E. And there are those who say that with regard to cooking [fat and milk together] they all agree that he incurs the penalty of stripes. Over what then do they dispute? [Over the penalty he incurs] for eating [the fat with milk].
F. The authority who holds that he does not incur the penalty of stripes [for eating fat and milk reasons that by eating it he has violated only one prohibition]. For lo, [we reason in accord with the principle that] one prohibition does not apply on top of another. And the authority who holds that he does 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.] [This style of expression implies that] wherever he would incur the penalty of stripes for cooking [the mixture], he incurs the penalty of stripes for eating [the mixture].
G. And if you prefer [another possibility is] that one master refers to one case and the other master refers to another case and there is no dispute. [One says he may incur the penalty of stripes for cooking and the other says he does not, for eating.]
I.5
A. They posed a question: He who cooks [meat] in the juice of milk [i.e., whey] is free [of liability to punishment]. [T. text: He who does so in the milk of a male is free.] Blood that one cooked in milk — he is free. The bones and sinews and horns and hooves that one cooked in milk — he is free. That which is refuse, remnant, or unclean [of consecrated meat] that one cooked in milk — he is liable on their account because of refuse, remnant, and uncleanness [T. 8:10].
B. That Tanna [in T.] reasons in accord with the principle that one prohibition does apply on top of another prohibition.
I.6
A. He who cooks [meat] in the juice of milk [i.e., whey] is free [of liability to punishment]: this supports the view of Resh Laqish. For it was taught on Tannaite authority, [With regard to the rules of uncleanness] whey is like milk. And sap is like oil [M. Makhshirin 6:5 E-F]. Said Resh Laqish, “They taught this rule only with regard to [the capacity of these liquids to] render seeds susceptible to uncleanness. But with regard to [the prohibition against] cooking meat and milk, whey is not like milk.
II.1
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “In its mother's milk” — [based on this phrase] all I would know is [that it is prohibited to seethe the kid in the milk of its mother, a goat]. What is the source of the assertion [that it is prohibited to cook meat] in the milk of a cow or sheep?
B. You may derive this as follows from an inference a fortiori. What is the case regarding the mother? It is not prohibited to mate her [i.e., any female goat] with him [i.e., any male goat]. Yet it is prohibited to cook [meat from a goat in goat's milk]. Concerning a cow or sheep which are prohibited to mate [of those species] with him [i.e., with a goat], is it not logical that it is prohibited to cook [goat's meat with their milk]? It comes to teach us, “In its mother's milk.” [By mentioning the phrase a second time, it teaches that it is prohibited to cook it in any milk.]
C. But lo, why do we need to derive this from a verse? Lo, we have reached this point [by logical inference].
D. Said R. Ashi, “[You need to derive it from a verse] because you could say that the basis of the logical argument is flawed. Where do you derive the inference [a fortiori]? From a comparison [of other animals] with the mother. [But you could argue another issue.] What is the case with regard to the mother? It is prohibited to slaughter her [on the same day] along with the offspring. You may say regarding a cow [that the rule is more lenient, not stricter]. For it is not prohibited to slaughter it [on the same day] along with the [calf] offspring. It comes to teach us, “In its mother's milk.” [By mentioning the phrase again it teaches that it is prohibited to cook it in any milk.]
II.2
A. Another Tannaite teaching: “In its mother's milk” — [from this verse] all I would know is that [it is prohibited to seethe it in] its mother's milk. What is the source of the assertion [that it is prohibited to cook meat] in the milk of its older sister? [The reference here is either to one of the goats counted for tithing the year before, or to cows, i.e. larger animals of another species.]
B. You may derive this as follows from an inference a fortiori. What is the case regarding the mother? She may enter into the pen together [with the kid] to be counted for tithing. Yet it is prohibited to cook [meat from a goat in goat's milk]. Concerning its older sister which may not enter into the pen together [with the kid, either because it was counted for tithes in the previous year or because it is of another species, depending on the interpretation], is it not logical to conclude that it is prohibited to cook [goat's meat with the milk of that animal]? It comes to teach us, “In its mother's milk.” [By mentioning the phrase a second time, it teaches that it is prohibited to cook it in any milk.]
C. But lo, why do we need to derive this from a verse? Lo, we have reached this point [by logical inference].
D. Said R. Ashi, “[You need to derive it from a verse] because you could say that the basis of the logical argument is flawed. Where do you derive the inference [a fortiori]? From a comparison [of other animals] with the mother. [But you could argue another issue.] What is the case with regard to the mother? It is prohibited to slaughter her [on the same day] along with the offspring. You may say regarding its older sister [i.e., from the past year, or a cow, that the rule is more lenient, not stricter]. For it is not prohibited to slaughter it [on the same day] along with the [kid] offspring. It comes to teach us, “In its mother's milk.” [By mentioning the phrase again it teaches that it is prohibited to cook it in any milk.]
II.3
A. We have found a basis for [prohibiting the milk of] its older sister. What is the source of the assertion [that it is prohibited to cook meat] in the milk of its younger sister? [The reference here is either to one of the goats counted for tithing the next year, or to sheep, i.e. smaller animals of another species.]
B. You may derive this as follows from [a consideration of] both [the rules regarding the mother and the older sister]. From which will you deduce this? If you try to deduce it from [the rules relating to the mother you may argue] what is the case regarding the mother? It is prohibited to slaughter her [on the same day] along with the offspring.
C. Let the [rules regarding] the older sister prove the matter. What is the case regarding the older sister? She may not enter into the pen together with it [i.e., with the kid, either because it was counted for tithes in the previous year or because it is of another species, depending on the interpretation, is it not logical to conclude that it is prohibited to cook goat's meat with the milk of that animal]?
D. Let the [rules regarding the] mother prove the matter. So we find ourselves trapped in a logical circle. The distinctive trait that pertains to the one is not the same as the distinctive trait that applies to the other. And the generative quality of the other is not the same as the generative quality of the one. But then, the generative trait that pertains to them all is that they are all sources of meat, and one is prohibited to cook that together with milk. So I shall introduce the matter of the younger sister that is also a source of meat and one is prohibited to cook that together with milk.
E. If this is the case you may derive the rule for the older sister from [a consideration of] both [the rules regarding the mother and the younger sister].
F. That is a proper inference. But if this is so then why do we need the verse to specify, “In its mother's milk?” We need it to teach us [another rule] that was taught on Tannaite authority.
G. “In its mother's milk” — [from this verse] all I would know is that [it is prohibited to seethe it in] its mother's milk. [114b] What is the source of the assertion [that it is prohibited to cook meat] in its own milk? You may derive this as follows from an inference a fortiori.
H. What is the case [regarding this law]? It was not prohibited to slaughter the offspring with other offspring on the same day. It was prohibited to slaughter the offspring with the mother on the same day. In a case where it was prohibited to cook the offspring with other `offspring' [(lit.: produce) here taken to mean the milk] is it not logical to conclude that it was prohibited to cook the `offspring' [i.e., the milk of the kid] with the mother? It comes to teach us, “In its mother's milk.” [By mentioning the phrase again it teaches that it is prohibited to cook it in any milk.]
I. But lo, why do we need to derive this from a verse? Lo, we have reached this point [by logical inference].
J. Said R. Ahadaboy bar Ammi, “It is on account of the possibility of saying that [a counter-argument based on the case of mating] a horse that is the offspring of a mare with its brother, a mule, will prove persuasive. For [in that case] the offspring [horse] is prohibited to mate with the other offspring [mule]. But it is permitted to mate the offspring [horse] with the mother [mare].”
K. [But this is not analogous to our concern.] There it is the result of the seed of the [two separate] sires [that the horse and mule] are not deemed to be a case of offspring mixing with other offspring [of the same category].
L. For lo, [a counter-argument based on the case of mating] a he-mule that is the offspring of a mare with its sister, a she-mule, will prove persuasive. For [in that case] the offspring [she-mule] is permitted to mate with the other offspring [he-mule]. But it is prohibited to mate the offspring [he-mule] with the mother [mare].
M. But said Mar the son of Rabina, “It is on account of the possibility of saying that [a counter-argument based on the case of mating] a slave, the offspring of a maid-servant, with his sister, a freed maid-servant, will prove persuasive. For [in that case] the offspring [slave] is prohibited to mate with the other offspring [freed maid-servant]. But he is permitted to mate with [a woman who has the status of maid-servant as does] his mother.”
N. [But this is not analogous to our concern.] There it is the result of the writ of manumission [that they may not mate].
O. For lo, [a counter-argument based on the case of mating] a slave, the son of a freed maid-servant, with his sister, a maid-servant, will prove persuasive. For [in that case] the offspring [slave] is permitted to mate with the other offspring [maid-servant]. But he is prohibited to mate with [a woman who has the status of maid-servant as does] his mother.
P. But said R. Idi bar Abin, “It is on account of the possibility of saying that [a counter-argument based on the case of mixing] diverse kinds of seeds will prove persuasive. For [in that case] the offspring [plant] is prohibited to be mixed with the other offspring [plant]. But the offspring [plant] is permitted to be mixed with the mother [plant].”
Q. [But this is not analogous to our concern.] There it is only by virtue of [planting in] the mother [earth] that the offsprings may not be mixed. For lo, wheat and barley may be [mixed together] in a jug and that is not prohibited.
R. Rather said R. Ashi, “It is on account of the possibility of saying [by way of counter-argument against the preceding] that what is the case regarding [mixing] one offspring [the milk] with another offspring [the kid]? They are two distinct bodies. You may say regarding [mixing] the offspring [milk] with the mother [that is permitted because] they are of one body. On account of this you need a verse [to teach you the rule].”
III.1
A. Said R. Ashi, “What is the source for the prohibition against eating meat [cooked] with milk? As it says, `You shall not eat any abominable thing' (Deut. 14:3). [This means that] everything I have declared abominable for you is prohibited to eat.”
B. [Based on this interpretation of the verse] I conclude only that [it is prohibited] to eat [meat cooked with milk]. What is the source [for the prohibition against] deriving benefit [from such a mixture]?
C. It is in accord with the view of R. Abbahu. For said R. Abbahu, said R. Eleazar, “Any place it says, `One shall not eat,' `You shall not eat,' [or] `They shall not eat,' it implies both a prohibition against eating it and a prohibition against deriving benefit from it unless scripture specifies [that one may derive benefit from it] in the manner that is specified for carrion [that one is permitted] to give it to an alien or to sell it to an idolater.” [The verse states: “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 to the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk” (Deut. 14:21).]
D. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: “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 to the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk]” (Deut. 14:21). Based on this I derive only that one may give it to an alien or sell it to an idolater. What is the source for [permission] to sell it to an alien? It comes to teach, “You may give it to an alien... or you may sell it...” What is the source for [permission] to give it to an idolater? It comes to teach, “You may give it... or you may sell it to a foreigner.” “It turns out that to both an alien and an idolater you may either sell it or give it,” the words of R. Meir.
E. R. Judah says, “The words must be interpreted literally [to permit only] giving it to an alien or selling it to an idolater.”
F. What is the basis for the view of R. Judah? [He argues that] if you were to reason in accord with the view stated by R. Meir, then the Torah should have written, “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, and you may sell it...” What does “or” imply? You may derive from this that the words must be interpreted literally [to permit only] giving it to an alien `or' selling it to an idolater.
G. And R. Meir will say to you [by way of counter-argument] that this word “or” tells you that giving it to an alien takes precedence over selling it to an idolater. And R. Judah [will say to you by way of counter-argument that] to tell you that giving it to an alien takes precedence over selling it to an idolater, you do not need a verse. That conclusion may be derived from logical inference. This [alien] you are commanded to sustain. This [idolater] you are not commanded to sustain.
No comments:
Post a Comment