Chullin 231
חדא מתלת אי הדר דינא ואתי במה הצד פרכינן כל דהו ואי לא קולא וחומרא פרכינן כל דהו לא פרכינן
An argument inferring one case from three cases, the argument from the three cases going round and round, so that the inference is made from the features common to all, can be refuted by any peculiarity whatsoever; but if it is not so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the inference is not drawn from the common features, but by placing one case against the other.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
מה לכלאי הכרם שכן לא היתה להן שעת הכושר
But we may refute it thus: This may be so of diverse kinds in a vineyard since they had no period of fitness!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is assumed that it is not the actual diverse kinds sown in a vineyard that are forbidden but the produce of these diverse kinds; the original roots, however, that were planted or sown, do not come under the prohibition of diverse kinds.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
המעביר עציץ נקוב בכרם אם הוסיף מאתים אסור
[We have learnt:] If a man carried a perforated plant-pot [sown with cereals] through a vineyard and [what was in] it increased by a two-hundredth part.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the time the plant-pot was in the vineyard. A perforated plant-pot draws sustenance from the soil of the vineyard, and so there is an increase in the plant-pot by reason of the vineyard. Here there were in the pot one hundred and ninety.nine parts of permitted growth to one part forbidden, hence the whole is forbidden. But if they were in the proportion of two hundred to one the entire growth in the pot would be permitted.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אמר אביי
Now only if it increased [by a two-hundredth part] is it [forbidden], but if it had not increased it would not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is evident from this that the diverse kinds sown (even after they have taken root) are not forbidden, but only if there was an increase in the one by reason of the other.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
מה להלן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה אף כאן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה:
Thus, if they were sown originally [in the vineyard, they are forbidden] as soon as they have taken root, if sown [elsewhere] and brought [into the vineyard], if they increased [a two-hundredth part] they are [forbidden], but if they had not increased they would not [be forbidden].
קסבר רבי עקיבא איסור חל על איסור חלב ומתה לא צריכי קרא שליל גדי מעליא הוא אייתרו להו כולהו פרט לחיה ועוף ולבהמה טמאה:
For it has been taught: R'Simeon B'Judah says on behalf of R'Simeon: Flesh cooked in milk is forbidden as food but is permitted for general use, for it is written: For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God.
נאמר לא תאכלו:
whilst elsewhere it is written: And ye shall be holy men unto me; [therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII. 30.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
חיה דאורייתא ור' עקיבא סבר
- R'Akiba is of the opinion that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition; therefore no specific verse is necessary [to show that the prohibition of flesh in milk applies to] forbidden fat or [to the flesh of an animal] that died of itself; moreover [the prohibition naturally applies to an embryo [for it] IS as an ordinary kid; consequently all the expressions are Superfluous and serve therefore to exclude wild animals, fowl and unclean animals.
חיה דרבנן איבעית אימא
R'JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS, IT IS WRITTEN, YE SHALL NOT EAT OF ANYTHING etc. What is the difference between the views of R'Jose the Galilean and R'Akiba? - The difference between them is as regards wild animals: R'Jose the Galilean holds that wild animals are prohibited Biblically, whereas R'Akiba holds that wild animals are prohibited Rabbinically.
עוף איכא בינייהו ר' עקיבא סבר
Or, you may Say, the difference between them is as regards fowls: R'Akiba maintains that wild animals and fowls are not included In the prohibition of the Torah but are prohibited Rabbinically, whereas R'Jose the Galilean maintains that fowls are not even prohibited by the Rabbis.
חיה ועוף אינן מן התורה הא מדרבנן אסירי
There is also [a Baraitha] taught to the same effect: In the place of R'Eliezer they used to cut wood [on the Sabbath] to make charcoal in order to forge an iron instrument.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the circumcision knife. R. Eliezer is of the opinion that, since the performance of the precept of circumcision supersedes the Sabbath, all the necessary requisites such as the making or preparation of the knife, or the kindling of fire to obtain warm water etc. may also be performed on the Sabbath. V. Shab. 130a.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
עוף אפילו מדרבנן נמי לא אסיר
Levi once visited the house of Joseph the fowler, and was served with a peacock's head cooked in milk and said nothing to them about it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to MS.M. 'And he did not eat it'. So in Shab. l.c.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לוי איקלע לבי יוסף רישבא אייתו לקמיה רישא דטיוסא בחלבא ולא אמר להו ולא מידי
Because it was the place of R'Judah B'Bathyra and I imagine that he must have expounded to them the view of R'Jose the Galilean who said: A FOWL IS EXCLUDED SINCE IT HAS NO MOTHER'S MILK.