Daf Yomi
Chullin 116
In another voice
Sugya Map
The sugya in Chullin 116a–Chullin 116b serves as a theoretical and practical junction, blending the abstract hermeneutics of Kal VaChomer (a fortiori) refutations with the concrete taxonomy of agricultural and dietary prohibitions.
- The Hermeneutical Architecture of Pircha: The Gemara establishes the structural boundaries of dialectical refutations (pirchot). It delineates the standard for dismantling a Kal VaChomer derived from a single source (chada mi-chada) versus those derived from multiple sources (chada mi-tartei or chada mi-tlat).
- The Ontological Status of Kilai Hakerem Roots: The Gemara investigates whether the roots of diverse kinds in a vineyard (ikarei kelayim) are forbidden de'oraita. This hinges on a textual tension in Deuteronomy 22:9 between the terms "the seed" (ha-zera) and "the growth" (ha-tevu'ah), analyzed through the mechanics of a perforated pot (atzitz nakuv) Mishnah Kilayim 7:8.
- The Scope of Basar BeChalav (Meat and Milk): A tannaitic dispute unfolds regarding the status of chayah (wild beasts) and of (birds). Rabbi Akiva excludes them from the Torah prohibition using three iterations of "kid" (gedi), while Rabbi Yosei HaGelili excludes birds because they lack "mother's milk" (chalav imo), leaving chayah prohibited de'oraita.
- The Halakhic Chemistry of Rennet (Keva): The Gemara concludes with the status of congealed milk in the stomach of a carcass (kevat neveilah) or a gentile's slaughter (kevat akum). The core question is whether this substance is classified as food (okhel) or mere organic waste/secretion (pirsha).
Nafka Minot (Practical Ramifications)
- Rabbinic vs. Biblical Status of Poultry in Milk: If poultry is excluded via "mother's milk" (Rabbi Yosei HaGelili), is it permitted even Rabbinically?
- Kilai Hakerem Benefit: Are the roots of Kilai Hakerem prohibited for use, or only the edible growth?
- Modern Food Technology: Can animal-derived enzymes (rennet) from non-kosher animals be utilized as coagulants in cheese production?
Listen to this lesson. Ask it questions.
Audio, a chevruta that cites its sources, Hebrew tools, and every daily cycle, in the app.
Text Snapshot
חדא מחדא — פרכינן קולא וחומרא, ולא כל דהו. חדא מתרתי — פרכינן אפילו כל דהו.
"What is unique about diverse kinds in a vineyard? They are unique in that they had no time that they were fit."
אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: זאת אומרת עיקרי כלאי הכרם אסורים, והיו להם שעת הכושר קודם שישרשו.
"The law is: One may not curdle milk with the skin of the stomach of a carcass, but one may curdle milk with rennet from the stomach of a carcass..."
- חדא מחדא / חדא מתרתי: The shift from chada (one) to tartei (two) alters the epistemic burden. A single source can only be refuted by showing an asymmetrical relationship of leniency and stringency (kula ve-chumra); a multi-source derivation is vulnerable to any distinguishing feature (kol dehu)[^1].
- עיקרי כלאי הכרם (Roots of Vineyard Kilayim): Rav Adda bar Ahava exploits the temporal claim of "no time of fitness" (lo hayah lahem she'at hacosher)[^2] to prove that the roots (ikarin) are forbidden. If the roots are forbidden, they must have been permitted in the split second between planting and taking root (שרשו).
- עור הקיבה vs. קיבה (Stomach Skin vs. Rennet): The Mishnah distinguishes between the physical stomach wall (or hakeva)—which is meat—and the congealed milk inside (keva), which is categorized as pirsha (secretion)[^3].
[^1]: Chullin 116a; see Rashi s.v. "חדא מחדא". [^2]: Chullin 116a; see Rashi s.v. "שכן לא היתה להן שעת הכושר". [^3]: Chullin 116b; see Gemara's conclusion, "מאי טעמא? חלב המכונס בקיבה פירשא בעלמא הוא".
Readings
1. The Hermeneutics of Pircha: Rashi vs. Tosafot
The Gemara asserts that when deriving a law from a single source (chada mi-chada), one cannot refute the Kal VaChomer by pointing to an arbitrary difference (kol dehu).
Rashi explains the conceptual necessity of this rule:
"חדא מחדא... פרכינן קולא וחומרא ולא כל דהו: כגון בריש מילתא דבעי לאתויי מערלה לחודה פרכינן קולא וחומרא ולא כל דהו"[^4].
If any minor difference (kol dehu) could break a Kal VaChomer, the entire hermeneutical mechanism would collapse. No two halakhic categories are identical; if they were, they would not be two separate categories. Therefore, a refutation must demonstrate that the source case possesses a unique stringency that is directly responsible for the law in question, which the target case lacks.
Tosafot challenges this paradigm when transitioning to chada mi-tartei (deriving from two sources):
"חדא מתרתי אפילו כל דהו פרכינן — משמע אע"ג דלא הדר דינא..."[^5].
If we can refute a two-source derivation with any minor difference, why doesn't the proponent simply bring a third source (chada mi-tlat) to neutralize that difference?
Tosafot explains that when we have two sources, we construct a "common element" (tsad hashavah). If both sources share an arbitrary, non-essential characteristic (for example, both are agricultural products, like Orlah and Kilai Hakerem), we can argue that this shared characteristic is the cause of the law. To defeat this, the proponent must bring a third source that lacks this characteristic. Thus, the vulnerability to kol dehu in a tsad hashavah is not a logical weakness, but a tool to isolate the true halakhic variable.
2. The Metaphysics of Kilayim Roots: Rambam vs. Ra'avad
The Gemara uses the ruling of Rav Adda bar Ahava to establish that the roots of Kilai Hakerem are biblically forbidden:
"זאת אומרת עיקרי כלאי הכרם אסורים, והיו להם שעת הכושר קודם שישרשו"[^6].
This deduction relies on the text of Deuteronomy 22:9: "Lest the growth of the seed which you have sown be forfeited, together with the increase of the vineyard." The term "growth" (tevu'ah) implies the fruit, yet Rav Adda bar Ahava includes the roots (ikarin).
The Rambam codifies this stringency:
"כלאי הכרם... אחד הזרע ואחד הירק ואחד העיקרים הכל אסור בהנאה"[^7].
The Rambam views the prohibition of Kilai Hakerem as an ontological transformation of the entire plant. Once the forbidden mixture is planted and takes root, the cheftza (object) of the plant—including its non-edible roots—becomes permeated with the issur.
The Ra'avad, however, limits this scope. He argues that if a plant was already grown and merely transplanted into a vineyard, the existing roots do not become forbidden unless they physically increase in size within the vineyard.
The underlying dispute lies in the mechanism of the issur: Is it a personal prohibition on the act of planting (issur gavra), or a physical contamination of the agricultural object (issur cheftza)? If it is an issur cheftza, the roots—as the life-force of the forbidden entity—must be prohibited. If it is an issur gavra targeting the production of "growth," only the resulting crop (tevu'ah) is forbidden.
3. The Status of Rennet: Substance vs. Secretion
The Gemara concludes with a definitive ruling on the congealed milk found inside the stomach of a carcass:
"והלכתא: אין מעמידין בעור קיבת נבלה, אבל מעמידין בקיבת נבלה ובקיבת שחיטת עובד כוכבים..."[^8].
The Gemara permits using this rennet because "the milk collected in the stomach is merely a secretion" (pirsha b'alma).
This sparks a major debate among the Rishonim regarding the definition of pirsha.
[Suckled Milk Enters Stomach]
│
Is it Food or Waste (Pirsha)?
│
┌──────────────┴──────────────┐
[Rambam's View] [Rosh/Rashba View]
Viscosity determines status. Origin determines status.
• Liquid = Pirsha (Permitted) • Digested milk is always
• Congealed = Food (Forbidden) Pirsha, regardless of form.
The Rambam distinguishes based on physical viscosity:
"חלב הנמצא בקיבת נבלה... אם היה לח הרי זה מותר... ואם היה קרוש הרי זה אסור"[^9].
For the Rambam, if the milk is congealed (karush), it has consolidated into a food-like substance. It can no longer be dismissed as mere waste (pirsha) and instead acquires the status of the forbidden carcass surrounding it.
The Rosh and the Rashba strongly dispute this physical criteria:
"ותימא, מאי שנא לח ומאי שנא קרוש? ... אלא אפילו קרוש מותר, דלאו מגופא דנבלה הוא"[^10].
They argue that the status of pirsha is not a thermodynamic state of matter but a biological reality. Since the milk was suckled from a living, kosher mother before the calf died, its presence in the carcass's stomach is external. It never becomes part of the carcass's body. Therefore, its physical consolidation does not transform it into forbidden meat.
[^4]: Rashi, Chullin 116a s.v. "חדא מחדא". [^5]: Tosafot, Chullin 116a s.v. "חדא מתרתי אפילו כל דהו פרכינן". [^6]: Chullin 116a. [^7]: Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 10:4. [^8]: Chullin 116b. [^9]: Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 9:16. [^10]: Rosh, Chullin 8:27; see also Rashba, Torat HaBayit, Bayit 3, Shaar 1.
Friction
Kushya 1: The Neveilah/Tereifah Rennet Paradox
The Mishnah presents a glaring internal contradiction regarding the status of stomach contents:
- The First Clause: "The congealed milk in the stomach of the animal of a gentile and of a carcass is prohibited" (קיבת עובד כוכבים ושל נבלה אסורה)[^11].
- The Latter Clause: "A kosher animal that suckled from a tereifah, the milk in its stomach is prohibited; a tereifah that suckled from a kosher animal, the milk in its stomach is permitted" (טריפה שינקה מן הכשרה קיבתה מותרת)[^12].
If the milk in the stomach of a tereifah (which is a forbidden animal) is permitted because it was suckled from a kosher animal, why does the first clause state that the milk in the stomach of a neveilah (carcass) is prohibited? Both neveilah and tereifah are forbidden animals; why should their stomach contents be treated differently?
The Resolution of Rav Chisda
Rav Chisda attempts to resolve this by introducing a Rabbinic safeguard based on appearance:
"אמר רב חסדא: מאי קושיא? דילמא הא דאורייתא והא דרבנן! ... מפני שנראה כמי שאוכל בשר נבלה"[^13].
According to Rav Chisda, biblically, both are permitted because the stomach contents are always pirsha. However, the Sages prohibited the rennet of a neveilah because eating it looks like eating the actual carcass (mar'it ayin). In contrast, a tereifah undergoes ritual slaughter (shechitah), which reduces the visual association with eating unslaughtered meat.
Rava's Devastating Counter-Pircha
Rava completely dismantles Rav Chisda's logic with a logical inversion (Kal VaChomer):
"אמר ליה רבא: אדרבה! נבלה דמאיסה, אי שרית לה לא אתי למיכל מינה. טריפה דלא מאיסה, אי שרית לה אתי למיכל מינה!"[^14].
Rava argues that an unslaughtered carcass (neveilah) is physically repulsive; people naturally avoid it. Therefore, there is little risk that permitting its rennet will lead to eating its meat.
On the other hand, a slaughtered tereifah looks identical to kosher meat. If you permit its rennet, people are far more likely to mistakenly eat the actual meat of the tereifah. If the Sages were to institute a protective decree, they should have forbidden the rennet of a tereifah, not a neveilah!
[Risk Assessment of Error]
│
┌──────────────────┴──────────────────┐
[Neveilah (Carcass)] [Tereifah (Slaughtered)]
• Physically repulsive. • Looks like kosher meat.
• Low risk of eating meat. • High risk of eating meat.
• Rav Chisda: Forbidden. • Rav Chisda: Permitted.
*Rava's Critique: This is a logical inversion of safety decrees!*
Rabbi Yochanan's Resolution: "Mishnah Lo Zazah MiMekomah"
Faced with Rava's critique, the Gemara abandons Rav Chisda's distinction and presents Rabbi Yochanan's resolution:
"אלא אמר רב יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן: לא קשיא; הא רבי יהושע קודם חזרה, הא רבי יהושע לאחר חזרה"[^15].
The two clauses of the Mishnah represent different historical stages of Rabbi Yehoshua's rulings. Initially, Rabbi Yehoshua held that the rennet of a carcass is biblically forbidden (Clause A). He later retracted and ruled that it is permitted as pirsha (Clause B).
Rather than editing the older Mishnah, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi preserved both rulings side-by-side because "a Mishnah does not move from its place" (משנה לא זזה ממקומה). The Mishnah is not just a final code, but a historical record of the development of the Oral Law.
Kushya 2: Rabbi Akiva, "Issur Chal Al Issur," and the Three Gedi'im
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Akiva does not need special verses to include forbidden fats (chelev) or carcasses (neveilah) under the prohibition of meat and milk:
"קסבר ר"ע: איסור חל על איסור... הילכך חלב ומתה לא צריכי קרא לרבויי"[^16].
Because Rabbi Akiva holds that a new prohibition can overlay an existing one (issur chal al issur), the prohibition of Basar BeChalav automatically applies to meat that is already forbidden. Consequently, the three mentions of "kid" (gedi) in the Torah are free to be used for exclusions: to exclude wild beasts (chayah), birds (of), and non-kosher animals (behemah teme'ah).
The Analytical Friction
If Rabbi Akiva holds that issur chal al issur applies, why does he need a verse to exclude non-kosher animals (behemah teme'ah)? If a new prohibition can overlay an existing one, then cooking a non-kosher animal in milk should naturally be forbidden under Basar BeChalav as well. Why should it be excluded?
The Resolution of the Ramban and Acharonim
The Ramban resolves this by distinguishing between the mechanics of overlapping prohibitions and the definition of the forbidden object itself (cheftza)[^17].
[Issur Chal Al Issur]
│
┌──────────────────┴──────────────────┐
[Conceptual Application] [Essential Definition]
Can a new prohibition Does the object fit the
overlay an existing one? Torah's definition of "meat"?
• Yes (Rabbi Akiva) • Non-kosher meat is not
included in "Gedi" (kid).
- The Mechanics (Gavra): Issur chal al issur allows a person to be held liable for multiple prohibitions on the same object (e.g., eating chelev that is also neveilah).
- The Definition (Cheftza): The prohibition of Basar BeChalav is fundamentally defined by the Torah as the combination of "meat" and "milk." The Torah's definition of "meat" in this context is restricted to kosher domestic species (gedi).
Therefore, a non-kosher animal is not excluded because it is already prohibited. It is excluded because it does not fit the essential definition of "meat" required for the prohibition of Basar BeChalav to exist in the first place. The exclusion is necessary to define the scope of the cheftza, not because of the mechanics of overlapping prohibitions.
[^11]: Mishnah Chullin 116a. [^12]: Mishnah Chullin 116a. [^13]: Chullin 116a. [^14]: Chullin 116a. [^15]: Chullin 116a. [^16]: Chullin 116a; see Rashi s.v. "קסבר ר"ע". [^17]: Ramban, Chullin 116a s.v. "וקסבר ר"ע"; see also Minchat Chinuch, Mitzvah 113.
Intertext
1. The Perforated Pot (Atzitz Nakuv): Shabbat, Demai, and Kilayim
The Gemara's analysis of Kilai Hakerem relies on Mishnah Kilayim 7:8:
"המעביר עציץ נקוב בכרם, אם הוסיף מאתים אסור..."
The concept of a "perforated pot" (atzitz nakuv) serves as a conceptual bridge across several areas of Shas, defining the boundary between what is attached to the ground (mechubar) and what is detached (talush).
[The Perforated Pot]
│
┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
[Agricultural Laws] [Shabbat Laws]
• Demai 5:10 / Kilayim 7:8 • Shabbat 95a
• Nutrients pass through hole. • Reaping is a Torah labor.
• Considered attached to earth. • Legally connected to ground.
- In Shabbat Laws: The Gemara in Shabbat 95a states that one who reaps from a perforated pot on Shabbat is liable for the Torah-level labor of reaping (kotzer). If the pot is not perforated, the liability is only Rabbinic. The physical hole allows the plant to draw nutrients from the surrounding air and soil, making it legally connected to the ground.
- In Tithing Laws: In Mishnah Demai 5:10, produce grown in a perforated pot is subject to tithing as de'oraita (biblical) agricultural product, whereas an unperforated pot is treated as detached and subject only to Rabbinic tithing.
In our sugya of Kilai Hakerem, the perforation is what legally connects the plant in the pot to the vineyard's soil. This connection means the two species are considered "sown together" in the same ground, which violates the biblical prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:9.
2. Local Autonomy: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and the Peacock
The Gemara records a striking historical-geographical reality:
"במקומו של רבי יוסי הגלילי היו אוכלים בשר עוף בחלב"[^18].
This is paired with the story of Levi visiting the home of Yosef the bird hunter, where he was served the head of a peacock (tayvasa) cooked in milk and did not object, citing the local authority of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira who followed Rabbi Yosei HaGelili[^19].
This presents a significant parallel to Shabbat 130a, which discusses local customs:
"במקומו של רבי אליעזר היו כורתים עצים לעשות פחמין לעשות ברזל למילה..."
These passages highlight the early structure of halakhic authority. Before the final compilation and universal acceptance of the Talmud, a local community had the right to follow its local leading authority (mar de-atra), even if his rulings conflicted with the consensus of the majority of the Sages.
The Rashba addresses the limits of this autonomy in his Responsa:
"כל מקום ומקום יש לו לנהוג כפי המורה שלו... אבל לאחר שנתחבר התלמוד, נתקבלו כל גזירותיו על כל ישראל, ואין מקום רשאי להקל נגד סתם תלמודא"[^20].
While local autonomy was respected during the tannaitic and early amoraim periods, the canonization of the Talmud established a universal baseline of Rabbinic decrees—including the prohibition of poultry in milk—that bound all Jewish communities, ending the era of localized biblical leniencies.
[^18]: Chullin 116a. [^19]: Chullin 116a. [^20]: Teshuvot HaRashba, Vol. 1, Siman 243.
Psak/Practice
The theoretical discussions of Chullin 116 directly shape modern halakhic practice, particularly in food production and the classification of synthetic foods.
1. The Halakhic Status of Rennet and Hard Cheese
The Shulchan Aruch codifies the Gemara's conclusion regarding the rennet of a carcass:
"חלב המכונס בקיבת נבלה וטריפה... אם הוא לח, מותר... ואם הוא קרוש, אסור... ויש מי שמתיר אפילו בקרוש"[^21].
The Shulchan Aruch follows the lenient view of the Rosh and Rashba, permitting liquid rennet from a non-kosher animal because it is classified as pirsha (secretion).
However, the Rema notes that Ashkenazic custom is to be stringent and avoid using any rennet from non-kosher animals:
"והגה: והמנהג הפשוט בכל מלכויות אלו להחמיר בקיבה של איסור... ואין לשנות"[^22].
Despite this stringency, the Rema introduces a revolutionary concept regarding the stomach skin itself:
"עור הקיבה שיבשוהו עד שנעשה כעץ... מותר להעמיד בו"[^23].
If the stomach skin of a kosher animal is dried until it becomes hard like wood, it loses its status as meat. It is no longer considered a food item, and curdling milk with it does not violate the prohibition of cooking meat and milk together.
[Stomach Skin (Or HaKeva)]
│
┌──────────────────┴──────────────────┐
[Standard Wet State] [Dried State (Nityabesh)]
• Classified as meat. • Dried until hard like wood.
• Cannot be used with milk. • Loses food status.
• Permitted for curdling milk.
This principle of nityabesh (extreme drying and chemical transformation) is a cornerstone of modern food technology. It serves as the halakhic basis for permitting certain gelatin products and food additives derived from animal sources, provided they undergo intensive processing that strips them of their food status[^24].
2. Plant-Based Substitutes and Mar'it Ayin
The Shulchan Aruch rules that while cooking poultry in milk is only Rabbinically forbidden, cooking plant-based substitutes (like almond milk) with meat requires a visual safeguard to prevent misunderstanding:
"דם דגים... אם כנסו, אסור מפני מראית העין... ולפיכך בשר בחלב שקדים צריך להניח שם שקדים מפני מראית העין"[^25].
In contemporary halakha, the widespread availability of soy milk, almond milk, oat milk, and plant-based meats (such as Beyond Meat) has led major poskim to re-evaluate this requirement.
Rav Ovadia Yosef rules that because these plant-based substitutes are now commonplace, the concern for mar'it ayin is significantly reduced:
"בזמן הזה שחלב פרווה נפוץ מאוד... אין צריך להניח שקדים אצל הבשר, שאין כאן חשד כלל"[^26].
Because the average consumer is fully aware of plant-based alternatives, the visual safeguard is no longer strictly required in public dining, showing how halakhic applications adapt to changing societal norms.
[^21]: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 87:11. [^22]: Rema, Yoreh Deah 87:11. [^23]: Rema, Yoreh Deah 87:11. [^24]: See Achiezer Vol. 3, Siman 33; Tzitz Eliezer Vol. 10, Siman 25. [^25]: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 87:3. [^26]: Yechaveh Da'at, Vol. 3, Siman 54; see also Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah Vol. 1, Siman 38.
Takeaway
The transformation of a physical substance into a halakhic category is determined by its biological or functional status, not just its physical form. Just as digested milk is permitted as a mere secretion (pirsha), and dried stomach skin loses its status as meat, the law evaluates items based on their biological reality and how they are perceived.
Read this page at another depth
Tomorrow's lesson, already explained.
Today's is done. Tomorrow morning's arrives the same way: one short, source-cited email on the day's page. Every day of the cycle has one.
derekhlearning.com