10/19/11

Talmud Bavli Hullin 116a-b - translation by Tzvee

Z.            Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi, “This is what we stated in the name of Resh Laqish, [116a] `In all instances of logical inferences derived [associatively] one case from one other, we may refute the inference based on a less severe or more severe [characteristic in one of the cases] but we may not refute them based on just any [argument]. In all instances of logical inferences derived [associatively] one case from two others, we may refute the inference based on just any [argument]. In all instances of logical inferences derived [associatively] one case from three others, if the logical inferences would continue in a circular fashion until it leads us to infer [the nature of one element] from the common elements [of all the rules], we may refute the inference based on just any [argument]. But if not, we may refute the inference based on a less severe or more severe [characteristic in one of the cases] but we may not refute them based on just any [argument].'”

AA.        But then one could refute the reasoning as follows: But what is the case regarding mixed kinds grown in a vineyard [that makes it different with regard to the law from meat and milk]? There never was a time when it was valid.

BB.          Said R. Ada bar Ahavah, “[Since we do not raise that objection] that means that mixed kinds growing in a vineyard become prohibited after they have taken root. And there was a time when they were valid before they took root.”

V.2
A.            R. Shemaiah bar Zira posed an objection: He who carries a perforated pot [containing another kind] through the vineyard — if [while he carried the pot through the vineyard] it [the seeds of the other kind] increased in size by [one] two-hundredth — it is prohibited [it sanctifies the vines] [M. Kil. 7:8 D-F]. [We may infer from this that even though mixed kinds had taken root] if it increased, yes [it is prohibited]. If it did not increase, no [it is not prohibited].

B.            Said Abayye, “There are two clauses written concerning this: it is written, `You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole yield be forfeited to the sanctuary' (Deut. 22:9); and it is written [in the continuation of the verse], `The seed which you have sown and the yield of the vineyard' (Deut. 22:9). Lo, what is the implication [of the verse]? Concerning seed that is already planted [the prohibition takes effect] when it takes root. Concerning seed that was planted elsewhere and brought into the vineyard, if it increased, yes [the prohibition takes effect]. If it did not increase, no [it does not take effect].

VI.1
A.            Our Mishnah-passage is not in accord with the view of this Tanna. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, “Meat that was cooked with milk is prohibited for eating but it is permitted to derive benefit from it. As it says, `[You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner;] for you are a people holy (qdš) to the Lord your God. [You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk]' (Deut. 14:21).

B.            “And it is stated further, `You shall be people consecrated (qdš) to me; [therefore you shall not eat any meat that is mangled by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs]' (Exod. 22:31). [Based on the commonality of the word qdš in both verses you may conclude that the same laws apply to both instances.] What is the case there [regarding carrion]? It is prohibited for eating but it is permitted to derive benefit from it. So too here [regarding meat and milk] it is prohibited for eating but it is permitted to derive benefit from it.”

VII.1
A.            R. Aqiba says, “A wild beast and fowl [are] not [prohibited to be mixed with milk] by the Torah. For it is said, `You will not seethe a kid in its mother's milk' (Ex. 23:19, 34:26, Deut. 14:21) — three times, [for the purpose of] excluding [from the prohibition of milk and meat] (1) the wild beast, (2) the bird, (3) and unclean cattle” [M. 8:4 E-F]. Lo, we employed these [verses as the basis for the inferences above at 113b, I.2 A-B] of Samuel.

B.            R. Aqiba reasons in accord with the principle that one prohibition can apply on top of another prohibition. [Therefore he does not need the verses for the special cases of meat cooked with milk.] [Meat of] forbidden fats or of an animal that died do not require a verse [to prohibit the mixture if they are cooked with milk]. [He deems] a foetus to have the status of a regular kid. All the [verses] are extraneous [according to his view and can be used to] exclude a wild beast, fowl and an unclean animal [from the rules prohibiting the cooking of meat and milk].

VIII.1
A.            R. Yosé the Galilean says, “It is said, `You will not eat any sort of carrion' (Deut. 14:21), and it is said, `You will not seethe the kid in its mother's milk' (Deut. 14:21) — [The meaning is this:] What is prohibited on the grounds of carrion [also] is prohibited to be cooked in milk. Fowl, which is prohibited on the grounds of carrion, is it possible that it is prohibited to be seethed in milk? Scripture says, `In its mother's milk' — excluding fowl, the mother of which does not have milk” [M. 8:4 G-J]. What is the matter in dispute between R. Yosé the Galilean and R. Aqiba? The matter in dispute is the wild beast. R. Yosé the Galilean reasons that [meat of] a wild beast is prohibited [with milk] based on the authority of the Torah. R. Aqiba reasons that [meat of] a wild beast is prohibited [with milk] based on the authority of the rabbis.
B.            Another possibility, if you prefer: The matter in dispute is fowl. R. Aqiba reasons that [meat of] a wild beast and of fowl is not prohibited [with milk] based on the authority of the Torah. Lo, based on the authority of the rabbis they prohibited it. R. Yosé the Galilean reasons in accord with the view that [meat of] fowl is not prohibited [with milk] even based on the authority of the rabbis.

C.            There is a Tannaite teaching that accords with this view [b. Shab. 130a]: In the locale of R. Eliezer on the Sabbath they would cut wood to heat charcoal to forge iron [to make a circumcision knife, since in his view it was permitted to do everything that was required in connection with the rite]. In the locale of R. Yosé the Galilean, they would eat fowl [chicken] meat with milk.

D.            Levi visited the house of Joseph the fowler. They served him the head of a peacock cooked in milk. He did not eat it. When he came before Rabbi, he said to him, “How come you did not excommunicate them?”

E.            He said to him, “It was the locale of R. Judah b. Beterah, and I thought, maybe he expounded for them [the rule] in accord with the position of R. Yosé the Galilean, who said, `Excluding fowl, the mother of which does not have milk' [M. ul. 8:4 J].”

Unit I.1 sets forth the scriptural basis for M.'s rule. I.2 extends the exposition of the verses and their implications. I.3 gives us second-level issues regarding milk that was cooked with meat. I.4 provides second-level issues regarding milk that was cooked with fat. In I.5 the relevant T.-passage is cited. I.6 clarifies the T.-passage.
                Unit II.1-3 engages in a sustained inquiry into the scriptural basis for the prohibition of cooking milk and meat. III.1 provides a parallel inquiry into the scriptural basis for the prohibition of deriving benefit from a cooked mixture of milk and meat. IV.1 contrasts the above with intersecting premises of different rules.
                V.1 undertakes a long inquiry into the scriptural basis for the prohibition of eating a mixture of milk and meat. It works through the problems of II-III in a different way with comparison to other rules. V.2 gives us a footnote to a reference in the preceding. VI.1 clarifies the authorship of the passage. VII.1 identifies the operative principle of the next M.-text. Finally, VIII.1 sets out the principle behind the closing dispute in M.

                                                                         8:5
                A.            [The milk in] the stomach of [a beast slaughtered by] a gentile [which is carrion, M. 1:1], and that [in the stomach of] carrion — lo, this is prohibited.
                B.            He who curdles [milk] in the skin of the stomach of a valid[ly slaughtered beast], [116b] if it is sufficient to impart a flavor — lo, this [cheese] is prohibited.
                C.            A valid beast which sucked from a terefah beast — [the milk in] its stomach is prohibited.
                D.           A terefah beast which sucked from a valid beast — [the milk in] its stomach is permitted,
                E.            [in both cases (C, D)] because [the milk remains] collected together in its intestines.

I.1
A.            Is not the stomach of [a beast slaughtered by] a gentile [itself] carrion? Said R. Huna, “Here we are dealing with a case where one purchased a kid from a gentile. And we are concerned that perhaps it suckled milk from a terefah-animal.”

B.            And are we concerned that perhaps it suckled milk from a terefah-animal? For lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: They purchase eggs from any source [b.: from a gentile] and do not scruple lest they are of carrion- or terefah-birds [T. 3(4):24].

C.            Rather it makes sense to maintain that we are concerned that perhaps it suckled milk from an unclean animal. But what difference is there between [the case of] a terefah-animal, about which we are not concerned and [the case of] an unclean animal, about which we are concerned? A terefah-animal is atypical. An unclean animal is typical.

D.            But if it is typical, then even with regard to our own [animal's stomach] we ought to be concerned [that it suckled from an unclean animal]. [No.] We segregate [our clean animals] from them. And when we see them together, we separate them. [For us] the rabbis did not decree [that we be concerned that our clean animal suckled from an unclean animal]. They [i.e., gentiles] do not segregate [clean animals] from them [unclean ones]. And when they see them together, they do not separate them. [For them] the rabbis did decree [that we be concerned that their clean animal suckled from an unclean one].

E.            And Samuel said, “[The Mishnah-passage] taught one rule: The stomach of [a beast] slaughtered by a gentile is carrion.”

F.             And did Samuel in fact say this? Lo, said Samuel [b. A. Z. 35a-b], “Why did they prohibit the cheese of a gentile? Because they curdle it in the skin of a stomach of carrion.” Lo, [this means that the milk in] the stomach itself is permitted.

G.            This is not a contradiction. This one [i.e., our Mishnah-passage, states R. Joshua's rule] before he recanted [his view]. This one [i.e., b. A. Z. 35a-b, states R. Joshua's rule] after he recanted.

II.1
A.            A valid beast which sucked from a terefah beast — [the milk in] its stomach is prohibited. A terefah beast which sucked from a valid beast — [the milk in] its stomach is permitted, [in both cases (C, D)] because [the milk remains] collected together in its intestines [M. 8:5 C-E]. But lo, this was taught in the first text of the Mishnah-passage: [The milk in] the stomach of [a beast slaughtered by] a gentile [which is carrion, M. 1:1], and that [in the stomach of] carrion — lo, this is prohibited. [It appears to be repetitious.]

B.            Said R. Hisda, “In [the case in] the first text of the Mishnah-passage it looks like he is eating carrion. In this text it was slaughtered.”

C.            Said to him Raba, “Is it not logical to argue that [there is a contradiction here]? What is the case regarding [milk in the stomach of] carrion? It is repulsive to him — and if you have permitted [consumption of the milk in] its stomach he will not come to eat [its flesh]. [Nevertheless] you have stated not [to consume the milk]. [Is it not logical to argue that with regard to] a terefah-animal that was slaughtered — and if you have permitted [consumption of the milk in its stomach] he will come to eat [its flesh] — most certainly [you must state that it is prohibited]?”

D.            Rather said R. Yitzhak, said R. Yohanan, “This is not a contradiction. This one [i.e., the first text of the Mishnah-passage, states R. Joshua's rule] before he recanted [his view]. This one [i.e., the second text, states R. Joshua's rule] after he recanted. And the [original rule of the] Mishnah-passage was not revised.”

II.2
A.            Said R. Hiyya bar Abba, said R. Yohanan, “They may curdle milk in the stomach of carrion. But they may not curdle milk in the stomach of an animal that was slaughtered by a gentile.”

B.            R. Simeon bar Abba stated before him, “In accord with whose view is this? In accord with the view of R. Eliezer who said, `The ordinary deliberation of a gentile [e.g., when he slaughters an animal] is to commit an act of idolatry.'”

C.            He [Hiyya] said to him, “[Of course!] Could it be in accord with the view of anyone else?”

D.            When R. Samuel bar Yitzhak came [from Israel, he stated contrary to Hiyya in A,] said R. Yohanan, “They may curdle milk both in the stomach of carrion and in the stomach of an animal that was slaughtered by a gentile. For we are not concerned with the words of R. Eliezer.”

E.            And the law is in accord with the view that they may not curdle milk in the skin of the stomach of carrion. But they may curdle milk in the stomach of carrion and in the stomach of an animal that was slaughtered by a gentile.

F.             [Some versions omit:] [And they curdle milk] in the stomach of a valid beast which sucked from a terefah beast — and certainly in the stomach of a terefah beast which sucked from a valid beast. On what basis? The milk aggregated there has the status of common waste matter.

Unit I investigates M. on its own terms. II investigates M. on its own terms and provides related secondary issues regarding stomachs.

                                                                         8:6
                A.            A more strict rule applies to fat than to blood, and a more strict rule applies to blood than to fat.
                B.            A more strict rule applies to fat:

No comments: