Chullin 228

היא עצמה בחלבה מנין

but whence do we know [that it is forbidden] in its own milk?

אמרת ק"ו

From the following a fortiori argument: if, where the fruit is not forbidden with the fruit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Fruit', i.e., 'offspring'. All the offspring of an animal may be slaughtered on the same day; it is only forbidden to slaughter the dam with the young.');">¹</span>

ומה במקום שלא נאסר פרי עם פרי בשחיטה נאסר פרי עם האם בשחיטה

- as in the case of slaughtering - the fruit with the dam is forbidden, how much more, therefore, where the fruit is forbidden with the fruit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The kid and the mother's milk are each the 'fruit' of the she-goat.');">²</span>

מקום שנאסר פרי עם פרי בבשול אינו דין שנאסר פרי עם האם בבשול

- as in the case of cooking - is the fruit forbidden with the dam!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the kid in its own milk; in this case the milk of the kid is regarded as its fruit.');">³</span>

ת"ל בחלב אמו

And the text also teaches, 'In its mother's milk'.

הא למה לי קרא

But why is this latt verse necessary?

הא אתיא לה

It has been inferred [from the a fortiori argument], has it not? - R'Ahadboi B'Ammi answered: Because we can refute the argument thus: A colt, the offspring of a mare, and which is also the 'brother' of a mule,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the mare had also been mated with an ass and bore a mule.');">⁴</span>

אמר רב אחדבוי בר אמי

could prove otherwise: for the fruit is forbidden with the fruit, nevertheless the fruit with the dam is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here it would be forbidden to breed the fruit with the fruit, i.e., the colt with the mule, for they are diverse kinds (v. Lev. XIX, 19) , although it would be permitted to breed the colt with the mare.');">⁵</span>

משום דאיכא למימר סוס בן סוסיא אחי פרדה יוכיח שאסור פרי עם פרי ומותר פרי עם האם

But surely [this is no refutation since] that is due to the seed of the sire only;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is prohibited to breed the fruit with the fruit, i.e., the colt with the mule, only because of the different sires of each and not because of the general principle that fruit with fruit is forbidden.');">⁶</span>

התם זרע האב הוא דקא גרים דהא פרד בן סוסיא אחי פרדה יוכיח שמותר פרי עם פרי ואסור פרי עם האם

for, in truth, the case of a male mule, the offspring of a mare, and which is also the 'brother' of a female mule,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a mare had been mated with an ass on several occasions and bore a male and female mule.');">⁷</span>

אלא אמר מר בריה דרבינא

could prove the reverse: for the fruit is permitted with the fruit and the fruit with the dam is forbidden! Rather said Mar the son of Rabina: Because one can refute the argument thus: A slave, the son of a bondwoman, who is also the brother of a freed bondwoman, could prove otherwise: for the fruit is forbidden with the fruit, nevertheless the fruit with the mother is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A slave may not marry a free woman nor a free man a bondwoman. In this case, then, the fruit with the fruit is forbidden, i.e., the slave may not marry the kind of his sister sc. a free woman, but the fruit with the mother is permitted, i.e., the slave may marry the kind of his mother sc. a bondwoman.');">⁸</span>

משום דאיכא למימר עבד בן שפחה אחי משוחררת יוכיח שאסור פרי עם פרי ומותר פרי עם האם

But [this too is no refutation since] that position is due solely to the deed of emancipation; for, in truth, the case of a slave, the son of a freed bondwoman, who is also the brother of a bondwoman, could prove the reverse: for the fruit is permitted with the fruit, and the fruit with the 'mother' is forbidden! Rather said R'Idi B'Abin: Because one can refute the argument thus: The case of diverse seeds could prove otherwise: for the fruit is forbidden with the fruit, nevertheless the fruit with the mother is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ibid. XIX, 19. Fruit with fruit is forbidden, i.e., diverse seeds may not be sown together, nevertheless the fruit with the mother is permitted, i.e., a seed may be sown in the 'mother' earth, the soil.');">⁹</span>

התם גט שיחרור הוא דקא גרים דהא עבד בן משוחררת אחי שפחה יוכיח שמותר פרי עם פרי ואסור פרי עם האם

But is not the fruit with the fruit forbidden only by reason of the 'mother'?

אלא אמר רב אידי בר אבין

For when grains of wheat and barley are together in a vessel they are not forbidden! - Rather said R'Ashi: Because one can refute the argument thus.

משום דאיכא למימר כלאי זרעים יוכיחו שאסור פרי עם פרי ומותר פרי עם האם

It is indeed [forbidden] in the case of fruit with fruit for they are two separate bodies;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The kid and the mother's milk, each being separate fruits of the dam.');">¹⁰</span>

כלום נאסר פרי עם פרי אלא ע"י האם דהא חיטי ושערי בכדא ולא מיתסרו

will you say the same in the case of the fruit with the dam which is one body?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore to cook a kid in its own milk might not be regarded as forbidden.');">¹¹</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי

Consequently the [extra] verse is necessary.

משום דאיכא למימר מה לפרי עם פרי שכן שני גופים תאמר בפרי עם האם שכן גוף אחד משום הכי איצטריך קרא

R'Ashi said: Whence do we know that flesh [cooked] in milk may not be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the prohibition expressly says. Thou shalt not seethe a kid etc. Whence do we know that if one cooked flesh in milk others may not eat it.');">¹²</span>

אמר רב אשי

From the verse: Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 3.');">¹³</span>

מנין לבשר בחלב שאסור באכילה

everything which I declared to be abominable to you comes under the law of Thou shalt not eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a prohibition against eating anything which is produced by or results from a forbidden act, even though the prohibition in any particular case was circumvented by the employment of a minor or a gentile to perform that act. Hence it is forbidden to eat flesh cooked in milk, for the cooking thereof was a forbidden act.');">¹⁴</span>

שנאמר (דברים יד, ג) לא תאכל כל תועבה כל שתעבתי לך הרי הוא בבל תאכל

I know from this that it is forbidden to be eaten; whence do I know that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it?

ואין לי אלא באכילה בהנאה מנין

From R'Abbahu's statement.

כדרבי אבהו דאמר ר' אבהו א"ר אלעזר

For R'Abbahu stated in the name of R'Eleazar: Wherever Scripture says: 'It shall not be eaten', or 'Thou shalt not eat', or 'Ye shall not eat', a prohibition both in respect of eating and in respect of deriving benefit is implied, unless Scripture expressly states otherwise as it did in the case of nebelah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 21. In cur. edd. are added the words 'which may be given to a stranger or sold to a gentile'. These words are omitted in MS.M. lrsf and also in the parallel passages Pes. ');">¹⁵</span>

כל מקום שנאמר לא יאכל לא תאכל לא תאכלו אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה במשמע עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבלה לגר בנתינה ולעובד כוכבים במכירה

For it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'A.Z. 20a. cau, rd');">¹⁶</span>

דתניא

[The verse,] Ye shall not eat of anything which dieth of itself; unto the stranger that is within thy gates thou mayest give it, that he may eat it,' or thou mayest sell it unto a gentile,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 21. The Hebrew word here rendered 'stranger' is ger or fully , lit., 'a stranger-settler': a resident alien who has accepted the Seven Commandments of the sons of Noah (cf. Sanh. 56aff) . He does not observe the Jewish dietary laws, but enjoys full rights and privileges of citizenship. Such a stranger, if poor, had to be maintained by the state according to the Biblical injunction: A stranger and a settler he shall live with thee (Lev. XXV, 35) .');">¹⁷</span>

(דברים יד, כא) לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה או מכור לנכרי אין לי אלא לגר בנתינה ולעובד כוכבים במכירה לגר במכירה מנין

only tells me that it may be given away [as a gift] to a stranger or sold to a gentile.

ת"ל לגר תתננה או מכור

How do I know that it may be sold to a stranger?

לעובד כוכבים בנתינה מנין

Because Scripture says.'

ת"ל תתננה או מכור לנכרי

Unto the stranger.

נמצא אחד גר ואחד עובד כוכבים בין במכירה בין בנתינה דברי ר"מ

thou mayest give it.

רבי יהודה אומר

or thou mayest sell it'.

דברים ככתבן לגר בנתינה ולעובד כוכבים במכירה

How do I know that it may be given away to a gentile?

מ"ט דרבי יהודה

Because Scripture says.'

אי ס"ד כדקאמר ר"מ לכתוב רחמנא לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה ומכור או למה לי

Thou mayest give it.

ש"מ

or thou mayest sell it unto a gentile'.

לדברים ככתבן הוא דאתא לגר בנתינה ולעובד כוכבים במכירה

Hence it may be derived that both giving and selling may be applied to a stranger or to a gentile:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The juxtaposition of the words in this verse, the two verbs in the middle preceded by 'the stranger' and followed by 'the gentile', suggests that both verbs, i.e., giving away and selling, are to be applied to the former and also to the latter.');">¹⁸</span>

ור"מ אמר לך

so R'Meir.

האי או להקדים נתינה דגר למכירה דעובד כוכבים

R'Judah says: The words are to be taken literally, viz. , giving away to a stranger and selling to a gentile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is forbidden to give it away to a gentile or sell it to a stranger.');">¹⁹</span>

ורבי יהודה להקדים נתינה דגר למכירה דעובד כוכבים לא צריך קרא סברא הוא

What is the reason for R'Judah's view? - He contends thus: Were the words to be interpreted according as R'Meir suggests, the Divine Law should have said: 'Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; unto the stranger that is within thy gates thou mayest give it that he may eat it, as well as sell it'.

זה אתה מצווה להחיותו וזה אי אתה מצווה להחיותו:

Wherefore does it say 'or' prove that the words are to be taken literally, viz. , giving away to a stranger and selling to a gentile.

(סימן

And R'Meir? - He would reply that 'or' indicates that it is preferable to give it away [as a gift] to a stranger rathe than sell it to a gentile.

שבת חורש וכלאי זרעים אותו ואת בנו ושילוח הקן):

And R'Judah? - He would say that no Scriptural term is needed to indicate this preference of giving it away to the stranger rather than selling it to a gentile, it stands to reason, since the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the stranger; v. p. 630, n. 8, note 1.');">²⁰</span>

אלא מעתה

you are bidden to support whereas the other you are not bidden to support. <br>(Mnemonic: Sabbath; Ploughing; Divers kinds of seeds; It and its young; Letting the mother bird go from the nest.) According to this,