Chullin 114b (קיד:) — the Talmud in English

It is

the mother

herself

that is forbidden to cook

in her own milk

that came from her before she was slaughtered—

from where?

You have said a kal va-homer: Just as in a case where "

offspring"

with "

offspring"

in slaughter

is not forbidden—that is, it is permitted to slaughter two offspring of one cow on the same day—

offspring [the son]

with its mother in slaughter is forbidden.

In a case where offspring with offspring

is forbidden—

the kid, which is an “offspring,” with the milk, which is an “offspring”—

is it not logical that offspring

the mother’s milk, which came from her before slaughter,

with

the meat of

the mother in cooking should be forbidden as well?

The verse therefore states: “

in its mother’s milk.”

And we raise an objection:

Why do I need a verse? It can be derived

by means of a kal va-homer.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami said: This is because one could say: A horse that is the son of a mare—

that is, a horse whose father is a horse and whose mother is a mare—

whose sibling is a mule—

that is, it has a sister born to its mare mother from a donkey father [and she is a mule]—

proves that offspring with offspring is forbidden, while offspring with the mother is permitted.

For that horse may be bred with its mother, but may not be bred with its mule sister!?

We answer: The prohibition against breeding that horse with a mule is not considered a prohibition of “offspring with offspring,” because

there, it is the father’s seed that causes it.

For a mule that is the son of a mare

born when a mare mated with a donkey, and which is

the sibling of a mule, proves that offspring with offspring is permitted, while offspring with the mother is forbidden—that is, the mule with its mare mother! This proves that the reason for the prohibition is that it is identified with the species of its father and is therefore considered to belong to two species.

Rather, Mar, the son of Ravina, said: This is because one could say: A slave who is the son of a maidservant—

who is

the sibling of a freedwoman, proves that offspring with offspring is forbidden—

for that slave is forbidden to marry his freed sister—

while offspring [the slave]

with the mother

is permitted,

as she remained a maidservant!

And we reject this:

There, it is the bill of manumission that causes it.

The prohibition is not on account of offspring with offspring, since at times the opposite may be the case and it too will be forbidden.

For a slave who is the son of a freedwoman

who is

the sibling of a maidservant

—his sister was born while his mother was a maidservant, and he too was born while his mother was a maidservant, although he remains a slave—

proves that offspring with offspring is permitted

since both are slaves,

while offspring with the mother is forbidden

since she is Jewish!? Rather, we see that there the manumission causes the distinction.

Rather, Rav Idi bar Avin said: This is because one could say:

The prohibition against diverse kinds of seeds proves it.

The offspring

of one species

with the offspring

of another

is forbidden, while offspring with the mother is permitted—

the soil, which is considered its “mother.”

And we reject this:

Is offspring with offspring forbidden

inherently? It is not forbidden

except through the mother

—that is, through sowing.

For wheat and barley

may be placed together

in a container and do not become forbidden

except when they are sown in the ground. If so, this cannot be brought as proof that offspring with offspring is forbidden while offspring with its mother is permitted, since even when offspring with offspring is forbidden, it is because of the mother.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is because one could say: What is the basis for the prohibition of offspring with offspring

which is forbidden?

It is

that they are two bodies

—

can you say the same with regard to offspring with the mother, since they are one body

and one might have thought that it is permitted to cook the mother in her own milk.

That is why the verse

the third verse that states “in its mother’s milk” was necessary.

Rav Ashi said: From where is it derived that meat with milk is forbidden

even

to eat?

As it is stated: “

You shall not eat any abomination.”

And we expound:

Any

thing

that I have made abominable to you—

that I have forbidden and rendered abominable to you—

is subject to the prohibition: You shall not eat it

under all circumstances, even when it was not produced through a transgression, such as through a minor or a gentile. And with regard to meat with milk, I have rendered them abominable to you, since I forbade you to cook them together; therefore, they are also forbidden to eat.

And I have derived only

that meat with milk is forbidden

to eat.

From where

is it derived that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it?

We derive it

in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abbahu.

For Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: Wherever it is stated “

it shall not be eaten,”

or “

you shall not eat,”

or “

you shall not eat” [in the plural]—

both a prohibition against eating and a prohibition against deriving benefit are implied, until the verse specifies for you

that it is forbidden specifically to eat but not to derive benefit,

as it specified for you with regard to an animal carcass

which is permitted for benefit. And where is it specified that one may derive benefit from it? Where the Torah states:

“To the resident alien”—

by giving

it to him, meaning that it is permitted to give it to a resident alien;

“and to the gentile”—

by selling

it, meaning that it is permitted to sell it to him. But with regard to an animal carcass, only a prohibition against eating is stated, as it is written: “You shall not eat any animal carcass.” From where would I have thought that it is forbidden to derive benefit, such that a verse is needed to permit it? Rather, this proves that wherever a prohibition against eating is stated, both a prohibition against eating and a prohibition against deriving benefit are implied; therefore, a verse is needed to permit deriving benefit from an animal carcass.

As it is taught in a beraita:

It is written: “

You shall not eat any animal carcass; to the resident alien who is within your gates you shall give it, that he may eat it, or sell it to a gentile.”

I have derived only

that it is permitted for benefit

to a resident alien—

by giving, and to a gentile—

by selling,

as the verse states. But that it is permitted

to sell to a resident alien—

from where?

The verse therefore states: “

You shall give it to the resident alien, or sell it,”

indicating that it is also permitted to sell it to a resident alien.

To a gentile by giving—

from where

is it permitted?

The verse therefore states: “

You shall give it, or sell it to a gentile,”

indicating that it is also permitted to give it as a gift to a gentile.

It follows that both a resident alien and a gentile

are permitted

both by selling and by giving; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The words are to be understood as they are written

—that

to a resident alien

is specifically

by giving

permitted,

and to a gentile

is specifically

by selling.

What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion?

For

if it enters your mind that Rabbi Meir said

that a resident alien and a gentile are equal,

the Merciful One should have written

the verse as follows: “

You shall not eat any animal carcass; to the resident alien who is within your gates you shall give it, that he may eat it, and sell it

to a gentile.” What need is there for the word

“or”—[“or sell it to a gentile”]—

which the Torah wrote

why?

Conclude from this that it came to teach that the words are to be understood as they are written.

It serves to distinguish between them and to say that

to a resident alien is

specifically

by giving, and to a gentile is

specifically

by selling.

And Rabbi Meir could have said to you: This

“or”

which the verse states

comes to teach that giving to a resident alien takes precedence over selling to a gentile.

[This is discussed in the note below.]

And Rabbi Yehuda

could have said to you:

Giving to a resident alien taking precedence over selling to a gentile—

does not require a verse.

For

it is a logical inference: This one—

the resident alien—

you are commanded to sustain, whereas this one—

the gentile—

you are not commanded to sustain; therefore, it is obvious that the resident alien must take precedence over the gentile.

Mnemonic: Shabbat, plowing, diverse kinds of seeds, it and its offspring, and sending away the mother bird.

Mnemonic: Shabbat, plowing, diverse kinds of seeds, it and its offspring, and sending away the mother bird.