D. [113a] But why did he not say this was [prohibited] based on the view of Samuel? For said Samuel, “[With regard to the rules of mixtures of foods] salting is equivalent to scalding and pickling is equivalent to boiling.” [IV.1 C above]. But if I based this on the view of Samuel I would have reasoned that this concern applies to blood only but not to other fluids or gravy. It comes to make the novel point here [in the verse that other fluids and gravy easily may be absorbed to render prohibited the meat that is being salted].
VII.4
A. They posed a question: A clean fish that was salted with an unclean fish... is permitted [cf. T. Ter. 9:2 A]. Is it not the case that he was salting both of them? [Then by analogy proper meat that was salted with terefah meat should be permitted.] No. The case in question must be one where the clean one was salted and the unclean one was unsalted.
B. But lo from what was taught on Tannaite authority at the end of the text: [As regards] a salted clean fish [which one pickled] with an unsalted unclean fish, [the clean fish is permitted][T. Ter. 9:2 D], we may derive the inference that the first text dealt with two salted fish.
C. [Alternatively we may explain the last text] comes to specify the details [of the first]: A clean fish that was salted with an unclean fish... is permitted. What are the circumstances? The clean one was salted and the unclean one was unsalted.
D. Here too it makes more sense. For if you reason in accord with the view that the first text deals with a case where the two [fish] are salted, then let us consider the matter. Two salted fish... are permitted. Is it necessary to specify that where the clean one is salted and the unclean one is unsalted [that it is permitted]? [This is self-evident.]
E. If we accept this logic then the Tanna of the last text does not specify [the circumstances] to clarify the first text. You should not maintain that the first text deals with a case where the clean fish is salted and the unclean fish is unsalted [it is permitted]. But where the two are salted, it is prohibited.
F. It teaches us in the last text that where the clean fish is salted and the unclean fish is unsalted [it is permitted]. We may derive the inference that in the first text it deals with two fish that are salted, and even so it is permitted.
G. Come and take note from the very last text: [As regards] a salted unclean fish [which one pickled] with an unsalted clean fish, [the clean fish], that alone is prohibited. But if the two of them are salted, it is permitted.
H. But on account of having taught in the first text the case of a clean fish that was salted with an unclean fish that was unsalted, it taught also in the last text the case of an unclean salted fish and a clean unsalted fish. [A mnemonic is given here.]
VIII.1
A. Said Samuel, “Meat only escapes [the prohibited status given it by] its blood if one salts it very well and one washes it very well.”
B. It was stated: R. Huna said he salts it and he washes it. In a Tannaite teaching it was taught: He washes it and salts it and washes it.
C. And there is no dispute between these views. Here [where he washes and salts] it had been rinsed in the butcher shop. Here [where he washes and salts and washes] it had not been rinsed in the butcher shop.
D. R. Dimi from Nehardea used to salt meat with coarse salt and shake it off [before washing it].
VIII.2
A. Said R. Mesharshayya, “We make no presumption about the presence of blood in the intestines [of an animal].” [Accordingly they do not need to be salted.] Interpret this to mean: the rectum, small intestines and the coil of the colon (Cashdan).
B. Said Samuel, “They place salted meat only on top of a perforated vessel [so the blood will run off].”
C. R. Sheshet salted each piece by itself (Jastrow). Why did he not salt two together? Perhaps what is egested by one piece will be absorbed by the other. For one piece as well [we should be concerned]. Perhaps what is egested by one side of the piece will be absorbed by the other. In fact it makes no difference [whether one salts each by itself or many pieces together].
IX.1
A. Said Samuel in the name of R. Hiyya, “He who breaks the neck bone of a beast [after slaughtering it but] before its life ceases [i.e., while it still shows signs of reflex actions], lo he causes its meat to become heavy, he commits an act of theft [because he will sell it by weight], and he causes [excess] blood to be absorbed in its limbs.
B. They posed a question concerning this: How do you wish to state the matter? [Does he] cause its meat to become heavy and commits an act of theft because he causes [excess] blood to be absorbed in its limbs? [And is this prohibited because he steals from others?] But if he prepared the animal for his own consumption, he has acted in a perfectly acceptable way. [When he salts it he will remove the excess blood.] Or perhaps even if he prepared the animal for his own consumption is it prohibited [for him to break the neck bone]? [When he salts it he will not remove the excess blood.] The question stands unresolved.
Unit I.1 investigates M.'s rules on its own terms and cites the relevant T.-passages. I.2 appends a brief footnote to M. Unit II.1 augments the general theme of M. III.1-3 provide precedents, practices and matters tangential to M.'s concern. III.4-6 have no bearing on the elucidation of M. but develop new issues out of the foregoing regarding the preparation of the liver in a substantial discourse on the topic.
Unit IV.1 stands independent of M. and states and discusses principles attributed to Samuel regarding salting and pickling. IV.2 adds rules regarding mixtures of milk and meat. Unit V develops questions and cites precedent for the foregoing regarding the milk concoction. VI supplies more material related to the subject of the above. VII.1-3 gives us rules independent of M. related to the prohibition of consuming blood. Unit VII.4 continues with a digression out of a reference in the preceding materials. VIII-IX conclude with additional rules regarding removal of blood from meat by salting.
8:3 I
I. He who serves up fowl with cheese on the table does not transgress a prohibition.
I.1
A. Lo, one who eats it does transgress a prohibition. You may derive from this that [eating] the meat of fowl with milk is prohibited on the authority of the Torah. [We know this is not the case.] It makes sense [accordingly] to say [that the Mishnah implies], He who serves up fowl with cheese on the table does not come close to transgressing a prohibition. [Even if he eats it he does not violate a prohibition.]
The unit spells out the direct implication of M.
8:4
A. (1) The meat of clean cattle with the milk of a clean cattle—
B. it is prohibited to cook [one with the other] or to derive benefit [therefrom].
C. (2) The meat of clean cattle with the milk of an unclean cattle,
(3) the meat of unclean cattle with the milk of clean cattle—
D. it is permitted to cook and permitted to derive benefit [therefrom].
E. R. Aqiba says, “A wild beast and fowl [are] not [prohibited to be mixed with milk] by the Torah.
F. “For it is said, `You will not seethe a kid in its mother's milk' (Exod. 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 [=C].”
G. 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) —
H. “[The meaning is this:] What is prohibited on the grounds of carrion [also] is prohibited to be cooked in milk.
I. “Fowl, which is prohibited on the grounds of carrion, is it possible that it is prohibited to be seethed in milk?
J. “Scripture says, `In its mother's milk' — excluding fowl, the mother of which does not have milk.”
I.1
A. What is the source of these assertions? Said R. Eleazar, “Scripture says, `When Judah sent the kid [of the goats — gdy h`zym — by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman's hand, he could not find her]' (Gen. 38:20). [113b] Here it says, `Kid of the goats [gdy h`zym].' Lo wherever it says just plain, `Kid' it implies that even [the young of] a cow or a sheep are subsumed [by the term].”
B. But why not learn by inference from this verse [that `kid' refers only to the young of a goat]? In another verse it is written, `And the skins of the kids of the goats [she put upon his hands and upon the smooth part of his neck]' (Gen. 27:16). Here it specifies, `The kids of the goats.' Lo wherever it specifies just plain `Kid' it implies that even [the young of] a cow or a sheep are subsumed [by the term].
C. But why not learn by inference from this verse [that `kid' refers only to the young of a goat]? These constitute two concurrent scriptural references [i.e., two verses that serve the same purpose]. And from two concurrent scriptural references we do not derive any inference.
D. This settles the matter according to one who holds the view that we do not derive any inference [from such verses]. But according to one who holds the view that we do derive inferences [from such verses] what can you say? [You should derive from the verses the conclusion that just plain `kid' means only the young of a goat]. [In those verses] there are two exclusionary usages: `goats' [constitutes one exclusionary usage] and `the goats' [constitutes the second].
I.2
A. Said Samuel, “(1) [The word] `kid' includes [in the prohibition against cooking meat and milk together] forbidden fats [from an animal]. (2) [The word] `kid' includes [in the prohibition against cooking meat and milk together carrion meat from] an animal that died. (3) [The word] `kid' includes [in the prohibition against cooking meat and milk together meat from] a foetus [of an animal]. (4) [The word] `kid' excludes [from the prohibition against cooking meat and milk together] blood [from an animal]. (5) [The word] `kid' excludes [from the prohibition against cooking meat and milk together] the afterbirth [of an animal]. (6) [The word] `kid' excludes [from the prohibition against cooking meat and milk together meat from] an unclean animal.
B. “(1) `In its mother's milk' (Ex. 23:19, 34:26, Deut. 14:21) [implies] not the milk of a male animal. (2) `In its mother's milk' [implies] not the milk of an animal that was slaughtered. (3) `In its mother's milk' [implies] not [the milk] from an unclean animal.”
C. Lo the word `kid' is written three times. Yet we derive it from these six inferences.
D. Samuel reasons in accord with the principle that one prohibition can apply [to a substance] on top of another prohibition [that already applies to it]. And the prohibition of fats and of [meat from an animal] that died derive from the same verse [and are counted as one prohibition]. Blood also [is excluded from the prohibition without explicit reference] because it is not subsumed under the term `kid.' The afterbirth also [is excluded from the prohibition] because it is [with regard to the law no more than] waste matter.
E. Lo this leaves us two [verses to use for exclusions]. One includes the foetus. One excludes an unclean animal.
F. But does Samuel reason in accord with the principle that one prohibition can apply on top of another prohibition? But lo did not Samuel say in the name of R. Eleazar, “What is the basis for concluding that an unclean priest who ate unclean heave-offering is not subject to the death penalty? Because it says, `[They shall therefore keep my charge, lest they bear sin for it] and die thereby when they profane it: [I am the Lord who sanctify them]' (Lev. 22:9). This excludes [from the punishment] one who is already profaned [i.e., unclean].”
G. If you prefer [you can maintain that] in general [Samuel reasons in accord with the principle] that one prohibition can apply on top of another prohibition. But there [regarding the unclean priest] the rule is different because it says [explicitly in the verse], “And die thereby.”
H. And if you prefer [you can maintain that] in general Samuel reasons in accord with the principle that one prohibition cannot apply on top of another. But here [regarding milk and meat] the Torah stated the inclusionary word `kid.'
I. And if you prefer [you can maintain that] this one [rule regarding milk and meat] is his view. And this one [rule regarding the unclean priest] is the view of his master [Eleazar].
I.3
A. R. Ahadaboy bar Ammi posed a question to Rab, “[Concerning a case where] one cooked [meat] in the milk of a young goat that had never suckled any young, what is the law?”
B. He said to him, “Since it was necessary for Samuel to state that “In its mother's milk” [implies] not that from the milk of a male animal [I.2 B] [it is logical to conclude that milk from] a male animal never falls into the category of mother. But this [young goat] since it [potentially] does fall into the category of mother, it is prohibited [to cook meat with its milk].”
I.4
A. It was stated: [Concerning the case of] one who cooks forbidden fat with milk [there is a dispute between] R. Ammi and R. Assi. One says he incurs the penalty of stripes. And one says he does not incur the penalty of stripes.
B. Let us say that they dispute with regard to [a principle of law]. The authority who holds the view that he incurs the penalty of stripes reasons in accord with the principle that one prohibition can apply on top of another prohibition. And the authority who holds the view that he does not incur the penalty of stripes reasons in accord with the view that one prohibition cannot apply on top of another prohibition.
C. No [this is not a valid explanation of the dispute]. They all agree that one prohibition cannot apply on top of another prohibition. Regarding one who eats [this mixture] they all agree and there is no dispute. He does not incur the penalty of stripes [for eating milk and meat. He is liable to punishment only for eating forbidden fat]. Over what then do they dispute? [Over the penalty he incurs] for cooking [the fat with milk].
D. The authority who holds that he incurs the penalty of stripes [for cooking fat and milk reasons that by cooking it he has violated only] one prohibition. [There is no concern whether one prohibition applies on top of another until he eats it.] And the authority who holds that he does not incur the penalty of stripes [reasons] that for a specific purpose the Torah expressed the prohibition against eating [milk and meat] in terms of cooking. [One of the times the Torah says “You will not seethe” prohibits eating milk and meat.] [114a] [This style of expression implies that] wherever he would not incur the penalty of stripes for eating [the mixture], he does not incur the penalty of stripes for cooking it either.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.