Chullin 115a — the Talmud in English

And we challenge:

But from now on:

that you expounded that “everything that I made abhorrent to you” is forbidden in eating,

the product of Shabbat—

for example, if one cooked on Shabbat—

should it be forbidden

in eating to all Israel,

for behold “

I made abhorrent to you”

it is,

since cooking on Shabbat is forbidden. Yet the law is not so, since one who cooks intentionally may not eat it himself, because of the penalty, but others may eat it!?

And we answer:

The verse says

with regard to Shabbat: “

For it is holy to you.”

And we expound:

It—

Shabbat itself—

is holy, but its deeds—

deeds that were performed in violation on Shabbat—

are not holy,

but they are permitted in eating by Torah law.

And we challenge:

One who plows with an ox and with a donkey

together,

and

one who

muzzles the mouth of a cow and threshes with it—

should they be forbidden

the seeds that he sowed and the grain that he threshed,

for behold “

I made abhorrent to you”

it is,

since the Torah forbade doing so!?

And we reject this:

Now, if Shabbat, which is more stringent—

its deeds are permitted, these—

plowing with an ox and with a donkey and muzzling the mouth of a cow, whose prohibition is lighter—

all the more so

that they should be permitted!?

But with regard to meat with milk, this kal va-chomer is not stated in order to permit it in eating, since in the end the Torah wrote, “You shall not eat any abomination,” to expound from this: everything that I made abhorrent to you is forbidden in eating. And necessarily this exposition must be applied to some matter, and it is logical to apply it to meat with milk, since one eats the very abomination in which the prohibition was performed, namely, the meat that he cooked in milk. This is not so with one who plows with an ox and with a donkey, for he does not eat the plowing, but rather the seeds. And when one threshes while he has muzzled the mouth of the cow, he does not eat the muzzling, but rather the threshing that comes about through it; and in these cases we learn from Shabbat, by a kal va-chomer, that it is permitted.

And we challenge:

Seed mixtures,

which themselves are the abomination, since the transgression was performed in them—

should they be forbidden, for “

I made abhorrent to you”

it is.

And we answer:

Since the Merciful One explicitly stated with regard to vineyard mixtures “

lest it become sanctified

the full produce, the seed that you sow,” and we expound: “

lest it be burned by fire,”

that is, if he sows mixtures, the law is that they are forbidden even for benefit and are burned in fire,

it follows that seed mixtures

are permitted

in eating and for benefit.

And we challenge:

And say

this:

the mixtures of

the

vineyard—

are forbidden both in eating and for benefit,

as we expound, “it be burned by fire.” But

seed mixtures,

let it be said that

in eating they are forbidden

because of “I made abhorrent to you,” but

for benefit they are permitted

because they were excluded by vineyard mixtures, for only they are forbidden for benefit, but not seed mixtures. And from where do we have [grounds] to permit them even in eating?

And we reject this: Seed mixtures

were juxtaposed to animal mixtures, as it is written: “

You shall not mate your animal with diverse kinds; you shall not sow your field with diverse kinds.”

And we expound:

Just as with your animal, that which comes forth from it

namely, the offspring born from that mating—

is permitted,

as will be learned below,

so too with your field, that which comes forth from it—

is permitted.

And now we explain:

And animal mixtures themselves, from where do we know

that that which comes forth from it is permitted?

Since the Merciful One forbade

the offspring born from the mating of

mixtures for the Altar,

as we expound, “an ox or a sheep or a goat”—excluding mixtures,

it follows that for an ordinary person it is permitted

in eating!

And we challenge: One who slaughters

it and its offspring

on one day—

should it be forbidden,

since “I made abhorrent to you” it is!

And we answer: This prohibition of “it and its offspring” is considered lacking its time. For it is forbidden only on that day, but if he slaughters the mother today and the offspring tomorrow, it is permitted. And

since the Merciful One forbade one lacking its time

which is not yet eight days old

for the Altar,

as it is written, “And on the eighth day you shall give it to Me”—but not before then,

it follows that for an ordinary person—

it is permitted!

And therefore there is no prohibition of lacking its time for an ordinary person.

And we challenge:

The sending away of the nest,

that is, the mother that he sent away as required by its mitzva,

should it be forbidden

to all Israel in eating, since “I made abhorrent to you” it is, for it is forbidden to take it after sending it away!? And we answer:

The Torah did not say “

send away”

the mother

to create a stumbling block.

And if it were forbidden, people would stumble through it, since they would not know that it was a bird sent away from the nest, and they would eat it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: From where [do we know] that meat with milk is forbidden

in eating?

The verse teaches:

for it is written concerning the Paschal offering, “

You shall not eat from it raw or cooked with cooking.”

There would be no need for the verse to say “

cooked,”

since it is superfluous, as “cooked” has already been written.

What does the verse mean by saying “

cooked”?

To tell you: You have another cooking that is

forbidden in eating—

like this.

And what is it

?

This is meat with milk.