Chullin 104b — the Talmud in English

But

the challah of outside the Land of Israel,

which the Sages instituted as a decree on account of the challah of the Land of Israel, is

eaten

by a priest while he is sitting

with a non-priest,

and they place it

on the table

and do not fear lest the non-priest eat it.

And

the Sages likewise were lenient concerning the challah of outside the Land of Israel, which is

given to any priest whom

the owner wishes to give it to, and even to an unlearned priest who does not safeguard it in purity; unlike the challah of the Land, which is given only to priests who observe its laws, as it is written in the Book of Chronicles that the priestly gifts must be given only to priests “who hold fast to the teaching of the Lord.”

And it is proven from this that the Sages did not decree that the challah of outside the Land of Israel may not be brought onto the table while a non-priest is sitting beside the priest, and they did not fear lest he come to eat it, as they feared concerning meat with cheese, since one does not decree a decree on account of a decree.

For the eating of the challah of outside the Land of Israel by non-priests is prohibited only by a rabbinic decree; therefore they did not decree concerning it that it may not be brought onto the table while the priest eats it with a non-priest.

And we reject this:

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

Granted, if he had taught us

the Mishna in Tractate Challah that

the challah of outside the Land of Israel

that is found

in the Land

[that they brought it from outside the Land] is permitted to be brought up with a non-priest, this would be a good proof.

Since

there is room to decree

concerning it that it may not be brought onto the table

on account of the challah of the Land,

whose prohibition

is from the Torah,

and

we do not decree

that the challah of outside the Land may not be brought up lest they come to bring up the challah of the Land, then

there is something to learn from it

that they did not decree bringing something up where the prohibition of eating itself is a decree, because one does not decree a decree on account of a decree.

Rather,

now that the tannaitic author of the Mishna in Tractate Challah did not speak of a case in which “the challah of outside the Land” was brought to the Land, but established it as the challah of outside the Land that is found outside the Land, it is possible to say that this is why they permitted bringing up the challah of outside the Land in

outside the Land, because there is no room to decree!

For in outside the Land there is no concern that he will stumble over a prohibition from the Torah, since outside the Land there is no challah forbidden by the Torah.

But here,

with regard to the prohibition of meat with milk,

if you permit him to bring up

to the table

fowl and cheese,

he will come to bring up

also

meat

of an animal

and cheese.

And eating meat with milk

is a prohibition

from the Torah.

Therefore, although we should not decree that fowl with cheese be brought up out of concern for eating it with cheese, we should decree that it be brought up out of concern for bringing up animal meat and cheese, whose eating is prohibited by the Torah.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection to it:

How can you say that they decree concerning bringing up fowl and cheese on account of the prohibition from the Torah of bringing up and eating animal meat and cheese? After all,

in the end,

even if they bring animal meat and cheese together onto the table, they will not transgress a prohibition from the Torah, because their mixture

is cold with cold,

which is prohibited only rabbinically [for only cooking is prohibited by the Torah].

Abaye said:

The decree was

lest he bring up

the animal meat together with the cheese

in a hot pan,

which is cooking.

And it can still be refuted:

in the end,

even a hot pan

is a secondary vessel,

and does a secondary vessel not cook?

Ритва возражает: почему Гемара спрашивает: «В конечном счете, это второй сосуд»? Ведь в отношении впитывания и выделения запрещенных веществ второй сосуд впитывает и выделяет, а значит, он готовит пищу. Он отвечает, что хотя для впитывания и выделения запрещенных веществ достаточно жара второго сосуда, для того чтобы это считалось «приготовлением», необходим именно первый сосуд. Таков же закон относительно приготовления пищи в Шабат, седьмой день недели, освященный как день покоя: приготовлением считается только приготовление в первом сосуде.

And we answer:

Rather, it is a decree lest he bring it up in a primary pan.

Mishna:

Fowl may be brought up with cheese onto the table.

[Since the prohibition of eating fowl with milk is only rabbinic, they do not decree that fowl may not be brought up with cheese onto a table.] But

it may not be eaten with cheese, the words of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel say:

Fowl

may neither be brought up nor eaten

with cheese. For Beit Hillel hold that they decree lest he bring animal meat with cheese in a hot primary vessel, which is a prohibition from the Torah.

Rabbi Yosei said:

This Mishna

is

the

leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel.

[Although generally Beit Hillel are more lenient than Beit Shammai, in this Mishna Beit Shammai followed the lenient position and Beit Hillel the stringent position. And the Gemara asks that Rabbi Yosei said the same as the first tannaitic authority; what does he come to teach us?]

With regard to which table did they say

that it is prohibited to bring up meat with cheese?

The table at which he eats,

since hands move about on it, they fear lest he come to place the meat on top of the cheese, or vice versa, and eat them together.

But at a table that has been set,

on which they arrange

the cooked dish

[but do not eat on it],

he places this beside that

meat beside cheese,

and he does not fear

lest he mix them together.

Gemara:

And we raised the question: The words of

Rabbi Yosei, are they not

the words of

the first tannaitic authority

? What does Rabbi Yosei come to teach us?

And if you say, the eating itself

of fowl with cheese

is the difference between them,

between the first tannaitic authority and Rabbi Yosei:

For the first tannaitic authority says

that

with regard to bringing up

meat with cheese

they disagree

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, but

with regard to eating they do not disagree,

and according to both of them it is prohibited to eat fowl with cheese.

And Rabbi Yosei said to him, the first tannaitic authority, that

to the first tanna that

the eating itself

is

one of the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel,

for Beit Shammai hold that it is permitted even to eat fowl with cheese.

It is impossible to say this!

For

did we not learn

in Tractate Eduyot:

Rabbi Yosei says: There are six matters

that additionally exist that are

the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel.

And this is one of them:

Fowl may be brought up with cheese onto the table, but may not be eaten

together,

the words of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel say:

The fowl

may not be brought up

onto the table

and may not be eaten

with cheese.

And it is proven that even Rabbi Yosei holds that according to Beit Shammai it is prohibited to eat fowl with cheese.

And we answer:

Rather, this is what he teaches us

the tannaitic author of the Mishna by bringing the words of Rabbi Yosei:

Who

is the

first tannaitic authority

of our Mishna?

Rabbi Yosei

is!

And the reason the tannaitic author needed to tell us who the first tannaitic authority is, is because we have the principle that:

Whoever says a matter in the name of the one who said it

brings redemption to the world.

As it is stated

in the Scroll of Esther:

“And Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai.”

And in the merit of this account of Esther in the name of Mordecai, redemption came about for the Children of Israel.

And since the tannaitic author did not mention at the beginning who the first tannaitic authority was, he returned and mentioned afterward that Rabbi Yosei is the first tannaitic authority.

The tanna Agra, the father-in-law

of

Rabbi Abba: Fowl and cheese

are eaten without concern.

That is, one need not be careful concerning them; rather, they are eaten “in a manner of abandonment” [“without concern”], as he proceeds to explain.

He

—Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba—

taught it.

This is how he received that statement, arranged in this wording, from his teacher.

And he

from his own reasoning

said it,

for he interpreted the matter of “without concern” in this way: his teacher intended to say that one who eats cheese and fowl may eat them

without washing the hands and without cleansing the mouth.

He need not cleanse his mouth and wash his hands between eating fowl and cheese.

But between eating animal meat and eating cheese, he must cleanse his mouth, so that none of the food he first ate should remain attached to his palate.

Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Mesharsheya, happened to come

to

the house of Rav Ashi.

They brought

him

cheese, and he ate. They brought

him

meat

—animal meat—

and he ate.

And he did not wash his hands,

and he did not wash his hands between eating the cheese and eating the meat.

They said to him,

they said to Rav Yitzhak,

but did not Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, teach:

“Fowl and cheese are eaten without concern”,

without washing the hands between them? And it follows that

fowl and cheese—

yes:

specifically they are eaten without washing the hands between them, but

meat

of an animal

and cheese—

no:

they are not eaten without washing the hands between them!?

He said to them

Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Mesharsheya:

These words

that animal meat is not eaten after cheese, or vice versa, without washing the hands, apply

at night!

Specifically at night, when he cannot see whether his hands are clean, and perhaps something is attached to them.

But during the day—

we can see!

He can see whether his hands are clean, and when the hands are clean he need not wash his hands between eating meat and cheese.

It was taught: Beit Shammai say: He cleanses

a person between eating cheese and meat.

And Beit Hillel say: He rinses!

As he proceeds to explain.

And we explain:

What is “he cleanses,” and what is “he rinses,”

which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel said?