Chullin 227

Chapter 227

א כיון דעל אכילה לא לקי אבישול נמי לא לקי

1 whenever a man does not incur stripes for the eating he likewise does not incur stripes for the cooking thereof.

ב ואיכא דאמרי אבישול כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלקי כי פליגי אאכילה מאן דאמר אינו לוקה דהא אין איסור חל על איסור ומאן דאמר לוקה להכי אפקה רחמנא לאכילה בלשון בישול כיון דאבישול לקי אאכילה נמי לקי

2 Another version runs as follows: There is no dispute at all that for the cooking he certainly incurs stripes they differ only with regard to the eating thereof: he who says he does not incur stripes contends that a prohibition cannot be superimposed upon an existing prohibition, and he who says he incurs stripes contends that for this very reason did the Divine Law express the prohibition of eating by the term 'cooking' [to signify that] whenever a man incurs stripes for the cooking he likewise incurs stripes for the eating thereof. Alternatively you may say: One teaches one thing, the other teaches another thing,1 but they do not differ at all. An objection was raised.

ג ואיבעית אימא מר אמר חדא ומר אמר חדא ולא פליגי

3 If a man cooked [flesh] in whey, he is not liable. If he cooked blood in milk, he i not liable.

ד מיתיבי המבשל במי חלב פטור דם שבשלו בחלב פטור העצמות והגידים והקרנים והטלפים שבשלן בחלב פטור

4 If he cooked bones, nerves, horns or hoofs in milk, he is not liable. If he cooked [consecrated fles that was piggul2 or left over3

ה הפגול והנותר והטמא שבשלן בחלב חייב

5 or unclean [flesh] in milk, he is liable! - That Tanna is of the opinion that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition.4

ו האי תנא סבר איסור חל על איסור

6 'If a man cooked flesh in whey, he is not liable'.

ז המבשל במי חלב פטור מסייע ליה לריש לקיש דתנן מי חלב הרי הן כחלב והמוחל הרי הוא כשמן אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא להכשיר את הזרעים אבל לענין בישול בשר בחלב מי חלב אינו כחלב

7 This supports the view of R'Simeon B'Lakish. For we have learnt: Whey is counted as milk, and the sap [of olives] is counted as oil.5 Said R'Simeon B'Lakish: They taught this only in respect of rendering seeds susceptible to contract uncleanness,6 but in respect of the prohibition of cooking flesh in milk whey is not counted as milk. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written: Thou shalt not seethe a kid] in its mother's milk.7

ח תנו רבנן בחלב אמו אין לי אלא בחלב אמו בחלב פרה ורחל מנין

8 From this I know [that the kid is forbidden]8 in its mother's milk,9

ט אמרת קל וחומר ומה אמו שלא נאסרה עמו בהרבעה נאסרה עמו בבשולו פרה ורחל שנאסרו עמו בהרבעה אינו דין שנאסרו עמו בבשולו תלמוד לומר בחלב אמו

9 but whence do I know [that it is also forbidden]8 in cow's milk or in ewe's milk?9 From the following a fortiori argument: If [in the milk of] its mother, a species with which th kid may be mated, it is forbidden to cook [the kid], how much more [in the milk of] a cow or of a ewe, with which species the kid may not be mated,10 is it forbidden to cook [the kid]! And the text also states: In it mother's milk.11

י והא למה לי קרא הא אתיא ליה

10 But why is this [latter] verse necessary? It has been inferred [from the a fortiori argument], has it not? - R'Ashi answered: Because one can argue that the first proposition of the [a fortiori] argument is unsound: Whence do you adduce the argument?

יא אמר רב אשי משום דאיכא למימר מעיקרא דדינא פירכא מהיכא קא מייתית לה מאמו מה לאמו שכן נאסרה עמו בשחיטה תאמר בפרה שלא נאסרה עמו בשחיטה תלמוד לומר בחלב אמו

11 From 'its mother'! [As against this it may be argued] that is so in the case of its mother,12 since it is forbidden to be slaughtered [with the kid on the same day];13 will you then say the same in the case of a cow12 which is not forbidden to be slaughtered [with the kid on the same day]?

יב תניא אידך בחלב אמו אין לי אלא בחלב אמו בחלב אחותו גדולה מנין

12 The text therefore teaches, 'In its mother's milk'. Another [Baraitha] teaches: It is written: 'In its mother's milk'.

יג אמרת ק"ו ומה אמו שנכנסה עמו לדיר להתעשר נאסרה עמו בבשול אחותו שלא נכנסה עמו לדיר להתעשר אינו דין שנאסרה עמו בבשול תלמוד לומר בחלב אמו

13 From this I know [that the kid is forbidd in its mother's milk, but where do I know [that it is forbidden] in the milk of its 'older sister'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., cows, in contradistinction from 'the younger sister' i.e., sheep. This is the explanation which Rashi says he received from his teachers, but after criticizing it Rashi expresses his preference for the interpretation of R. Joseph Bonfils, according to which 'older sister' and 'younger sister' are both goats, the former, however, being a goat of last year's breeding which had already been counted with other goats for the purposes of tithing, the latter being one which has not been counted with others for tithing.');">14 From the following a fortiori argument: If [in the milk of] its mother, which enters the cattle-pen together [with the ki to be tithed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXVII, 32, and Bek. IX. It has been laid down (a) that cattle may not be counted together with sheep or goats for the purposes of tithing nor vice versa. Moreover (b) an animal which has once been counted with others for the purposes of tithing cannot be counted again. The 'older sister' therefore cannot be counted together with kids for tithing either because of (a) or (b) , according to whichever interpretation is adopted. V. preceding note.');">15 it is forbidden to cook [the kid], how much more [in the milk of] its 'older sister', which does not enter the cattlepen together [with the kid] to be tithed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXVII, 32, and Bek. IX. It has been laid down (a) that cattle may not be counted together with sheep or goats for the purposes of tithing nor vice versa. Moreover (b) an animal which has once been counted with others for the purposes of tithing cannot be counted again. The 'older sister' therefore cannot be counted together with kids for tithing either because of (a) or (b) , according to whichever interpretation is adopted. V. preceding note.');">15 is it forbidden to cook the kid! And the text also teaches, 'In its mother's milk'.

יד והא למה לי קרא הא אתיא ליה אמר רב אשי משום דאיכא למימר מעיקרא דדינא פירכא מהיכא קא מייתית לה מאמו מה לאמו שכן נאסרה עמו בשחיטה תאמר באחותו גדולה שלא נאסרה עמו בשחיטה תלמוד לומר בחלב אמו

14 But why is this latter verse necessary? It has been inferred [from the a fortio argument], has it not? - R'Ashi answered: Because one can argue that the first proposition of the [a fortiori] argument is unsound. Whence do you adduce the argument? From its mother! [As against this it may be argued] that is so in the case of its mother, since it is forbidden to be slaughtered [with the kid on the same day]; will you then say the same in the case of its 'older sister' which is not forbidden to be slaughtered [with the kid on the same day]? The text therefore teaches, 'In its mother's milk'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., third, yet unexpounded verse. The Tanna of this Baraitha is assumed to be identical with the Tanna of the first which applies one extra verse to include the cow and ewe, and the third verse he consequently employs for the 'older sister'.');">16

טו אשכחן אחותו גדולה אחותו קטנה מנין אתיא מביניא

15 We have thus learnt [the prohibition with regard to] 'the older sister', but whence do we know it with regard to 'the younger sister'?17 It can be inferred from both together.18

טז מהי תיתי תיתי מאמו מה לאמו שכן נאסרה עמו בשחיטה אחותו גדולה תוכיח מה לאחותו גדולה שלא נכנסה עמו לדיר להתעשר אמו תוכיח

16 But from which do you proceed to make the inference? You may infer it from 'its mother'. But [if it be objected to that] this is so in the case of 'its mother', since it may slaughtered [with the kid on the same day].19 then the case of 'the older sister' argues otherwise.20 And [if it be objected to that] this is so in the case of 'the older sister', since it does not enter the cattlepen with th to be tithed,21

יז וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שהוא בשר ואסור לבשל בחלב אף אני אביא אחותו קטנה שהוא בשר ואסור לבשל בחלב

17 then the case of 'its mother' argues otherwise.22 The argument thus goes round; the reason given for this does not apply to the other, and the reason given for the other does not apply to this one. What they have in common is that each is flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to some MSS. the reading is 'it is milk and it is forbidden to cook in it' instead of 'is flesh etc.', and so it appears from Rashi too. V. Glos. of Maharam Schiff a.l.');">23 and in the milk of each [the kid] may not be cooked; thus I will include 'the younger sister' too, for since it is flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to some MSS. the reading is 'it is milk and it is forbidden to cook in it' instead of 'is flesh etc.', and so it appears from Rashi too. V. Glos. of Maharam Schiff a.l.');">23

יח אי הכי אחותו גדולה נמי תיתי מביניא

18 [the kid] may not be cooked in its milk.

יט אין הכי נמי אלא בחלב אמו למה לי מבעי ליה לכדתניא בחלב אמו אין לי אלא בחלב אמו

19 But by this argument 'the older sister' can also be inferred from both together?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from an argument drawn from 'its mother' and from the cow (since the Tanna of this Baraitha is the identical Tanna of the first Baraitha in which it was shown that there is a verse expressly stated to include the cow and ewe) , so that no verse is required to teach the prohibition even in the case of 'the older sister' (Rashi) .');">24 - This is indeed so. Then for what purpose do I require the verse: 'In its mother's milk'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this verse is repeated thrice, one clearly serves for its own purpose, another to include the cow and ewe (the teaching of the first Baraitha q.v.) , but the third is indeed superfluous.');">25 - It is required for what has been taught. It is written: 'In its mother's milk'. We know [that it is forbidden] in its mother's milk,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter