Chullin 114a (קיד.) — the Talmud in English

And some say: It is with regard to cooking. -

Everyone agrees that he receives lashes.

They disagree -

with regard to eating.

The one who says that he does not receive lashes holds that there is no prohibition that takes effect upon another prohibition.

And the one who says that he receives lashes,

because he holds

that for this reason the Torah expressed the prohibition of eating in the language of cooking

to teach us:

Since he receives lashes for cooking, he also receives lashes for eating.

And if you wish, say: Each master stated one matter, and they do not disagree.

That is to say, the one who said that he receives lashes was speaking of cooking, because there is no prohibition against cooking milk, and therefore there is no prohibition that takes effect upon another prohibition.

And the one who said that he does not receive lashes was speaking of eating: If he was warned only on account of eating meat with milk and was not warned on account of the prohibition against eating milk, he does not receive lashes at all, because the prohibition of meat with milk cannot come and take effect upon the prohibition against milk.

The Gemara raises an objection:

meat

in whey

the liquid separated from milk -

he is exempt.

Blood that one cooked in milk -

he is exempt.

Bones, sinews, horns, and hooves that one cooked in milk -

he is exempt.

But for piggul, notar, and impure meat that one cooked in milk, he is liable

also for eating them on account of eating meat with milk! And we see that the prohibitions of meat with milk take effect upon piggul, notar, and impure meat, as the Gemara previously derived from the additional mention of “kid” that the prohibition of meat with milk takes effect upon other prohibitions!?

And we answer: We do not derive this from the additional mention of “kid”; rather,

And we answer: This is not learned from the additional word “kid”; rather,

this tanna holds that a prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition

with regard to all prohibitions, and does not accept the principle that a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition.

And this statement that we learned in this beraita: “

One who cooks in whey -

he is exempt,”

supports the view of Rish Lakish.

As we learned in the Mishna:

Whey is like milk.

And the liquid that flows

from olives -

is like oil.

And concerning this Mishna

Rish Lakish said: They taught

that whey has the status of a liquid, like milk itself,

only with regard to rendering seeds susceptible

to ritual impurity;

but with regard to cooking meat with milk -

whey is not like milk.

The Sages taught: “

Do not cook a kid

in its mother’s milk.”

I have derived only

that it is prohibited to cook a kid

in its mother’s milk,

which is the milk of a goat.

The kid whose cooking is prohibited

in the milk of a cow or ewe -

from where is this derived?

You have said a kal va-chomer: Just as its mother, which was not prohibited with it for crossbreeding,

for the kid and the goat are of one species,

was prohibited with it in cooking,

a cow or an ewe, which are prohibited with it for crossbreeding,

as they are two different species, -

is it not logical that they should be prohibited with it in cooking!?

The verse therefore states,

from a second verse: “

In its mother’s milk.”

And we question: Why do I need the second verse, “In its mother’s milk”?

But why do I need a verse? It can be derived

by means of a kal va-chomer!?

Rav Ashi said: It is because one can say -

there is a refutation at the very outset of the logical derivation!

From where are you bringing it -

from its mother,

the kid’s mother, which has a leniency, since she was not prohibited with it for crossbreeding.

And concerning this one can raise the following objection:

What is true of its mother? She was prohibited with it in slaughter,

as it is written: “An ox or a sheep, it and its offspring you shall not slaughter on one day” [and the verse refers to a mother and her offspring];

can you say the same with regard to a cow, which was not prohibited with it in slaughter?

For a cow cannot be the mother of a “kid”; it can only be the mother of a “calf.”

Therefore,

the verse states, “

In its mother’s milk.”

And from the additional wording of the verse, the meat of a cow and an ewe in the milk of a kid is prohibited [Tosafot]. [See Rashi.]

It was taught in another beraita: “

In its mother’s milk” -

the third

occurrence in the Torah - why does it come?

I have derived only that it is prohibited in its mother’s milk,

when she has not yet entered the pen with it for the tithing of animals, and she enters the pen with it to be tithed.

In the milk of its older sister,

which has already been tithed -

from where is this derived?

Initially, Rashi explained that the reference is to a cow, but in the conclusion [on page 114b] he explained that the reference is to an animal that has already been tithed. The explanation that follows is according to Rashi’s conclusion.

You have said a kal va-chomer: Just as its mother, which entered the pen with it to be tithed, was prohibited with it in cooking,

its sister, which did not enter the pen with it to be tithed,

because she had already been tithed,

is it not logical that she should be prohibited with it in cooking!?

Therefore:

the verse states,

the third verse - “

In its mother’s milk”!

And we question:

But why do I need a verse? It can be derived

by means of a kal va-chomer!?

Rav Ashi said: It is because one can say -

there is a refutation at the very outset of the logical derivation!

From where are you bringing it? From its mother.

What is true of its mother? She was prohibited with it in slaughter; can you say the same with regard to its older sister,

which, as stated, is another goat that has already been tithed,

which was not prohibited with it in slaughter.

And therefore

the verse states, “

In its mother’s milk.”

We have found the source for its older sister,

which has already been tithed.

Its younger sister,

which has not yet been tithed -

from where is this derived?

It is derived from an intermediate principle -

from its mother and from its older sister.

And we challenge this:

What is the basis for the derivation?

If

you derive it from its mother,

one can refute it:

What is true of its mother? She was prohibited with it in slaughter!

Its older sister proves

that although she was not prohibited with it in slaughter, she was nevertheless prohibited with it in cooking.

What is true of its older sister? She did not enter the pen with it to be tithed,

for she had already been tithed.

Its mother proves the contrary!

And the argument returns to its beginning: This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one,

but the common denominator between them

in the case of its mother and its older sister

is that each is meat and is prohibited to be cooked in milk;

so I too will include its younger sister, which is meat and is prohibited to be cooked in milk.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that its younger sister is derived from both of them, from its mother and its older sister,

its older sister, too, should be derived from an intermediate principle

from its mother and a cow, and no verse would be necessary. Rather, it could be derived as follows: Just as its mother, which enters the pen with it to be tithed, was prohibited with it in cooking, so its older sister, which does not enter the pen with it to be tithed because she has already been tithed, should certainly be prohibited with it in cooking. And if you reject this and say: What is true of its mother is that she was prohibited with it in slaughter, a cow proves the contrary, since it was not prohibited with it in slaughter on that day, as it is not its mother, and nevertheless it was prohibited with it in cooking, as we learned from the second “In its mother’s milk.”

And if you challenge: What is true of a cow is that it was prohibited with it for crossbreeding and does not enter the pen with it to be tithed, I will say to you: Its mother proves the contrary, since she is permitted with it for crossbreeding and enters the pen with it to be tithed, and nevertheless she is prohibited in cooking with it. And the argument returns to its beginning, and both the meat of its older sister and that of its younger sister can be derived from the two of them!?

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so!

However, what do I need the third “

In its mother’s milk”

third occurrence

for?

It is needed for that which was taught: “

In its mother’s milk.”

I have derived only

a kid whose cooking is prohibited

in its mother’s milk.