גמ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אָמַר רַב: אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, וּמוּתָּר. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן ״אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״ – מִיעֲבַר הוּא דְּלָא עֲבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא!

The mishna teaches that if one did not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it he does not violate the biblical prohibition against eating meat and milk. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: He does not violate the prohibition, and it is altogether permitted to eat the cooked product ab initio . The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: He does not violate the prohibition, i.e., he is not held liable after the fact. One can infer from here as follows: He does not violate a prohibition by Torah law, but there is nevertheless a prohibition ab initio by rabbinic law.

בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא נַמִי לֵיכָּא, וְאַיְידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא ״הַלֵּב קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״, הָתָם – מִיעֲבַר הוּא דְּלָא עֲבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, תְּנָא נַמִי רֵישָׁא ״אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״.

The Gemara explains: By right the mishna should have taught that there is no prohibition here by rabbinic law either. But the tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach in the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition. There it is true that although he does not violate a prohibition by Torah law there is a prohibition by rabbinic law. To preserve linguistic symmetry, he teaches the first clause in this manner as well, stating: He does not violate the prohibition.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַכְּחָל – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת חֲלָבוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הַלֵּב – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – קוֹרְעוֹ לְאַחַר בִּשּׁוּלוֹ, וּמוּתָּר. לֵב הוּא דְּבָעֵי קְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל – לָא בָּעֵי קְרִיעָה.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports this opinion: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk. 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. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita that it is only the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was not torn beforehand. But the udder does not require tearing after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.

דִּלְמָא: לֵב הוּא דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל – לָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה.

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite, that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. But tearing after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk.

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, וְאָסוּר. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: ״אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״ – מִיעֲבַר הוּא דְּלָא עֲבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא.

And some say a different version of the above exchange, based on a different version of Rav’s statement: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: If one does not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it, he does not violate the Torah prohibition, but it is prohibited to eat the cooked product by rabbinic law. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports this opinion, as it states: He does not violate the prohibition, indicating that although he does not violate a Torah prohibition and is not flogged, there is nevertheless a prohibition by rabbinic law.

בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא נַמִי לֵיכָּא, וְאַיְידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא ״הַלֵּב קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״, דְּהָתָם – מִיעֲבַר הוּא דְּלָא עֲבַר, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, תָּנָא נַמִי רֵישָׁא ״אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״.

The Gemara responds: By right the mishna should have taught that there is not even a prohibition by rabbinic law. But the tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate the prohibition for it. There, it is true that although he does not violate a Torah prohibition there is a prohibition by rabbinic law. He therefore teaches in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: He does not violate the prohibition for it.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַכְּחָל – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת חֲלָבוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. הַלֵּב – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ, לֹא קְרָעוֹ – קוֹרְעוֹ לְאַחַר בִּשּׁוּלוֹ, וּמוּתָּר. לֵב הוּא דְּבָעֵי קְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל – לָא בָּעֵי קְרִיעָה!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita : One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its milk. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition for it. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita that it is only the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was not torn beforehand, but the udder does not require tearing after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.

דִּלְמָא: לֵב הוּא דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה, אֲבָל כְּחָל – לָא סַגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּקְרִיעָה.

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite, that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. But tearing it after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk. This concludes the second version of the Gemara’s discussion.

תַּנְיָא כְּלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא דְּרַב: כְּחָל שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ בַּחֲלָבוֹ – מוּתָּר, קֵבָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ בַּחֲלָבָהּ – אָסוּר,

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the first version of Rav’s statement: An udder that one cooked, i.e., roasted, in its milk is permitted. By contrast, the stomach of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked, i.e., roasted, together with the milk it contains prohibited for consumption.

וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה – זֶה כָּנוּס בְּמֵעָיו, וְזֶה אֵין כָּנוּס בְּמֵעָיו.

The baraita explains: And what is the distinction between this stomach and that udder? The milk this calf suckled was considered milk the moment it left the mother’s teat, and it was merely collected in the calf’s innards. But that milk in the udder is not defined as milk, since it was never collected in the animal’s innards from outside but is found in the flesh. Consequently, this meat of the udder is not prohibited if it is roasted with the milk it contains, although one should still tear it by rabbinic law ab initio .

כֵּיצַד קוֹרְעוֹ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: קוֹרְעוֹ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב וְטָחוֹ בְּכוֹתֶל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: קְרַע לִי וַאֲנָא אֵיכוּל. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן? מַתְנִיתִין הִיא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב וְטָחוֹ בְּכוֹתֶל.

§ The Gemara inquires: How must one tear an udder before cooking it? Rav Yehuda says: One tears it lengthwise and widthwise [ sheti va’erev ] and smears it against a wall to remove all the milk. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar said to his attendant: Tear an udder for me before you roast it, and I will eat it. The Gemara asks: What is this episode teaching us? It is explicitly stated in the mishna that one must do this. The Gemara answers: This story teaches us that according to Rabbi Elazar we do not require one to tear it lengthwise and widthwise and smear it against a wall. Rather, it is enough simply to tear it once, either lengthwise or widthwise.

אֲמַרַה לֵיהּ יַלְתָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מִכְּדִי, כָּל דַּאֲסַר לָן רַחֲמָנָא שְׁרָא לָן כְּוָותֵיהּ, אֲסַר לָן דָּמָא – שְׁרָא לָן כַּבְדָּא, נִדָּה – דַּם טוֹהַר,

§ 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.

חֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה – חֵלֶב חַיָּה, חֲזִיר – מוֹחָא דְּשִׁיבּוּטָא, גִּירוּתָא – לִישָּׁנָא דְּכַוְורָא,

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.

אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ – גְּרוּשָׁה בְּחַיֵּי בַעְלָהּ, אֵשֶׁת אָח – יְבָמָה, גּוֹיָה – יְפַת תֹּאַר, בָּעֵינַן לְמֵיכַל בִּשְׂרָא בְּחַלְבָא!

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.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן לְטַבָּחֵי: זְוִיקוּ לָהּ כָּחְלִי. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן ״קוֹרְעוֹ״? הַהוּא לִקְדֵרָה.

Upon hearing this, Rav Naḥman said to his cooks: Roast udders on a spit for her. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one must tear the udder first? Rav Naḥman did not tell his cooks to tear the udders. The Gemara answers: That requirement was stated only with regard to cooking in a pot, not roasting.

וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ״ – דִּיעֲבַד – אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה – לָא! הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה, וְאַיְידֵי דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא קֵבָה,

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the baraita cited above: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted? This indicates that after the fact, yes, it is permitted, but one may not roast it ab initio without tearing it. The Gemara answers: The same is true even of roasting ab initio , i.e., it is permitted, and the tanna of the baraita uses this language since he wants to teach in the latter clause: A stomach