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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 20, 2019 | 讬状讙 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 113

There are different opinions regarding whether it is forbidden to cook undomesticated animals or birds with milk. The mishna and gemara also discuss other cases and whether or not one would be obligated for cooking/eating milk and meat in that case.


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

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇讬讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讜转讞 讜讻讘讜砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讘讜砖诇

The Gemara objects: But let Rava say to him the same ruling by instead citing the seemingly more relevant statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A salted food imparts its flavor like a boiling food, and a marinated food is as absorbent as a cooked food. Clearly, the kosher meat absorbed flavor from the meat of the tereifa as it would have had they been cooked together.

讗讬 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诪谉 讗讘诇 爪讬专谉 讜专讜讟讘谉 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: Had Rava based his ruling only on Shmuel鈥檚 statement, I would say in response: This statement applies only to the absorption of the blood of the meat, but kosher meat is not prohibited if it absorbs only the juices and gravy of the meat of the tereifa. Since in this case the meat is salted in a perforated vessel, the blood from each piece runs out and is not absorbed by the other, and one might think that the kosher meat remains permitted. Rava鈥檚 interpretation of the verse in Leviticus teaches us that the juices and gravy of the meat of the tereifa must also be taken into account.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讚讙 讟讛讜专 砖诪诇讞讜 注诐 讚讙 讟诪讗 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 诪诇讜讞讬谉 诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A kosher fish that one salted together with a non-kosher fish is permitted. What, is it not referring to a case where they were both salted and expel juices? This indicates that the kosher fish is not prohibited by the juices of the non-kosher fish, contrary to Rava鈥檚 statement. The Gemara responds: No, this is referring to a case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted. Since an unsalted fish does not emit juices, the kosher fish does not absorb the flavor of the non-kosher fish.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讘砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讜讞讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讟讛讜专 砖诪诇讞讜 注诐 讚讙 讟诪讗 诪讜转专 讻讬爪讚 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇

The Gemara challenges: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: But if the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted the kosher fish remains permitted, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are dealing with a case where they are both salted. The Gemara responds: The latter clause is explaining the halakha of the first clause. The baraita should be read as follows: A kosher fish that one salted together with a non-kosher fish is permitted. How so? This is the halakha if the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讬砖讗 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讜讞讬诐 讛砖转讗 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讜讞讬诐 砖专讬 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara notes: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the meaning of the baraita, as if it enters your mind that the first clause is referring to a case where both of them are salted, one can claim: Now that the baraita has stated that even if both of them are salted the kosher fish is permitted, is it necessary to state that the same applies in the less problematic case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted?

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 讗讘诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讜讞讬谉 讗住讜专 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 砖谞讬讛谉 诪诇讜讞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 砖专讬

The Gemara rejects this: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument. It is possible that the first clause of the baraita is indeed referring to a case where both fish are salted, and the tanna of the baraita nevertheless taught the latter clause to shed light on the first clause, so that you should not say: The first clause is referring only to a case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted, but if they were both salted, then the kosher fish is prohibited. To rule this out, he taught the latter clause, which explicitly makes reference to a case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish unsalted, which by inference indicates that the first clause is referring to a case where they are both salted, and teaches that even so the kosher fish is permitted.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讚住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 讟诪讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讟讛讜专 转驻诇 讗住讜专 讟诪讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讟讛讜专 转驻诇 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 砖谞讬讛谉 诪诇讜讞讬谉 砖专讬

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear proof against Rava鈥檚 ruling from the latter clause of the latter clause, i.e., the third clause of that baraita: But if the non-kosher fish was salted and the kosher fish was unsalted, the kosher fish is prohibited. One can infer from here that it is only if the non-kosher fish is salted and the kosher fish is unsalted that the kosher fish is prohibited. But if they were both salted, then the kosher fish is permitted, contrary to Rava鈥檚 ruling.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讟诪讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讟讛讜专 转驻诇

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the last section of the baraita uses this language only since it teaches in the former clause, i.e., the second clause: If the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish unsalted, etc. The baraita therefore taught the last clause as well using parallel language: If the non-kosher fish was salted and the kosher fish unsalted, etc. But nothing can be derived from here with regard to a case where both fish were salted.

(住讬诪谉 讘讬砖专讗 讚诪谞讞 谞驻拽讜转讗)

搂 The Gemara provides a mnemonic for remembering the three halakhot stated by Shmuel below: The manner in which blood is expelled from meat; salted meat that is placed on a vessel; an animal whose neck is broken before its soul departs.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛讘砖专 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讜诇讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪讚讬讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讗转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讜诇讞 讜诪讚讬讞 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 诪讚讬讞 讜诪讜诇讞 讜诪讚讬讞 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚讞诇诇讬讛 讘讬 讟讘讞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 讞诇诇讬讛 讘讬 讟讘讞讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诪诇讞 诇讬讛 讘诪讬诇讞讗 讙诇诇谞讬转讗 讜诪谞驻讬抓 诇讬讛

Shmuel says: Meat cannot be rid of its blood unless one salts it thoroughly and rinses it thoroughly in water. It was stated: Rav Huna says: One must salt and rinse the meat in water. And it was taught in a baraita: One must rinse the meat, and salt it, and then rinse it again. The Gemara adds: And these two rulings do not disagree. This ruling of Rav Huna is referring to a case where one already washed the meat in the slaughterhouse before salting, whereas that baraita is referring to a case where one did not wash the meat in the slaughterhouse. The Gemara relates: Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 would salt meat with coarse salt and then shake the salt off the meat.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讚诐 讘讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 转专讙诪讗 讗讻专讻砖讗 讜诪注讬讬讗 讜讛讚专讗 讚讻谞转讗

Rav Mesharshiyya says: One does not presume that there is blood in the intestines, and therefore they are not prohibited if they have not been salted. The Gemara comments: The Sages interpreted this statement as referring to the rectum, the intestines, and the spiral colon.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 诪谞讜拽讘

Shmuel says: One may place salted meat only on a perforated vessel, so that the expelled blood can run out. But if the vessel is not perforated then the blood will pool and be reabsorbed by the meat.

专讘 砖砖转 诪诇讞 诇讬讛 讙专诪讗 讙专诪讗 转专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚驻专讬砖 诪讛讗讬 讜讘诇注 讛讗讬 讞讚 谞诪讬 驻专讬砖 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讘诇注 讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗诇讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet would salt meat one bone, i.e., one piece, at a time. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he would not salt two together? Could it be because the blood leaves this piece and that piece absorbs it? If so, with regard to one piece as well, one could claim that the blood leaves this side of the piece and that side absorbs it. Rather, there is no difference between one piece and two pieces, and one may salt even several pieces together.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛砖讜讘专 诪驻专拽转讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 拽讜讚诐 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讻讘讬讚 讗转 讛讘砖专 讜讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛讘专讬讜转 讜诪讘诇讬注 讚诐 讘讗讘专讬诐

Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: One who breaks the neck of an animal after it is slaughtered but before its soul departs thereby makes the meat heavy. The meat expels blood at the time of slaughter, but if one breaks the animal鈥檚 neck, excess blood is trapped inside and weighs down the meat. And by this action he robs people, as he causes blood to be absorbed in the animal鈥檚 limbs, and since he sells the meat by weight, people will pay extra to acquire the same amount of edible meat.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讻讘讬讚 讗转 讛讘砖专 讜讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛讘专讬讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讘诇讬注 讚诐 讘讗讘专讬诐 讛讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is he speaking? Does Shmuel mean that there is only one problem with this practice, namely, that it renders the meat heavy and robs people since he causes blood to be absorbed in the animal鈥檚 limbs? If so, it may be inferred that if one wishes to keep the meat for himself, one may well do so, since he is robbing no one. Or perhaps Shmuel is referring to two prohibitions, first, that the blood trapped in the meat renders it prohibited for consumption, and second, that of robbery. If so, then even if one wants to keep the meat for himself, it is also prohibited. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪注诇讛 讗转 讛注讜祝 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

MISHNA: One who places the meat of birds with cheese on the table upon which he eats does not thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讗讜讻诇讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 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 讗讬诪讗 讛诪注诇讛 讗转 讛注讜祝 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 诇讗 转注砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Since the mishna mentions only that placing meat of birds and milk on one table does not violate a Torah prohibition, one may consequently infer that if one eats them together he does violate a Torah prohibition. If so, learn from the mishna that meat of birds in milk is prohibited by Torah law, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that it applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara responds: Say that the mishna should be understood as follows: One who places bird meat with cheese on the table will not thereby come to violate a Torah prohibition, since eating the two together is a rabbinic prohibition, as Rabbi Akiva maintains.

诪转谞讬壮 讘砖专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讜讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讘砖专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪讜转专 诇讘砖诇 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讗讬谞诐 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 驻专讟 诇讞讬讛 讜诇注讜祝 讜讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

MISHNA: It is prohibited to cook the meat of a kosher animal in the milk of any kosher animal, not merely the milk of its mother, and deriving benefit from that mixture is prohibited. It is permitted to cook the meat of a kosher animal in the milk of a non-kosher animal, or the meat of a non-kosher animal in the milk of a kosher animal, and deriving benefit from that mixture is permitted. Rabbi Akiva says: Cooking the meat of an undomesticated animal or bird in milk is not prohibited by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21) three times. The repetition of the word 鈥渒id鈥 three times excludes an undomesticated animal, a bird, and a non-kosher animal.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讗转 砖讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讛 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 注讜祝 砖讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讬爪讗 注讜祝 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇讘 讗诐

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not eat of any animal carcass鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21), and in the same verse it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk.鈥 This indicates that meat of an animal that is subject to be prohibited due to the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered carcass is prohibited for one to cook in milk. Consequently, with regard to meat of birds, which is subject to be prohibited due to the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered carcass, one might have thought that it would be prohibited to cook it in milk. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n its mother鈥檚 milk,鈥 excluding a bird, which has no mother鈥檚 milk.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬砖诇讞 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转 讙讚讬 讛注讝讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd Judah sent the kid of the goats鈥 (Genesis 38:20).

讻讗谉 讙讚讬 注讝讬诐 讛讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讙讚讬 住转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜专讞诇 讘诪砖诪注

One may infer that here, since this verse specifies that it is referring to a kid of the goats, consequently, anywhere the word 鈥渒id鈥 is stated without specification, it means even a cow or a ewe. Accordingly, the prohibition of meat cooked in milk applies to all kosher domesticated animals.

讜诇讬诇祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讻转讬讘 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗转 注专转 讙讚讬讬 讛注讝讬诐 讻讗谉 讙讚讬讬 讛注讝讬诐 讛讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讙讚讬 住转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜专讞诇 讘诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: But why not derive from that verse that in general, every instance of the word 鈥渒id鈥 is referring to a goat, including the prohibition of meat cooked in milk? The Gemara answers: This cannot be, as another verse is written: 鈥淎nd the skins of the kids of the goats鈥 (Genesis 27:16). This indicates that only here they are kids of the goats, but anywhere the word 鈥渒id鈥 is stated without specification, it means even a cow or a ewe.

讜诇讬诇祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara objects: But let us derive from this verse as well that on the contrary, the word 鈥渒id鈥 is always referring to a goat. The Gemara explains: These two examples are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, and as a rule, any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to other cases.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 注讝讬诐 讛注讝讬诐

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says this principle that two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to other cases, but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common element to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Two exclusions are written, as both of the verses cited use the term 鈥渢he goats.鈥 The verses could have stated simply: Goats, but state 鈥渢he goats,鈥 with the definite article, teaching that it is only in these cases that the reference is specifically to a goat.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讚讬 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讞诇讘 讙讚讬 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪转讛 讙讚讬 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬诇

Shmuel says: Each of the Torah鈥檚 three mentions of the prohibition of not cooking a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk serves to include a different case. The first mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to include liability for cooking in milk and eating forbidden fats, beyond the liability for eating forbidden fat per se. The second mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 likewise serves to include additional liability for cooking in milk and eating the meat of a dead animal carcass. Finally, the third mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to include liability for cooking in milk and eating an animal fetus.

讙讚讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讚诐 讙讚讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讙讚讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讟诪讗讛

Each mention excludes a case as well: The first mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to exclude liability for cooking in milk and consuming blood. The second mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to exclude liability for cooking in milk and eating the placenta of an animal. The third mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to exclude liability for cooking in milk and eating the meat of a non-kosher animal.

讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讝讻专 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讘讞诇讘 砖讞讜讟讛 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讟诪讗讛

Furthermore, the first instance of the phrase 鈥渋n its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 indicates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of a male animal, in the rare case that a male might produce milk. The second instance of the phrase 鈥渋n its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 indicates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of an already slaughtered animal, since it is considered milk only if given while the animal is alive. The third instance of the phrase 鈥渋n its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 indicates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of a non-kosher animal.

讛讗 转诇转讗 讙讚讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜讗谞谉 砖讬转讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜诪转讛 诪讞讚 拽专讗 谞驻拽讬 讚诐 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讙讚讬 讛讜讗 讜砖诇讬讗 谞诪讬 驻讬专砖讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转专讬 讞讚 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬诇 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara challenges: The word 鈥渒id鈥 is written only three times, and yet we expound it to teach six different halakhot. The Gemara responds: Shmuel maintains that a prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition already exists, and therefore the prohibition of forbidden fat in milk and the prohibition of a dead animal carcass in milk are both derived from one verse, as both are applications of the prohibition to an already prohibited item. The exclusion of blood from the prohibition also does not require its own verse, as blood is not considered a kid at all, and likewise there is no need for a verse to exclude a placenta from the prohibition, as it is merely a secretion of the animal, rather than a kind of meat. Therefore, two mentions of 鈥渒id鈥 are left; one serves to include a fetus, and one serves to exclude a non-kosher animal.

讜住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讻讬 讬讞诇诇讛讜 驻专讟 诇讝讜 砖诪讞讜诇诇转 讜注讜诪讚转

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel really maintain that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say in the name of Rabbi Elazar: From where is it derived that an impure priest who partakes of impure teruma, i.e., the portion of produce designated for the priest, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven as he would had the teruma been ritually pure? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated, with regard to the prohibition of an impure priest partaking of teruma: 鈥淎nd die therein if they desecrate it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9), to the exclusion of this case of teruma that is impure, which was already desecrated before the priest ate it. Here, it seems, since impure teruma is already prohibited for consumption, the added prohibition of an impure priest partaking of teruma does not take effect.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讙讚讬

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that in general Shmuel maintains that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and it is different there, with regard to teruma, as the Merciful One expressly excludes impure teruma by the phrase 鈥渁nd die therein if they desecrate it,鈥 and in this case the teruma is already desecrated. And if you wish, say that in general Shmuel maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and here, the case of meat cooked in milk, is different, as the Merciful One expressly includes the meat of an animal carcass and forbidden fat by the repetition of the word 鈥渒id.鈥

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛

And if you wish, say that this statement of Shmuel with regard to meat cooked in milk is his own opinion, as he maintains that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and that statement with regard to teruma is his teacher鈥檚, i.e., Rabbi Elazar鈥檚, opinion, as he holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 诪专讘 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 讙讚讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬拽讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讝讻专 讝讻专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 讗诐 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讗诐 讗住讜专

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raised a dilemma to Rav: If one cooks meat in milk of a goat that has not yet nursed, but that is about to give birth and already has milk, what is the halakha? Rav said to him: From the fact that it was necessary for Shmuel to say that the phrase 鈥渋n its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 teaches: And not in the milk of a male animal, one can infer that it is only the milk of a male that is excluded, as the male cannot attain the status of a mother. But in this case, since the goat will attain the status of a mother, it is prohibited to cook meat in its milk.

讗转诪专 讛诪讘砖诇 讞诇讘 讘讞诇讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 拽住讘专 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

It was stated: With regard to one who cooks forbidden fat in milk, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree as to the halakha. One says that he is flogged for violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk, and one says that he is not flogged. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That the one who says he is flogged maintains that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and the one who says he is not flogged maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 诇拽讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘砖讜诇 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讞讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诇讛讻讬 讗驻拽讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讘讬砖讜诇

The Gemara responds: No; everyone agrees that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and therefore everyone agrees that one is not flogged for eating the mixture. When they disagree, it is with regard to cooking. The one who says he is flogged holds that one who cooks violates only one prohibition, that of cooking meat in milk, since it is permitted to cook forbidden fat without eating it. Consequently, this is not a case of a prohibition taking effect where another prohibition already exists. And the one who says he is not flogged holds that it was for this reason that the Merciful One expressed the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk in the Torah using the language of cooking: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk.鈥

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 113

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 113

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇讬讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻专讜转讞 讜讻讘讜砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讘讜砖诇

The Gemara objects: But let Rava say to him the same ruling by instead citing the seemingly more relevant statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A salted food imparts its flavor like a boiling food, and a marinated food is as absorbent as a cooked food. Clearly, the kosher meat absorbed flavor from the meat of the tereifa as it would have had they been cooked together.

讗讬 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诪谉 讗讘诇 爪讬专谉 讜专讜讟讘谉 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: Had Rava based his ruling only on Shmuel鈥檚 statement, I would say in response: This statement applies only to the absorption of the blood of the meat, but kosher meat is not prohibited if it absorbs only the juices and gravy of the meat of the tereifa. Since in this case the meat is salted in a perforated vessel, the blood from each piece runs out and is not absorbed by the other, and one might think that the kosher meat remains permitted. Rava鈥檚 interpretation of the verse in Leviticus teaches us that the juices and gravy of the meat of the tereifa must also be taken into account.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讚讙 讟讛讜专 砖诪诇讞讜 注诐 讚讙 讟诪讗 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 诪诇讜讞讬谉 诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A kosher fish that one salted together with a non-kosher fish is permitted. What, is it not referring to a case where they were both salted and expel juices? This indicates that the kosher fish is not prohibited by the juices of the non-kosher fish, contrary to Rava鈥檚 statement. The Gemara responds: No, this is referring to a case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted. Since an unsalted fish does not emit juices, the kosher fish does not absorb the flavor of the non-kosher fish.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讘砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讜讞讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讟讛讜专 砖诪诇讞讜 注诐 讚讙 讟诪讗 诪讜转专 讻讬爪讚 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇

The Gemara challenges: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: But if the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted the kosher fish remains permitted, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are dealing with a case where they are both salted. The Gemara responds: The latter clause is explaining the halakha of the first clause. The baraita should be read as follows: A kosher fish that one salted together with a non-kosher fish is permitted. How so? This is the halakha if the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讬砖讗 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讜讞讬诐 讛砖转讗 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讜讞讬诐 砖专讬 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara notes: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the meaning of the baraita, as if it enters your mind that the first clause is referring to a case where both of them are salted, one can claim: Now that the baraita has stated that even if both of them are salted the kosher fish is permitted, is it necessary to state that the same applies in the less problematic case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted?

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 讗讘诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讜讞讬谉 讗住讜专 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 砖谞讬讛谉 诪诇讜讞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 砖专讬

The Gemara rejects this: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument. It is possible that the first clause of the baraita is indeed referring to a case where both fish are salted, and the tanna of the baraita nevertheless taught the latter clause to shed light on the first clause, so that you should not say: The first clause is referring only to a case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted, but if they were both salted, then the kosher fish is prohibited. To rule this out, he taught the latter clause, which explicitly makes reference to a case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish unsalted, which by inference indicates that the first clause is referring to a case where they are both salted, and teaches that even so the kosher fish is permitted.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讚住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 讟诪讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讟讛讜专 转驻诇 讗住讜专 讟诪讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讟讛讜专 转驻诇 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 砖谞讬讛谉 诪诇讜讞讬谉 砖专讬

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear proof against Rava鈥檚 ruling from the latter clause of the latter clause, i.e., the third clause of that baraita: But if the non-kosher fish was salted and the kosher fish was unsalted, the kosher fish is prohibited. One can infer from here that it is only if the non-kosher fish is salted and the kosher fish is unsalted that the kosher fish is prohibited. But if they were both salted, then the kosher fish is permitted, contrary to Rava鈥檚 ruling.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讬讞 讜讟诪讗 转驻诇 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讟诪讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讟讛讜专 转驻诇

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the last section of the baraita uses this language only since it teaches in the former clause, i.e., the second clause: If the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish unsalted, etc. The baraita therefore taught the last clause as well using parallel language: If the non-kosher fish was salted and the kosher fish unsalted, etc. But nothing can be derived from here with regard to a case where both fish were salted.

(住讬诪谉 讘讬砖专讗 讚诪谞讞 谞驻拽讜转讗)

搂 The Gemara provides a mnemonic for remembering the three halakhot stated by Shmuel below: The manner in which blood is expelled from meat; salted meat that is placed on a vessel; an animal whose neck is broken before its soul departs.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛讘砖专 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讜诇讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪讚讬讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讗转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讜诇讞 讜诪讚讬讞 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 诪讚讬讞 讜诪讜诇讞 讜诪讚讬讞 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚讞诇诇讬讛 讘讬 讟讘讞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 讞诇诇讬讛 讘讬 讟讘讞讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诪诇讞 诇讬讛 讘诪讬诇讞讗 讙诇诇谞讬转讗 讜诪谞驻讬抓 诇讬讛

Shmuel says: Meat cannot be rid of its blood unless one salts it thoroughly and rinses it thoroughly in water. It was stated: Rav Huna says: One must salt and rinse the meat in water. And it was taught in a baraita: One must rinse the meat, and salt it, and then rinse it again. The Gemara adds: And these two rulings do not disagree. This ruling of Rav Huna is referring to a case where one already washed the meat in the slaughterhouse before salting, whereas that baraita is referring to a case where one did not wash the meat in the slaughterhouse. The Gemara relates: Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 would salt meat with coarse salt and then shake the salt off the meat.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讚诐 讘讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 转专讙诪讗 讗讻专讻砖讗 讜诪注讬讬讗 讜讛讚专讗 讚讻谞转讗

Rav Mesharshiyya says: One does not presume that there is blood in the intestines, and therefore they are not prohibited if they have not been salted. The Gemara comments: The Sages interpreted this statement as referring to the rectum, the intestines, and the spiral colon.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 诪谞讜拽讘

Shmuel says: One may place salted meat only on a perforated vessel, so that the expelled blood can run out. But if the vessel is not perforated then the blood will pool and be reabsorbed by the meat.

专讘 砖砖转 诪诇讞 诇讬讛 讙专诪讗 讙专诪讗 转专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚驻专讬砖 诪讛讗讬 讜讘诇注 讛讗讬 讞讚 谞诪讬 驻专讬砖 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讘诇注 讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗诇讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet would salt meat one bone, i.e., one piece, at a time. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he would not salt two together? Could it be because the blood leaves this piece and that piece absorbs it? If so, with regard to one piece as well, one could claim that the blood leaves this side of the piece and that side absorbs it. Rather, there is no difference between one piece and two pieces, and one may salt even several pieces together.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛砖讜讘专 诪驻专拽转讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 拽讜讚诐 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讻讘讬讚 讗转 讛讘砖专 讜讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛讘专讬讜转 讜诪讘诇讬注 讚诐 讘讗讘专讬诐

Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: One who breaks the neck of an animal after it is slaughtered but before its soul departs thereby makes the meat heavy. The meat expels blood at the time of slaughter, but if one breaks the animal鈥檚 neck, excess blood is trapped inside and weighs down the meat. And by this action he robs people, as he causes blood to be absorbed in the animal鈥檚 limbs, and since he sells the meat by weight, people will pay extra to acquire the same amount of edible meat.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讻讘讬讚 讗转 讛讘砖专 讜讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛讘专讬讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讘诇讬注 讚诐 讘讗讘专讬诐 讛讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is he speaking? Does Shmuel mean that there is only one problem with this practice, namely, that it renders the meat heavy and robs people since he causes blood to be absorbed in the animal鈥檚 limbs? If so, it may be inferred that if one wishes to keep the meat for himself, one may well do so, since he is robbing no one. Or perhaps Shmuel is referring to two prohibitions, first, that the blood trapped in the meat renders it prohibited for consumption, and second, that of robbery. If so, then even if one wants to keep the meat for himself, it is also prohibited. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪注诇讛 讗转 讛注讜祝 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

MISHNA: One who places the meat of birds with cheese on the table upon which he eats does not thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讗讜讻诇讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 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 讗讬诪讗 讛诪注诇讛 讗转 讛注讜祝 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 诇讗 转注砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Since the mishna mentions only that placing meat of birds and milk on one table does not violate a Torah prohibition, one may consequently infer that if one eats them together he does violate a Torah prohibition. If so, learn from the mishna that meat of birds in milk is prohibited by Torah law, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that it applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara responds: Say that the mishna should be understood as follows: One who places bird meat with cheese on the table will not thereby come to violate a Torah prohibition, since eating the two together is a rabbinic prohibition, as Rabbi Akiva maintains.

诪转谞讬壮 讘砖专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讜讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讘砖专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪讜转专 诇讘砖诇 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讗讬谞诐 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 驻专讟 诇讞讬讛 讜诇注讜祝 讜讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

MISHNA: It is prohibited to cook the meat of a kosher animal in the milk of any kosher animal, not merely the milk of its mother, and deriving benefit from that mixture is prohibited. It is permitted to cook the meat of a kosher animal in the milk of a non-kosher animal, or the meat of a non-kosher animal in the milk of a kosher animal, and deriving benefit from that mixture is permitted. Rabbi Akiva says: Cooking the meat of an undomesticated animal or bird in milk is not prohibited by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21) three times. The repetition of the word 鈥渒id鈥 three times excludes an undomesticated animal, a bird, and a non-kosher animal.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讗转 砖讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讛 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 注讜祝 砖讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讬爪讗 注讜祝 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇讘 讗诐

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not eat of any animal carcass鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21), and in the same verse it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk.鈥 This indicates that meat of an animal that is subject to be prohibited due to the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered carcass is prohibited for one to cook in milk. Consequently, with regard to meat of birds, which is subject to be prohibited due to the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered carcass, one might have thought that it would be prohibited to cook it in milk. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n its mother鈥檚 milk,鈥 excluding a bird, which has no mother鈥檚 milk.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬砖诇讞 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转 讙讚讬 讛注讝讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd Judah sent the kid of the goats鈥 (Genesis 38:20).

讻讗谉 讙讚讬 注讝讬诐 讛讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讙讚讬 住转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜专讞诇 讘诪砖诪注

One may infer that here, since this verse specifies that it is referring to a kid of the goats, consequently, anywhere the word 鈥渒id鈥 is stated without specification, it means even a cow or a ewe. Accordingly, the prohibition of meat cooked in milk applies to all kosher domesticated animals.

讜诇讬诇祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讻转讬讘 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗转 注专转 讙讚讬讬 讛注讝讬诐 讻讗谉 讙讚讬讬 讛注讝讬诐 讛讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讙讚讬 住转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜专讞诇 讘诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: But why not derive from that verse that in general, every instance of the word 鈥渒id鈥 is referring to a goat, including the prohibition of meat cooked in milk? The Gemara answers: This cannot be, as another verse is written: 鈥淎nd the skins of the kids of the goats鈥 (Genesis 27:16). This indicates that only here they are kids of the goats, but anywhere the word 鈥渒id鈥 is stated without specification, it means even a cow or a ewe.

讜诇讬诇祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara objects: But let us derive from this verse as well that on the contrary, the word 鈥渒id鈥 is always referring to a goat. The Gemara explains: These two examples are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, and as a rule, any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to other cases.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 注讝讬诐 讛注讝讬诐

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says this principle that two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to other cases, but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common element to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Two exclusions are written, as both of the verses cited use the term 鈥渢he goats.鈥 The verses could have stated simply: Goats, but state 鈥渢he goats,鈥 with the definite article, teaching that it is only in these cases that the reference is specifically to a goat.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讚讬 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讞诇讘 讙讚讬 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪转讛 讙讚讬 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬诇

Shmuel says: Each of the Torah鈥檚 three mentions of the prohibition of not cooking a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk serves to include a different case. The first mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to include liability for cooking in milk and eating forbidden fats, beyond the liability for eating forbidden fat per se. The second mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 likewise serves to include additional liability for cooking in milk and eating the meat of a dead animal carcass. Finally, the third mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to include liability for cooking in milk and eating an animal fetus.

讙讚讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讚诐 讙讚讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讙讚讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讟诪讗讛

Each mention excludes a case as well: The first mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to exclude liability for cooking in milk and consuming blood. The second mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to exclude liability for cooking in milk and eating the placenta of an animal. The third mention of the word 鈥渒id鈥 serves to exclude liability for cooking in milk and eating the meat of a non-kosher animal.

讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讝讻专 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讘讞诇讘 砖讞讜讟讛 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讟诪讗讛

Furthermore, the first instance of the phrase 鈥渋n its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 indicates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of a male animal, in the rare case that a male might produce milk. The second instance of the phrase 鈥渋n its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 indicates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of an already slaughtered animal, since it is considered milk only if given while the animal is alive. The third instance of the phrase 鈥渋n its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 indicates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of a non-kosher animal.

讛讗 转诇转讗 讙讚讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜讗谞谉 砖讬转讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讜诪转讛 诪讞讚 拽专讗 谞驻拽讬 讚诐 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讙讚讬 讛讜讗 讜砖诇讬讗 谞诪讬 驻讬专砖讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转专讬 讞讚 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬诇 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara challenges: The word 鈥渒id鈥 is written only three times, and yet we expound it to teach six different halakhot. The Gemara responds: Shmuel maintains that a prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition already exists, and therefore the prohibition of forbidden fat in milk and the prohibition of a dead animal carcass in milk are both derived from one verse, as both are applications of the prohibition to an already prohibited item. The exclusion of blood from the prohibition also does not require its own verse, as blood is not considered a kid at all, and likewise there is no need for a verse to exclude a placenta from the prohibition, as it is merely a secretion of the animal, rather than a kind of meat. Therefore, two mentions of 鈥渒id鈥 are left; one serves to include a fetus, and one serves to exclude a non-kosher animal.

讜住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讻讬 讬讞诇诇讛讜 驻专讟 诇讝讜 砖诪讞讜诇诇转 讜注讜诪讚转

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel really maintain that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say in the name of Rabbi Elazar: From where is it derived that an impure priest who partakes of impure teruma, i.e., the portion of produce designated for the priest, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven as he would had the teruma been ritually pure? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated, with regard to the prohibition of an impure priest partaking of teruma: 鈥淎nd die therein if they desecrate it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9), to the exclusion of this case of teruma that is impure, which was already desecrated before the priest ate it. Here, it seems, since impure teruma is already prohibited for consumption, the added prohibition of an impure priest partaking of teruma does not take effect.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讙讚讬

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that in general Shmuel maintains that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and it is different there, with regard to teruma, as the Merciful One expressly excludes impure teruma by the phrase 鈥渁nd die therein if they desecrate it,鈥 and in this case the teruma is already desecrated. And if you wish, say that in general Shmuel maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and here, the case of meat cooked in milk, is different, as the Merciful One expressly includes the meat of an animal carcass and forbidden fat by the repetition of the word 鈥渒id.鈥

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛

And if you wish, say that this statement of Shmuel with regard to meat cooked in milk is his own opinion, as he maintains that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and that statement with regard to teruma is his teacher鈥檚, i.e., Rabbi Elazar鈥檚, opinion, as he holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 诪专讘 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 讙讚讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬拽讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讝讻专 讝讻专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 讗诐 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讗诐 讗住讜专

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raised a dilemma to Rav: If one cooks meat in milk of a goat that has not yet nursed, but that is about to give birth and already has milk, what is the halakha? Rav said to him: From the fact that it was necessary for Shmuel to say that the phrase 鈥渋n its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 teaches: And not in the milk of a male animal, one can infer that it is only the milk of a male that is excluded, as the male cannot attain the status of a mother. But in this case, since the goat will attain the status of a mother, it is prohibited to cook meat in its milk.

讗转诪专 讛诪讘砖诇 讞诇讘 讘讞诇讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 拽住讘专 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

It was stated: With regard to one who cooks forbidden fat in milk, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree as to the halakha. One says that he is flogged for violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk, and one says that he is not flogged. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That the one who says he is flogged maintains that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and the one who says he is not flogged maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 诇拽讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘砖讜诇 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讞讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诇讛讻讬 讗驻拽讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讘讬砖讜诇

The Gemara responds: No; everyone agrees that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and therefore everyone agrees that one is not flogged for eating the mixture. When they disagree, it is with regard to cooking. The one who says he is flogged holds that one who cooks violates only one prohibition, that of cooking meat in milk, since it is permitted to cook forbidden fat without eating it. Consequently, this is not a case of a prohibition taking effect where another prohibition already exists. And the one who says he is not flogged holds that it was for this reason that the Merciful One expressed the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk in the Torah using the language of cooking: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk.鈥

Scroll To Top