Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 11, 2019 | 讚壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 104

What is including in the prohibition of milk and meat? Is eating birds (chicken) also forbidden from the Torah? If one vows not to eat meat, what is including in that category? Can one infer from the mishna is chicken is also forbidden to be eaten with milk from the Torah or only from the rabbis? Do we always hold that one doesn’t make a decree to prevent violating another decree? The gemara starts to discuss waiting between milk and meat/meat and milk – what needs to be done in order to prevent eating them together?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 诪讜转专 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐

And one who takes a vow that meat is prohibited to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers.

讙诪壮 讛讗 注讜祝 讗住讜专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗诪专 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

GEMARA: Since the mishna does not distinguish between the meat of animals and that of birds, it may consequently be inferred that the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law, just like the meat of animals. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn鈥檛 he say that the prohibition of the meat of undomesticated animals and birds cooked in milk is not by Torah law?

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 诪讜转专 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 讛讗 注讜祝 讗住讜专 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪讬诪诇讬讱 注诇讬讛 砖诇讬讞 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara continues: But say the latter clause of the mishna: One who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers. It may consequently be inferred that it is prohibited for him to eat birds. If so, here we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Anything about which an agent sent to purchase a given item would inquire, being unsure whether it qualifies as that type of item, is considered its type.

讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬专拽 诪讜转专 讘讚诇讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜住专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇砖诇讜讞讜 拽讞 诇谞讜 讬专拽 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗诇讗 讚诇讜注讬谉

As it is taught in a mishna (Nedarim 54a): One who takes a vow that vegetables are forbidden to him is permitted to eat gourds, as people do not typically consider gourds a type of vegetable, but Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: But it is a common occurrence that a person says to his agent: Purchase vegetables for us, and the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns and says: I found only gourds. This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻谉 讛讚讘专 讻诇讜诐 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗诇讗 拽讟谞讬转 讗诇讗 砖讚诇讜注讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讬专拽 讜讗讬谉 拽讟谞讬转 讘讻诇诇 讬专拽 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves that my opinion is correct. Does the agent return and say: I found only legumes? Rather, it is evident that gourds are included in the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent explains that he found only gourds, and asks whether he should purchase them. But legumes are not included in the category of vegetables, and that is why an agent would not even ask about them. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva should also hold that one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating birds. And if so, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜谞住讬讘 诇讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚转谞讗讬 讘谞讚专讬诐 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉

Rav Yosef said: That is not difficult. The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna according to the opinions of different tanna鈥檌m. In the latter clause, with regard to vows, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas in the first clause, with regard to meat cooked in milk, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 砖讗讬谞诐 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐

Rav Ashi said a different explanation: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as indicated by the latter clause, concerning vows. And as for the first part of the mishna, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to cook any meat cooked in milk, some types of meat by Torah law, i.e., that of domesticated animals, and some types of meat by rabbinic law, i.e., that of undomesticated animals and birds. This prohibition applies to all types of meat except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, which are not prohibited, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law.

讜讗住讜专 诇讛注诇讜转 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘砖专 注讜祝 讘讞诇讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讙讝专 讛注诇讗讛 讗讟讜 讗讻讬诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches further: And it is prohibited to place any meat with cheese on one table. Rav Yosef said: Conclude from this clause that eating the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind that the prohibition against eating it applies merely by rabbinic law, this would be because the consumption of the meat of birds cooked in milk is itself a rabbinic decree, lest one come to eat the meat of an animal in milk. And would we decree against placing birds together with cheese on one table due to the possibility of consumption, which is itself a decree? The Sages do not enact one decree to prevent the violation of another decree.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 讚转谞谉 讞诇转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not issue one rabbinic decree to prevent violation of another rabbinic decree? The source is as we learned in a mishna (岣lla 4:8): 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, which must be eaten by a priest,

谞讗讻诇转 注诐 讛讝专 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讜谞讬转谞转 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛

may be eaten with a non-priest present at the same table. The Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting this lest the non-priest partake of the 岣lla, as the separation of 岣lla outside of Eretz Yisrael is itself a rabbinic decree. This proves that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree. And similarly, 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael may be given to any priest that one wishes, even an uneducated priest who would not guard its state of ritual purity. This is in contrast to 岣lla from Eretz Yisrael, which may be given only to priests who observe the halakhot of ritual purity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讞诇转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘讗专抓 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 讞诇转 讛讗专抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讗讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, your inference would be valid if the mishna in tractate 岣lla had taught us this with regard to 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that had been brought into Eretz Yisrael. As in that case, there could be reason to decree against eating it while a non-priest is at the same table, despite the fact that the non-priest eating it is prohibited only by rabbinic law, due to the concern that one might come to eat 岣lla from Eretz Yisrael, which is prohibited to the non-priest by Torah law, at the same table as a non-priest; and yet we do not decree against this practice. If so, there would be grounds to learn from this mishna that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree.

讗诇讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜拽讬 注讜祝 讜讙讘讬谞讛 讗转讬 诇讗住讜拽讬 讘砖专 讜讙讘讬谞讛 讜诪讬讻诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

But the mishna actually teaches this halakha with regard to 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that remains there. It therefore proves nothing about compound decrees, as it can be claimed that the practice is permitted only because there is no reason to decree. Since by Torah law the obligation of 岣lla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, there is no chance that such behavior will lead to transgression of Torah law. But here, if you permit one to place the meat of birds and cheese on the same table, some might come to place the meat of domesticated animals and cheese on a single table and to eat this meat cooked in milk, thereby transgressing a prohibition by Torah law.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 住讜祝 住讜祝 爪讜谞谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讘讗讬诇驻住 专讜转讞

Rav Sheshet objects to the premise of Rav Yosef鈥檚 inference: Even if one were to posit that the meat of birds in milk is prohibited by Torah law, ultimately this is still a decree issued due to another decree, as it is a case of cold food in another cold food, consumption of which is itself prohibited by rabbinic law. Abaye said: It is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a boiling stewpot, which is a manner of cooking and therefore prohibited by Torah law.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讘砖诇 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讘讗讬诇驻住 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara counters: Ultimately, even a stewpot is only a secondary vessel, i.e., not the vessel that was on the fire, and as a rule, a secondary vessel does not cook. Rather, one must say that it is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a stewpot that is a primary vessel, i.e., that was on the fire. This is certainly cooking meat in milk, and it is prohibited by Torah law.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜祝 注讜诇讛 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 谞讗讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讝讜 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

MISHNA: The meat of birds may be placed with cheese on one table but may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Rabbi Yosei said: This is one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.

讘讗讬讝讛 砖讜诇讞谉 讗诪专讜 讘砖讜诇讞谉 砖讗讜讻诇 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讘砖讜诇讞谉 砖住讜讚专 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛转讘砖讬诇 谞讜转谉 讝讛 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

The mishna elaborates: With regard to which table are these halakhot stated? It is with regard to a table upon which one eats. But on a table upon which one prepares the cooked food, one may place this meat alongside that cheese or vice versa, and need not be concerned that perhaps they will be mixed and one will come to eat them together.

讙诪壮 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讙讜驻讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘讛注诇讗讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讙讜驻讛 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

GEMARA: The Gemara challenges: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to that of the first tanna. And if you would say that there is a difference between them with regard to the permissibility of eating itself, as the first tanna says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to placing meat of birds with cheese on one table, which indicates that with regard to eating they do not disagree, and Rabbi Yosei said in response to this that they also disagree with regard to the permissibility of eating meat of birds in milk, and this is itself one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, one can refute this claim.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讝讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉 注讜祝 注讜诇讛 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 谞讗讻诇

The refutation is as follows: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says that six matters are included as the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and this is one of them: The meat of birds is placed with cheese on one table, but it may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei agrees that even according to Beit Shammai the meat of birds may not be eaten with cheese.

讗诇讗 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讚讘专 讘砖诐 讗讜诪专讜 诪讘讬讗 讙讗讜诇讛 诇注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讗诪专 讗住转专 诇诪诇讱 讘砖诐 诪专讚讻讬

Rather, this is what the mishna teaches us: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei. The identification is important, since whoever reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated with respect to the incident of Bigthan and Teresh: 鈥淎nd Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordecai鈥 (Esther 2:22), and Mordecai was later rewarded for saving the king鈥檚 life, paving the way for the miraculous salvation.

转谞讗 讗讙专讗 讞诪讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 注讜祝 讜讙讘讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讗驻讬拽讜专谉 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘诇讗 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜讘诇讗 拽讬谞讜讞 讛驻讛

搂 The Gemara continues discussing the consumption of poultry cooked in milk. The Sage Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely [apikoren], i.e., there is no need to be strict in this matter. The Gemara notes: He, Agra, teaches it and he says it, i.e., explains his statement: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten without washing one鈥檚 hands and without wiping the mouth between the consumption of each.

专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讙讘讬谞讛 讗讻诇 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讘砖专讗 讗讻诇 讜诇讗 诪砖讗 讬讚讬讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转讗谞讬 讗讙专讗 讞诪讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 注讜祝 讜讙讘讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讗驻讬拽讜专谉 注讜祝 讜讙讘讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讘砖专 讜讙讘讬谞讛 诇讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. They brought him cheese, and he ate it. Next they brought him meat, and he ate it without first washing his hands. The members of Rav Ashi鈥檚 household said to him: But didn鈥檛 Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, teach only that the meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely? One can infer that with regard to the meat of birds and cheese, yes, one may eat them without washing one鈥檚 hands in between, but with regard to the meat of domesticated animals and cheese, no, one may not.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讘诇 讘讬诪诪讗 讛讗 讞讝讬谞讗

Rav Yitz岣k said to them: This statement of Agra applies only if one eats them at night, as one cannot see whether some of the food of the previous dish still remains on his hands, and he must therefore wash them. But if one eats by day, I can see that no food remains on his hands, and consequently there is no need to wash them.

转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽谞讞 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讚讬讞 诪讗讬 诪拽谞讞 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讬讞

It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: Between the consumption of meat and milk one must wipe out his mouth, and Beit Hillel say that he must rinse his mouth. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word: Wipe [mekane鈥檃岣], and what is the meaning of the word: Rinse [media岣]?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 104

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 104

讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 诪讜转专 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐

And one who takes a vow that meat is prohibited to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers.

讙诪壮 讛讗 注讜祝 讗住讜专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗诪专 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

GEMARA: Since the mishna does not distinguish between the meat of animals and that of birds, it may consequently be inferred that the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law, just like the meat of animals. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn鈥檛 he say that the prohibition of the meat of undomesticated animals and birds cooked in milk is not by Torah law?

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 诪讜转专 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 讛讗 注讜祝 讗住讜专 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪讬诪诇讬讱 注诇讬讛 砖诇讬讞 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara continues: But say the latter clause of the mishna: One who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers. It may consequently be inferred that it is prohibited for him to eat birds. If so, here we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Anything about which an agent sent to purchase a given item would inquire, being unsure whether it qualifies as that type of item, is considered its type.

讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬专拽 诪讜转专 讘讚诇讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜住专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇砖诇讜讞讜 拽讞 诇谞讜 讬专拽 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗诇讗 讚诇讜注讬谉

As it is taught in a mishna (Nedarim 54a): One who takes a vow that vegetables are forbidden to him is permitted to eat gourds, as people do not typically consider gourds a type of vegetable, but Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: But it is a common occurrence that a person says to his agent: Purchase vegetables for us, and the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns and says: I found only gourds. This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻谉 讛讚讘专 讻诇讜诐 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗诇讗 拽讟谞讬转 讗诇讗 砖讚诇讜注讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讬专拽 讜讗讬谉 拽讟谞讬转 讘讻诇诇 讬专拽 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves that my opinion is correct. Does the agent return and say: I found only legumes? Rather, it is evident that gourds are included in the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent explains that he found only gourds, and asks whether he should purchase them. But legumes are not included in the category of vegetables, and that is why an agent would not even ask about them. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva should also hold that one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating birds. And if so, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜谞住讬讘 诇讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚转谞讗讬 讘谞讚专讬诐 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉

Rav Yosef said: That is not difficult. The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna according to the opinions of different tanna鈥檌m. In the latter clause, with regard to vows, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas in the first clause, with regard to meat cooked in milk, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诪讛谉 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 砖讗讬谞诐 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐

Rav Ashi said a different explanation: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as indicated by the latter clause, concerning vows. And as for the first part of the mishna, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to cook any meat cooked in milk, some types of meat by Torah law, i.e., that of domesticated animals, and some types of meat by rabbinic law, i.e., that of undomesticated animals and birds. This prohibition applies to all types of meat except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, which are not prohibited, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law.

讜讗住讜专 诇讛注诇讜转 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘砖专 注讜祝 讘讞诇讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讙讝专 讛注诇讗讛 讗讟讜 讗讻讬诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches further: And it is prohibited to place any meat with cheese on one table. Rav Yosef said: Conclude from this clause that eating the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind that the prohibition against eating it applies merely by rabbinic law, this would be because the consumption of the meat of birds cooked in milk is itself a rabbinic decree, lest one come to eat the meat of an animal in milk. And would we decree against placing birds together with cheese on one table due to the possibility of consumption, which is itself a decree? The Sages do not enact one decree to prevent the violation of another decree.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 讚转谞谉 讞诇转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not issue one rabbinic decree to prevent violation of another rabbinic decree? The source is as we learned in a mishna (岣lla 4:8): 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, which must be eaten by a priest,

谞讗讻诇转 注诐 讛讝专 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讜谞讬转谞转 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛

may be eaten with a non-priest present at the same table. The Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting this lest the non-priest partake of the 岣lla, as the separation of 岣lla outside of Eretz Yisrael is itself a rabbinic decree. This proves that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree. And similarly, 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael may be given to any priest that one wishes, even an uneducated priest who would not guard its state of ritual purity. This is in contrast to 岣lla from Eretz Yisrael, which may be given only to priests who observe the halakhot of ritual purity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讞诇转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘讗专抓 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 讞诇转 讛讗专抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讗讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, your inference would be valid if the mishna in tractate 岣lla had taught us this with regard to 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that had been brought into Eretz Yisrael. As in that case, there could be reason to decree against eating it while a non-priest is at the same table, despite the fact that the non-priest eating it is prohibited only by rabbinic law, due to the concern that one might come to eat 岣lla from Eretz Yisrael, which is prohibited to the non-priest by Torah law, at the same table as a non-priest; and yet we do not decree against this practice. If so, there would be grounds to learn from this mishna that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree.

讗诇讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜拽讬 注讜祝 讜讙讘讬谞讛 讗转讬 诇讗住讜拽讬 讘砖专 讜讙讘讬谞讛 讜诪讬讻诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

But the mishna actually teaches this halakha with regard to 岣lla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that remains there. It therefore proves nothing about compound decrees, as it can be claimed that the practice is permitted only because there is no reason to decree. Since by Torah law the obligation of 岣lla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, there is no chance that such behavior will lead to transgression of Torah law. But here, if you permit one to place the meat of birds and cheese on the same table, some might come to place the meat of domesticated animals and cheese on a single table and to eat this meat cooked in milk, thereby transgressing a prohibition by Torah law.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 住讜祝 住讜祝 爪讜谞谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讘讗讬诇驻住 专讜转讞

Rav Sheshet objects to the premise of Rav Yosef鈥檚 inference: Even if one were to posit that the meat of birds in milk is prohibited by Torah law, ultimately this is still a decree issued due to another decree, as it is a case of cold food in another cold food, consumption of which is itself prohibited by rabbinic law. Abaye said: It is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a boiling stewpot, which is a manner of cooking and therefore prohibited by Torah law.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讘砖诇 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讘讗讬诇驻住 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara counters: Ultimately, even a stewpot is only a secondary vessel, i.e., not the vessel that was on the fire, and as a rule, a secondary vessel does not cook. Rather, one must say that it is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a stewpot that is a primary vessel, i.e., that was on the fire. This is certainly cooking meat in milk, and it is prohibited by Torah law.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜祝 注讜诇讛 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 谞讗讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讝讜 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

MISHNA: The meat of birds may be placed with cheese on one table but may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Rabbi Yosei said: This is one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.

讘讗讬讝讛 砖讜诇讞谉 讗诪专讜 讘砖讜诇讞谉 砖讗讜讻诇 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讘砖讜诇讞谉 砖住讜讚专 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛转讘砖讬诇 谞讜转谉 讝讛 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

The mishna elaborates: With regard to which table are these halakhot stated? It is with regard to a table upon which one eats. But on a table upon which one prepares the cooked food, one may place this meat alongside that cheese or vice versa, and need not be concerned that perhaps they will be mixed and one will come to eat them together.

讙诪壮 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讙讜驻讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘讛注诇讗讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讙讜驻讛 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

GEMARA: The Gemara challenges: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to that of the first tanna. And if you would say that there is a difference between them with regard to the permissibility of eating itself, as the first tanna says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to placing meat of birds with cheese on one table, which indicates that with regard to eating they do not disagree, and Rabbi Yosei said in response to this that they also disagree with regard to the permissibility of eating meat of birds in milk, and this is itself one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, one can refute this claim.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讝讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉 注讜祝 注讜诇讛 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 谞讗讻诇

The refutation is as follows: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says that six matters are included as the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and this is one of them: The meat of birds is placed with cheese on one table, but it may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei agrees that even according to Beit Shammai the meat of birds may not be eaten with cheese.

讗诇讗 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讚讘专 讘砖诐 讗讜诪专讜 诪讘讬讗 讙讗讜诇讛 诇注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讗诪专 讗住转专 诇诪诇讱 讘砖诐 诪专讚讻讬

Rather, this is what the mishna teaches us: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei. The identification is important, since whoever reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated with respect to the incident of Bigthan and Teresh: 鈥淎nd Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordecai鈥 (Esther 2:22), and Mordecai was later rewarded for saving the king鈥檚 life, paving the way for the miraculous salvation.

转谞讗 讗讙专讗 讞诪讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 注讜祝 讜讙讘讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讗驻讬拽讜专谉 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘诇讗 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜讘诇讗 拽讬谞讜讞 讛驻讛

搂 The Gemara continues discussing the consumption of poultry cooked in milk. The Sage Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely [apikoren], i.e., there is no need to be strict in this matter. The Gemara notes: He, Agra, teaches it and he says it, i.e., explains his statement: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten without washing one鈥檚 hands and without wiping the mouth between the consumption of each.

专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讙讘讬谞讛 讗讻诇 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讘砖专讗 讗讻诇 讜诇讗 诪砖讗 讬讚讬讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转讗谞讬 讗讙专讗 讞诪讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 注讜祝 讜讙讘讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讗驻讬拽讜专谉 注讜祝 讜讙讘讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讘砖专 讜讙讘讬谞讛 诇讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. They brought him cheese, and he ate it. Next they brought him meat, and he ate it without first washing his hands. The members of Rav Ashi鈥檚 household said to him: But didn鈥檛 Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, teach only that the meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely? One can infer that with regard to the meat of birds and cheese, yes, one may eat them without washing one鈥檚 hands in between, but with regard to the meat of domesticated animals and cheese, no, one may not.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讘诇 讘讬诪诪讗 讛讗 讞讝讬谞讗

Rav Yitz岣k said to them: This statement of Agra applies only if one eats them at night, as one cannot see whether some of the food of the previous dish still remains on his hands, and he must therefore wash them. But if one eats by day, I can see that no food remains on his hands, and consequently there is no need to wash them.

转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽谞讞 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讚讬讞 诪讗讬 诪拽谞讞 讜诪讗讬 诪讚讬讞

It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: Between the consumption of meat and milk one must wipe out his mouth, and Beit Hillel say that he must rinse his mouth. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word: Wipe [mekane鈥檃岣], and what is the meaning of the word: Rinse [media岣]?

Scroll To Top