Chullin 104b (קד:) — the Talmud in English

Whereas

ḥalla from outside Eretz Yisrael

, which the Sages instituted as a decree on account of the ḥalla of Eretz Yisrael, is

eaten by a kohen while he is sitting

with a non-kohen,

and it is placed

on the table

without concern that the non-kohen might eat it.

And

the Sages likewise eased the law with regard to ḥalla from outside Eretz Yisrael, in that it is

given to any kohen whom the owner wishes

to give it to, even to an am ha-aretz kohen who does not guard it in a state of ritual purity. This is unlike ḥalla of Eretz Yisrael, which may be given only to kohanim who observe its laws, as it is written in the Book of Chronicles that the priestly gifts are to be given only to kohanim “who hold firmly to the Torah of the Lord.”

This proves that the Sages did not decree that ḥalla from outside Eretz Yisrael may not be placed on the table when a non-kohen is sitting beside the kohen. They did not fear that he might come to eat it, as they feared with meat and cheese, because one does not enact a decree to prevent violation of another decree.

For eating ḥalla from outside Eretz Yisrael by non-kohanim is prohibited only by rabbinic decree. Therefore, they did not decree that it may not be placed on the table when the kohen eats it together with a non-kohen.

And we reject this proof:

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Granted, if the Mishna had taught us

in tractate Ḥalla that

ḥalla from outside Eretz Yisrael

that is found

in Eretz Yisrael

[having been brought from outside Eretz Yisrael] is permitted to be placed on the table together with a non-kohen, that would be a good proof.

Since

there is reason to decree

that it may not be placed on the table

because of the ḥalla of Eretz Yisrael,

whose prohibition

is by Torah law,

and yet

we do not decree

that ḥalla from outside Eretz Yisrael may not be placed there, lest people come to place ḥalla of Eretz Yisrael there,

one could infer from it

that they did not decree against placing something on the table when the prohibition against eating it is itself only a decree, because one does not enact a decree to prevent violation of another decree.

Rather,

now that the tanna of the Mishna in tractate Ḥalla did not teach that the case involved ḥalla from outside Eretz Yisrael that had been brought to Eretz Yisrael, but established it with regard to ḥalla from outside Eretz Yisrael that is located outside Eretz Yisrael, it is possible to say that the reason they permitted placing ḥalla from outside Eretz Yisrael

outside Eretz Yisrael is that there is no reason to decree against it!

For there is no concern outside Eretz Yisrael that one might come to violate a prohibition by Torah law, since outside Eretz Yisrael there is no ḥalla whose prohibition is by Torah law.

But here,

with regard to the prohibition of meat and milk,

if you permit him to place

on the table

fowl and cheese,

he will come to place

also

meat

of an animal

and cheese.

And eating meat with milk

is a prohibition

by Torah law. Therefore, although we should not decree against placing fowl with cheese out of concern that one might eat it with cheese, we should decree against placing it there out of concern that one might place the meat of an animal together with cheese, whose consumption is prohibited by Torah law.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection to this:

How can you say that they decree against placing fowl and cheese together because of the prohibition by Torah law involved in placing and eating the meat of an animal with cheese?

Ultimately,

even if one places the meat of an animal and cheese together on the table, he has not violated a prohibition by Torah law, because their mixture

is cold with cold,

and is prohibited only by rabbinic law [for only cooking them together is prohibited by Torah law].

Abaye said:

The decree was

lest he place

the meat of an animal together with the cheese

in a hot pot,

which constitutes cooking.

And the objection can still be raised:

Ultimately,

even a hot pot

is a secondary vessel,

and does a secondary vessel cook?

And we answer:

Rather, it is a decree lest he place them in a primary pot.

Mishna:

Fowl may be placed with cheese on the table.

Since the prohibition against eating fowl with milk is only rabbinic, they did not decree that fowl may not be placed with cheese on the table.

But it may not be eaten with the cheese; this is the statement of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel say:

Fowl

may neither be placed nor eaten

with cheese. Beit Hillel hold that they decree lest one place the meat of an animal with cheese in a hot primary vessel, which would involve a prohibition by Torah law.

Rabbi Yosei said:

This Mishna

is

the one that represents

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

[Although Beit Hillel are generally more lenient than Beit Shammai, in this Mishna Beit Shammai adopted the lenient position and Beit Hillel the stringent one. The Gemara asks that Rabbi Yosei said the same thing as the first tanna; what, then, does he come to teach us?]

With regard to which table did they say

that it is prohibited to place meat with cheese?

The table at which one eats,

since hands handle food on it, and there is concern that one might place the meat on top of the cheese, or vice versa, and eat them together.

But, with regard to a table that was arranged,

on which one arranges

the cooked dish

[but does not eat from it],

he may place one beside the other

meat beside cheese,

and need not be concerned

that he might mix them together.

Gemara:

And we raise a question concerning it: The statement of

Rabbi Yosei—is it not identical to

the statement of

the first tanna

and what does Rabbi Yosei come to teach us?

And if you would say that the eating itself

of fowl with cheese

is the difference between them,

between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei:

For the first tanna says

that

with regard to placing

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 the first tanna that

the eating itself

is

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

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

It is impossible to say this!

For

we learned

in tractate Eduyot:

Rabbi Yosei says: There are six matters

that additionally are

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

And this is one of them:

Fowl may be placed with cheese on the table, but may not be eaten

together,

the statement of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel say:

The fowl

may not be placed

on the table

and may not be eaten

with cheese.

It is therefore evident 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 the tanna comes to teach us

by bringing the statement of Rabbi Yosei:

Who

is

the first tanna

of our Mishna?

Rabbi Yosei

is!

The reason the tanna had to tell us who the first tanna of the Mishna was is that we have a principle that

whoever reports a statement 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 Mordekhai.”

And through this account of Esther reporting in the name of Mordekhai, redemption came about for the Jewish people.

And since the tanna did not mention at the outset who the first tanna was, he returned and mentioned afterward that Rabbi Yosei is the first tanna.

The tanna Agra, the father-in-law

of

Rabbi Abba: Fowl and cheese

may be eaten without concern.

That is, one need not be cautious with regard to them; rather, they may be eaten “in an unrestricted manner” [apikoran], as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

He—

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

taught it

in this manner. This is how he received that statement from his teacher, arranged in these words.

And he

on the basis of his own understanding

said it,

explaining the matter of apikoran in this way: His teacher intended to say that one who eats cheese and fowl may eat them

without washing his hands and without cleansing his mouth.

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

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

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharsheya, happened to come

to

the house of Rav Ashi.

They brought

him

cheese, and he ate. They brought

him

meat

of an animal, and he

ate.

And he did not wash his hands,

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

They said to him,

they said to Rav Yitzḥak,

“But Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught:

‘Fowl and cheese may be eaten without concern’,

without washing one’s hands between them. This implies that

fowl and cheese

yes—specifically they may be eaten without washing one’s hands between them—

but meat

of an animal

and cheese

no,

they may not be eaten without washing one’s hands between them!”

He said to them,

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharsheya,

“This applies

when the meat of an animal is eaten after cheese, or vice versa, without washing one’s hands—

at night!

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

But during the day—

we can see!

One can see whether his hands are clean, and when his hands are clean he need not wash them between eating meat and cheese.”

It was taught in a beraita: Beit Shammai say: One cleanses his mouth

between eating cheese and meat.

And Beit Hillel say: He rinses it!

As the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And we explain:

What is the meaning of “cleanses,” and what is the meaning of “rinses,”

as stated by Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel?