a prohibition by Torah law.

Yep! That turkey burger is not the only time one might be confused about if they’re eating meat or fowl.

But honestly, I am more interested in the vegetable debate as my youngest keeps trying to tell me that “vegetables don’t exist.” Seems the rabbis would agree AND disagree.

One who takes a vow that vegetables are forbidden to him is permitted to eat gourds, as people do not typically consider gourds a type of vegetable, but Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: But it is a common occurrence that a person says to his agent: Purchase vegetables for us, and the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns and says: I found only gourds. Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves that my opinion is correct. Does the agent return and say: I found only legumes? Rather, it is evident that gourds are included in the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent explains that he found only gourds, and asks whether he should purchase them. But legumes are not included in the category of vegetables, and that is why an agent would not even ask about them.

So, Akiva thinks gourds are vegetables but beans are NOT. However, the rabbis he is debating with think gourds are NOT vegetables.

The moral? Categories are weird. If I say I don’t eat meat, I might eat bird or I might not. Some consider fish meat but the rabbis didn’t.

And yes. Vegetables are an arbitrary category, not a scientific one. But you still have to eat them.

Chullin 103

Today, a great debate for those of us who grew up in the 80s and watched the movie “Gremlins” was tackled by the rabbis. . . we know that if a mogwai eats after midnight, it will turn into a gremlin. But, what if the mogwai has food stuck in his teeth?

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The olive-bulk of which the Sages spoke with regard to prohibitions involving eating is measured by the food one actually swallows, aside from the food that remains stuck between the teeth. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it includes even the food that remains stuck between the teeth. In explanation of this dispute, Rav Pappa says: With regard to food that remains stuck between the teeth, everyone agrees that it is not included in measuring an olive-bulk that would render one liable to receive lashes.

Food stuck between the teeth doesn’t count! The great debate is put to rest.

Wow, I knew the Talmud discusses things that apply to modernity – but who knew it would apply to Gremlins?

Chullin 102

Can the exact same act have different consequences for different people? Is that fair? Yep.

Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything with regard to which if another person ate it he would not be liable, but if this person ate it he is liable? Rava said to Abaye: There can be different outcomes for different people who perform the same act, as this individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to his thought.

Intention matters. A different thought process can make the same action have very different meaning and consequences.

Chullin 101

Just because you can’t do something perfect, doesn’t mean you don’t try to do it.

On our daf today, we learn of a time when Jews were so persecuted, they had to hide that they were commemorating Yom Kippur:

Rather Rava said there was a time of religious persecution, and they sent from there, i.e., from Eretz Yisrael, a directive stating that Yom Kippur of this year will not be observed on its proper day but rather on Shabbat. … And similarly, when Ravin and all those who descended from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they said that the true explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.

During this time of persecution, the rabbis instructed the Jews to keep Yom Kippur on Shabbat instead of it’s designated proper day. I think we can learn a powerful lesson from this: there is the ideal, and then, there is the real. What we should do and what we are capable of doing are not always the same thing.

We need to learn to make do with what is possible. Hold on to what we can. And just because we can’t do/worship/perform the way we would hope to – doesn’t mean we don’t try. We just try to do what we can. Even if it means moving the holiest day fo the year.

Chullin 100

On today’s daf, the rabbis are discussing the gid ha-nasheh, the sciatic nerve, and one of the fascinating ideas that comes up is the concept of a beriah—literally, a “creature” or “whole entity.” There are certain things that, because they are considered a complete, distinct thing, cannot simply disappear into a mixture. You can have a huge quantity of permitted food, but a whole, identifiable thing carries a different kind of significance.

We spend so much of our lives as part of something larger: families, congregations, communities, teams, organizations, nations. There is comfort in belonging to something bigger than ourselves. But sometimes being part of the whole can make us forget that we are also distinct.

You don’t lose your significance simply because you are surrounded by a lot of other things.

We don’t have to disappear into the crowd to belong. We can be part of something larger while still remaining fully ourselves.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started