חולין ח׳:ג׳ - ח׳:ד׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.