B. But according to your logic, lo that which said R. Assi said R. Yohanan, “One who has only one cloak is permitted to wash it on the intermediate days of the festival. Will they say that [108a] this is a horse of a different color? [Lit.: all the fancy cakes are prohibited (on Passover because they may become leaven) but the fancy cakes of Boethus are permitted? See b. Pes. 37a. Because he has only one cloak, may he wash it?]
C. There [the case is different]. Lo, said Mar bar R. Ashi, “[The fact that he washes] his belt [along with his cloak] demonstrates [that this is an exceptional case and not the rule].
Unit I.1 clarifies M.'s rule. II.1 cites a related rule and T.-passage. II.2 discusses a second-level issue.
8:3 A-B
A. A drop of milk which fell on a piece [of meat], if it is sufficient to impart flavor to that piece [of meat] — it is prohibited.
B. [If] one stirred the pot, if there is in it sufficient [milk] to impart flavor to that [entire] pot['s contents], it [the contents of the pot] is prohibited.
I.1
A. Said Abayye, “[We may derive from the biblical prohibition of a mixture of milk and meat that any mixture that contains] the flavor [of a prohibited ingredient] but not the substance [of the ingredient] is consistently prohibited based on the authority of the Torah.
B. “For you might have concluded that [such a mixture was prohibited only] on the authority of the rabbis. And on what basis would we not derive [that such a mixture was prohibited based on the rule prohibiting a mixture of] meat and milk? Because it is a unique concept [that the mixture of two permitted substances should be prohibited]. But if we accept that this is a unique concept, then even when there is no flavor imparted [by milk in the meat] it also should be prohibited!”
C. Said to him Raba, “The Torah prohibited [meat and milk] that are cooked together. [Through cooking one substance usually imparts flavor to the other.]
II.1
A. Said Rab, “As soon as [the milk] imparts flavor to the piece [of meat], the piece itself takes on the status of carrion. It in turn renders prohibited all the other pieces [in the pot] because they are of the same classification. [The principle is that items of the same classification do not nullify one another in a mixture. Therefore all the pieces of meat are prohibited on the basis of the presence of that one piece.]”
B. Said Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari to Rabina, “What is the case? In accord with whose view does Rab state the matter? In accord with R. Judah who said that [a mixture of one prohibited item with other permitted] items of the same classification does not nullify [the one item]. Let us say that this is in disagreement with the view of Raba.
C. “For said Raba, `[For] any [mixture that consists of] a prohibited item with other permitted items of the same classification and with items of a different classification, you can disregard the [other items of] the same classification [and treat them] as if they are not there. Then the items of the different classification will form a majority [and outnumber the prohibited item] and nullify it.'”
D. He [Rabina] said to him, “If the [circumstance is that the prohibited item] fell into [a mixture in] thin gravy, this is the present case [i.e., of a mixture as described in C]. But in this case we are dealing with [an item that] fell into a [mixture in] thick gravy. And in accord with what principle does he [Rab] reason? If he reasons in accord with the principle that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it is treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is nullified, leaving the mixture itself] permitted, then why does the piece [of meat] itself [onto which milk fell] take on the status of carrion?
E. “Rather it must be that he reasons in accord with the principle that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it is not treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is not nullified, leaving the mixture itself] prohibited.”
F. As it was stated: Rab and R. Hanina and R. Yohanan said that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it is not treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is not nullified, leaving the mixture itself] prohibited.
G. Samuel and R. Simeon bar Rabbi and Resh Laqish said that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it is treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is nullified, leaving the mixture itself] permitted.
H. But does Rab hold the view that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it is not treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is not nullified, leaving the mixture itself] prohibited? But lo it was stated: An olive's bulk of meat that fell into a pot of milk — Said Rab, “The meat is prohibited. But the milk is permitted.”
I. And if he holds the view that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it is not treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is not nullified, leaving the mixture itself] prohibited, [108b] then why is the milk permitted? Does not the milk have the status of carrion?
J. Rab consistently reasons in accord with the view that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it is not treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is not nullified, leaving the mixture itself] prohibited. But here [the case of a mixture of meat and milk] is different. Because Scripture says, “You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk” (Exod. 23:19). [That implies] that the Torah prohibited the kid but not the milk.
K. But does Rab reason in accord with the view that the Torah prohibited the kid but not the milk? Lo it is stated: [Concerning a mixture of] half-an-olive's-bulk of meat and half-an-olive's-bulk of milk that he cooked together — said Rab, “He incurs the punishment of stripes on account of eating. But he does not incur the punishment of stripes on account of cooking it. [The minimum quantity for liability to punishment for the violation is an olive's bulk.] [Cf. T. Mak. 4:7.]
L. But if you concluded that the Torah prohibited the kid but not the milk, why does he incur the punishment of stripes for eating it? It is only half of the minimum quantity [needed for liability for the violation of the prohibition].
M. But without exception Rab reasons in accord with the view that the milk [of the mixture of meat and milk] is also prohibited [by the Torah]. Accordingly here [in the case Rab refers to in H] what are we dealing with? The case in question is one where [the meat] fell into a boiling pot [of milk]. [The meat] will surely absorb [from the milk] but it will not egest [any flavor back into the milk].
N. But finally when [the meat] cools down it will egest [flavor back into the milk]. [This is not a concern because the case we refer to is one where] he went ahead and removed [the meat while the pot was boiling].
II.2
A. Reverting to the body of the prior text [II.1 K]: [Concerning a mixture of] half-an-olive's-bulk of meat and half-an-olive's-bulk of milk that he cooked together — said Rab, “He incurs the punishment of stripes on account of eating. But he does not incur the punishment of stripes on account of cooking it. [The minimum quantity for liability to punishment for the violation is an olive's bulk.]
B. But any way you wish to look at the matter [he should incur the punishment]. If [the quantities of meat and milk] combine [to constitute the minimum quantity], he should incur the punishment of stripes for cooking it. And if [the quantities of meat and milk] do not combine, he should not be subject to the punishment of flogging even for eating it.
C. But it is consistent to hold the view that they do not combine [to constitute the minimum quantity. But [the case where he ate half-an-olive's-bulk of meat and half-an-olive's bulk of milk refers to a circumstance where the quantities] came from a large pot [of meat and milk that was cooked together where the smaller quantities were already prohibited. Eating them would constitute a violation subject to the punishment of flogging.] [The case of cooking a half quantity of milk and a half quantity of meat is a different circumstance and would not result in a violation subject to the punishment.]
D. But Levi said [the rule of Rab at A should conclude], “Also, he does incur the punishment of stripes on account of cooking it.”
E. And in this regard Levi taught that it was taught on Tannaite authority: Just as they are subject to the punishment of flogging for eating it, so they are subject to the punishment of flogging for cooking it. And how much cooking do they speak of? Cooking from which others [gentiles] may eat on account of his having cooked it [T. Mak. 4:7 D-E].
II.3
A. And the principle itself that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance] can be extracted [from the item that contained it] is the subject of a Tannaite dispute [as follows]: A drop of milk which fell on a piece of meat — R. Judah says, “If there is sufficient [milk] to impart a flavor to that piece of meat, that piece itself takes on the status of carrion and renders prohibited [in a mixture] all of the other pieces because they are of the same classification.” And sages say, “[It is not prohibited] unless it imparts flavor to the gravy and the froth and the pieces [i.e., to that entire pot].” Said Rabbi, “The opinion of R. Judah appears preferable when one has not stirred [the pot] and has not covered [the pot], and the opinion of sages appears preferable when one has stirred [the pot] and covered [the pot]” [T. 8:6].
B. What does it mean, When one has not stirred [the pot] and has not covered [the pot]? If you say it means he has not stirred it at all and has not covered it at all, [under those circumstances the meat] would absorb [the milk] but it would not egest it. [Why would the other pieces be prohibited?]
C. So rather it means, One has not stirred it at the start [of the cooking]. But one has stirred it at the finish. And one has not covered it at the start. But one has covered it at the finish. Then why [would anything be prohibited]? What was absorbed [at the start] was egested [at the finish].
D. He reasons in accord with the view that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it is not treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is not nullified, leaving the mixture itself] prohibited.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.