Study Chullin folio 114A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
This link between cooking and eating indicates that since one is not flogged for eating forbidden fat cooked in milk, as agreed upon above, one also is not flogged for cooking the two together.
And some say the opposite: With regard to cooking, everyone agrees that one is flogged for this act, since the principle of a prohibition not taking effect where another prohibition already exists is not relevant. When they disagree, it is with regard to eating. The one who says he is not flogged a
The Talmud suggests a third explanation of the dispute between R' Ami and R' Asi: And if you wish, say that one Sage said one statement and one Sage said another statement, and they do not disagree, as they are referring to different cases. The Sage who said that one is flogged is referring to the
The Talmud raises an objection from a Tosefta (8:3): One who cooks meat in whey, the liquid leftover after milk has been curdled, is exempt from lashes, as whey is not defined as milk for purposes of the prohibition. Likewise, for blood that one cooked in milk, he is exempt, as blood is not consi
The Tosefta continues: By contrast, with regard to prohibited piggul meat, i.e., meat from an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to sprinkle its blood or partake of its meat beyond its designated time, and similarly prohibited notar, meat from an offering whose period for consumption has