E. And because the last text [of T. 8:9] had to teach the rule regarding the maw which one cooked [110a] in its milk, that is prohibited [I.1 L above], for even if he already [cooked it] nevertheless he may not [eat it], it taught also in the first text regarding an udder which one cooked.
A. When R. Eleazar went up [to Israel] he found Ziri. He said to him, “Is there a Tanna here who taught Rab the rule regarding the udder?” (“[One who eats the udder] he does not transgress on that account and he is prohibited [to eat it to begin with]” [I.1 F].) They [the people of that place] pointed out R. Yitzhak bar Abdimi. He [Yitzhak] said to him [Eleazar], “I did not teach him anything about the udder. But Rab found an open valley and erected a fence around it.” [Rab enacted the rule on his own authority to counteract the lax observance of the prohibitions against mixing meat and milk.]
B. For when Rab came to Tatlfush he heard a woman asking her friend, “How much milk do I need to cook a litra (six egg bulks) of meat?” He said, “Did they not learn that [mixing] meat and milk is prohibited?” He stayed over there and prohibited to them [even] udders [so that they would learn the prohibition].
C. R. Kahana taught in accord with this version. R. Yosé bar Abba taught [this version]: “I taught this matter regarding the case of an udder from a suckling cow [that is especially filled with milk].” And because of the keen insight of R. Hiyya he taught it to him regarding an ordinary udder. [He expected that R. Hiyya would understand that it applied to an udder from a suckling cow. But Rab did not understand that was the case.]
A. Rabin and R. Yitzhak bar Joseph came to the house of R. Pappi. They brought before them a dish containing the [meat of an] udder. R. Yitzhak bar Joseph ate it. Rabin did not eat it.
B. Said Abayye, “Rabin you childless one. Why did you not eat it? What do we have here? R. Pappi's wife is the daughter of R. Yitzhak Nappaha. And R. Yitzhak Nappaha always did the right thing. If she had not heard about this [that it was permitted] in her parents' home, she would not have done this [i.e., served it at the meal].”
A. In Sura they did not eat the udder. In Pumbedita they did eat the udder.
B. Rami bar Tamri, who was also [known as, or the father-in-law of] Rami bar Dikuli from Pumbedita came to Sura on the eve of the Day of Atonement. Everyone [of the residents] took the udders of their animals and threw them away. He went and took them and ate them. They brought him before R. Hisda [for a judgment]. He said to him, “Why did you do this?” He said to him, “I am from the place of R. Judah where we eat it.”
C. He said to him, “But do you not hold in accord with the principle that they impose upon a person [who travels from one place to another] the strict rules of the place whence he originated and the place to which he has come.” He said, “I was outside of the boundary [of the city] when I ate it [and therefore was not subject to your stringent rule].” [Hisda said to him,] “[If you were outside the town,] how did you broil them?” He said to him, “[I made the fire to broil them] with dried kernels [of grapes].”
D. [Hisda asked,] “But perhaps they [the kernels] came from grapes used to make wine to be poured out for idolatrous purposes.” [A person may not derive any benefit from such grapes.] He said to him, “They [the grape kernels that I used] were more than twelve months old [and therefore completely dried out and no longer prohibited even if they were from such grapes].”
E. [Hisda asked,] “But perhaps they [the kernels] came from grapes that were stolen.” He said to him, “[I could tell that] the owners had given up hope of [recovering them]. Shoots had already sprouted through them [they had been lying there so long].”
F. He [Hisda] saw that he did not have on his tefillin. He said to him, “On what basis do you not put on your tefillin?” He said, “I have an intestinal disorder. And said R. Judah, `One who suffers from an intestinal disorder is exempt from the obligation to put on tefillin.'”
G. He [Hisda] saw that he did not have on his fringes [on the corners of his garment]. He said to him, “On what basis do you not have fringes?” He said to him, “This is a borrowed cloak [that I am wearing]. And R. Judah said, [110b] `A borrowed cloak during the first thirty days is exempt from [the rule that one put on its corners] fringes.'”
H. Meanwhile they brought in [to Hisda's court] a person who did not honor his father and mother. They tied him up [so as to administer stripes to him]. He [Rami] said to them, “Let him go. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: For every positive command whose reward is specified along with it [in the Torah], an earthly court has no authority over it.” [Exod. 20:12 specifies: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.”]
I. He [Hisda] said to him, “I see what keen insight you have.” He said to him, “If you are ever in the neighborhood of [the school of] R. Judah come in and I will show you real keen insight.”
A. Said Abayye to R. Safra, “When you journey there [to Israel], ask them: With regard to liver, what do you do with it [to prepare it for eating]?”
B. When he got there he found R. Zeriqa [and he asked him]. He said to him, “I once cooked [i.e., boiled] it for R. Ammi and he ate it.”
C. When he [Safra] came back to him [and told him this Abayye] said to him, “I did not raise any question about prohibiting the liver itself. I raised a question about whether the liver could render prohibited other [pieces of meat cooked together with it in the same pot].”
D. But what difference is there [between these two issues]? About prohibiting the liver itself you did not raise a question because it was taught on Tannaite authority: [Liver renders other foods forbidden, but] itself is not rendered forbidden [M. Ter. 10:11 G].
E. Whether the liver could render prohibited other [pieces of meat cooked together with it in the same pot] you also should not raise as a question because it was taught on Tannaite authority: Liver renders other foods forbidden, but itself is not rendered forbidden, for it imparts [flavor] but does not absorb [flavor][M. Ter. 10:11 G-H].