Chullin 114b — the Talmud in English

It

the mother

itself

that it is forbidden to cook

in its milk

that came out from it before it was slaughtered —

from where?

You said a kal va-chomer: What is the case where “fruit”

with

“fruit”

is not forbidden

through slaughter

namely, it is permitted to slaughter two offspring of one cow on the same day,

“fruit” is forbidden

the offspring

with the mother through slaughter.

In a place where “fruit” with “fruit” is forbidden

the kid, which is “fruit,” with the milk, which is “fruit,”

through cooking, is it not logical that “fruit” should be forbidden

the mother’s milk that came out from it before slaughter

with

the flesh

of the mother through cooking?!

The verse says:

“in the milk of its mother.”

And we raise a difficulty:

Why do I need a verse? It is derived

from a kal va-chomer?

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami said: Because it can be said: A horse, the son of a mare

namely, a horse whose father is a horse and whose mother is a mare,

is the brother of a mule

namely, it has a sister whom its mare-mother bore from a donkey-father [and she is a mule],

will prove that “fruit” with “fruit” is forbidden, while “fruit” with the mother is permitted.

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

And we answer: The prohibition against mating that horse with a mule is not considered a prohibition of “fruit with fruit,” because

there, it is the seed of the father that causes it.

For a mule, the son of a mare

that a mare bore from a donkey, and he

is the brother of a mule, will prove that “fruit” with “fruit” is permitted, while “fruit” with the mother is forbidden

namely, the mule with its mare-mother! And it is demonstrated that the reason for the prohibition is that it is attributed to the species of its father and is considered two species.

Rather, Mar the son of Ravina said: Because it can be said: A slave, the son of a maidservant

who is

the brother of a freedwoman, will prove that “fruit” with “fruit” is forbidden

for that slave is forbidden to marry his freed sister,

while “fruit”

the slave

with the mother

who remained a maidservant, is permitted!

And we reject this:

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

The prohibition is not because of “fruit with fruit,” for sometimes the opposite can be the case and it will also be forbidden.

For a slave, the son of a freedwoman

who is

the brother of a maidservant

whose sister was born while their mother was a maidservant, and he too was born while their mother was a maidservant, while he is still a slave,

will prove that “fruit” with “fruit” is permitted

since both of them are slaves,

while “fruit” with the mother is forbidden

since she is Jewish!? Rather, it is seen that there the manumission causes it.

Rather, Rav Idi bar Avin said: Because it can be said:

The diverse kinds of seeds will prove it.

“Fruit”

of this one

with “fruit”

of another

is forbidden, while “fruit” with the mother is permitted,

the ground, which is considered its “mother.”

And we reject this:

Is “fruit” with “fruit” forbidden

on its own? But it is not forbidden

except through the mother,

namely, through sowing.

For wheat and barley

may be placed together

in a sack and do not become forbidden,

but only when they are sown in the ground; and if so, this cannot be brought as proof that “fruit” with “fruit” is forbidden and with its mother is permitted, since even when “fruit” with “fruit” is forbidden, it is because of the mother.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Because it can be said: As for “fruit with fruit”

which are forbidden,

they are two bodies

they are,

can you say that with “fruit” and the mother, since they are one body

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

For this reason the verse

the third one, “in the milk of its mother,”

was necessary.

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

in eating?

As it is stated:

“You shall not eat any abomination.”

And we expound:

Everything

that

I made abominable to you,

which I forbade and made abominable to you —

it is subject to “it shall not be eaten” in every manner, even when it was not done through a transgression, such as through a minor or a gentile. And meat with milk: I made them abominable to you, for I forbade you to cook them together; therefore they are also forbidden in eating.

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 only

that meat with milk is forbidden

in eating.

From where

is it forbidden in deriving benefit?

We derive it

as Rabbi Abbahu taught.

For Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Everywhere that it is stated

“it shall not be eaten,”

or

“you shall not eat,”

or

“you shall not eat”

one prohibition of eating and one prohibition of deriving benefit are implied, until Scripture specifies for you

that it is forbidden specifically in eating and not in deriving benefit,

as it specified for you regarding an animal carcass,

which is permitted for benefit. And where was it explained that it is permitted to derive benefit from it? Where the Torah wrote

“to the resident stranger” —

by giving,

that it is permitted to give it to a resident stranger.

“And to the gentile” —

by selling,

that it is permitted to sell it to him. But regarding an animal carcass only a prohibition of eating is stated, as it is written, “You shall not eat any animal carcass.” And from where would I have thought to forbid deriving benefit, so that a verse is needed to permit it? Rather, it is demonstrated from this that everywhere a prohibition of eating is stated, both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit are implied; therefore a verse is needed to permit an animal carcass for benefit.

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is written:

“You shall not eat any animal carcass; to the resident stranger who is in your gates you shall give it, and he shall eat it, or sell it to the gentile.”

I have only

that it is permitted for benefit

to the resident stranger —

by giving, and to the gentile —

by selling,

as it is written in the verse, that it is permitted

to the resident stranger by selling —

from where?

The verse says:

“You shall give it to the resident stranger, or sell it,”

which implies that it is also permitted to sell to the resident stranger.

To the gentile by giving —

from where

is it permitted?

The verse says:

“You shall give it, or sell it to the foreigner,”

which implies that it is also permitted to give it as a gift to the foreigner.

It follows: Both the resident stranger and the gentile

are permitted

both by selling and by giving; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The words are according to their wording

the implication is that

to the resident stranger

specifically

by giving

is permitted,

and to the gentile

specifically

by selling.

What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason?

For

if it enters your mind that it is as Rabbi Meir says,

that a resident stranger and a gentile are equal,

let the Merciful One write

so

“You shall not eat any animal carcass; to the resident stranger who is in your gates you shall give it, and he shall eat it, and sell it

to the gentile.” The word

“or”

[“or sell it to the gentile”] that the Torah wrote,

why do I need it?

Conclude from it: It came for the words to be according to their wording.

To distinguish between them, and to say that

to the resident stranger

specifically

by giving, and to the gentile

specifically

by selling.

And Rabbi Meir could say to you: This

“or”

that the verse stated

came to teach that giving to the resident stranger precedes selling to the gentile,

that giving to the resident stranger takes precedence over selling to the foreigner.

And Rabbi Yehuda

could say to you:

To give precedence to giving to the resident stranger over selling to the gentile —

no verse is needed.

For

it is logical: This one

— a resident stranger —

you are commanded to sustain, whereas this one

— the gentile —

you are not commanded to sustain,

and if so, it is obvious that the resident stranger must be given precedence over the foreigner.

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