Chullin 114a — the Talmud in English

And there are those who say: concerning cooking -

everyone agrees that he receives lashes.

When do they disagree? -

concerning eating.

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

And the one who says that he receives lashes,

because he held

that for this reason the Merciful One expressed eating in the language of cooking,

to tell us -

since concerning cooking he receives lashes, concerning eating as well he receives lashes.

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

That is to say, the one who said that he receives lashes spoke about cooking, because with milk there is no prohibition of cooking, and here there is no prohibition that takes effect upon another prohibition.

And the one who said that he does not receive lashes spoke about eating: if they warned him only on account of eating meat with milk, and did not warn him on account of the prohibition of eating milk, he does not receive lashes at all, because the prohibition of meat with milk cannot come and take effect upon the prohibition of milk.

It was objected:

meat

in whey

which separates 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 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 prohibition of meat with milk takes effect upon piggul, notar, and impure meat, as the Gemara previously derived from the additional word “kid” that the prohibition of meat and milk takes effect upon other prohibitions!?

And we answer: this is not derived 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 which we learned in this beraita, “

one who cooks in whey -

is exempt,”

supports Resh Lakish.

For we learned: whey -

is like milk.

And the oil-lees,

which are the liquid that flows from olives -

are like oil.

And concerning this Mishna

Resh Lakish said: they taught

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

only to render seeds susceptible

to receive 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 only

that it is forbidden to cook a kid

in its mother’s milk,

which is a goat.

A kid that it is forbidden to cook

in the milk of a cow or a ewe -

from where?

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

for the kid and the goat are one species,

was prohibited with it in its cooking,

a cow or a ewe, which were prohibited with it in crossbreeding,

being two species -

is it not logically so that they should be prohibited with it in its cooking!?

The verse teaches,

from the second verse - “

in its mother’s milk.”

And we raise a difficulty: why do I need the second verse, “in its mother’s milk”?

But why do I need a verse? It is derived for him

by a kal va-chomer!?

Rav Ashi said: because it may be said -

there is a refutation at the outset of the reasoning!

From where are you bringing it? -

from its mother,

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

And concerning this one can object:

what is the case with 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 intention of the verse is the mother and its offspring],

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

For a cow cannot be the mother of a “kid,” but only of a “calf.”

Therefore,

the verse teaches “

in its mother’s milk.”

And from the additional wording of the verse they learn to prohibit the meat of a cow and a ewe in the milk of a kid [Tosafot]. [And see Rashi].

Another beraita was taught: “

in its mother’s milk,”

the third

verse in which it is written - why does it come?

I have only in its mother’s milk,

when she has not yet entered the pen 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?

Rashi initially brought an explanation that the subject is a cow, but in the conclusion [on page 114b] explained that the subject is an animal that has already been tithed. The explanation below follows 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 logically so that she should be prohibited with it in cooking!?

Therefore:

the verse teaches,

the third verse - “

in its mother’s milk”!

And we raise a difficulty:

but why do I need a verse? It is derived for him

by a kal va-chomer!?

Rav Ashi said: because it may be said -

there is a refutation at the outset of the reasoning!

From where are you bringing it, from its mother.

What is the case with its mother? She was prohibited with it in slaughter; can you say the same concerning 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 teaches “

in its mother’s milk.”

We have found its older sister,

which has already been tithed.

Its younger sister,

which has not yet been tithed -

from where?

It is derived from the intermediate case -

from its mother and from its older sister.

And we object:

from which one can you derive it?

If

you derive it from its mother,

there is room to refute:

what is the case with its mother? She was prohibited with it in slaughter!

Its older sister proves

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

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

for she had already been tithed.

Its mother proves!

And the reasoning returns. This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one,

the common aspect between them,

that of its mother and its older sister,

is that it is meat and it is forbidden to cook it in milk,

so I too will bring its younger sister: she is meat, and it is forbidden to cook her in milk.

And we object:

if so,

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

its older sister too should be derived from the intermediate case,

from its mother and a cow, and a verse would not be needed; rather, it should be learned as follows: just as its mother, which enters the pen with it to be tithed, was prohibited with it in cooking, its older sister, which does not enter with it to be tithed because she has already been tithed, is it not all the more so that she should be prohibited with it in cooking? And if you reject this and say, “What is the case with its mother? She was prohibited with it in slaughter,” a cow proves it, for it was not prohibited with it in slaughter on that day, since it is not its mother, and nevertheless was prohibited with it in cooking, as we learned from the second “in its mother’s milk.”

And if you object, “What is the case with a cow? It was prohibited with it in crossbreeding and does not enter the pen with it to be tithed,” I will say to you: its mother proves it, for she is permitted with it in crossbreeding and enters the pen with it to be tithed, and nevertheless is forbidden to cook with it. And the reasoning returns, and both the meat of its older sister and that of its younger sister should be learned from the two of them!?

And we answer:

Indeed so!

But “

in its mother’s milk,”

the third verse,

why do I need it?

It is needed for that which was taught: “

in its mother’s milk.”

I have only

a kid that is forbidden to cook

in its mother’s milk.