Parallel
חולין 114:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but whence do we know [that it is forbidden] in its own milk? From the following a fortiori argument: if, where the fruit is not forbidden with the fruit — as in the case of slaughtering — the fruit with the dam is forbidden, how much more, therefore, where the fruit is forbidden with the fruit — as in the case of cooking — is the fruit forbidden with the dam! And the text also teaches, ‘In its mother's milk’. But why is this latter verse necessary? It has been inferred [from the a fortiori argument], has it not? — R. Ahadboi b. Ammi answered: Because we can refute the argument thus: A colt, the offspring of a mare, and which is also the ‘brother’ of a mule, could prove otherwise: for the fruit is forbidden with the fruit, nevertheless the fruit with the dam is permitted. But surely [this is no refutation since] that is due to the seed of the sire only; for, in truth, the case of a male mule, the offspring of a mare, and which is also the ‘brother’ of a female mule, could prove the reverse: for the fruit is permitted with the fruit and the fruit with the dam is forbidden! Rather said Mar the son of Rabina: Because one can refute the argument thus: A slave, the son of a bondwoman, who is also the brother of a freed bondwoman, could prove otherwise: for the fruit is forbidden with the fruit, nevertheless the fruit with the mother is permitted. But [this too is no refutation since] that position is due solely to the deed of emancipation; for, in truth, the case of a slave, the son of a freed bondwoman, who is also the brother of a bondwoman, could prove the reverse: for the fruit is permitted with the fruit, and the fruit with the ‘mother’ is forbidden! Rather said R. Idi b. Abin: Because one can refute the argument thus: The case of diverse seeds could prove otherwise: for the fruit is forbidden with the fruit, nevertheless the fruit with the mother is permitted. But is not the fruit with the fruit forbidden only by reason of the ‘mother’? For when grains of wheat and barley are together in a vessel they are not forbidden! — Rather said R. Ashi: Because one can refute the argument thus. It is indeed [forbidden] in the case of fruit with fruit for they are two separate bodies; will you say the same in the case of the fruit with the dam which is one body? Consequently the [extra] verse is necessary. R. Ashi said: Whence do we know that flesh [cooked] in milk may not be eaten? From the verse: Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing; everything which I declared to be abominable to you comes under the law of Thou shalt not eat. I know from this that it is forbidden to be eaten; whence do I know that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it? From R. Abbahu's statement. For R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Eleazar: Wherever Scripture says: ‘It shall not be eaten’, or ‘Thou shalt not eat’, or ‘Ye shall not eat’, a prohibition both in respect of eating and in respect of deriving benefit is implied, unless Scripture expressly states otherwise as it did in the case of nebelah. For it has been taught: [The verse,] Ye shall not eat of anything which dieth of itself; unto the stranger that is within thy gates thou mayest give it, that he may eat it,’ or thou mayest sell it unto a gentile, only tells me that it may be given away [as a gift] to a stranger or sold to a gentile. How do I know that it may be sold to a stranger? Because Scripture says. ‘Unto the stranger . . . thou mayest give it . . . or thou mayest sell it’. How do I know that it may be given away to a gentile? Because Scripture says. ‘Thou mayest give it . . . or thou mayest sell it unto a gentile’. Hence it may be derived that both giving and selling may be applied to a stranger or to a gentile: so R. Meir. R. Judah says: The words are to be taken literally, viz., giving away to a stranger and selling to a gentile. What is the reason for R. Judah's view? — He contends thus: Were the words to be interpreted according as R. Meir suggests, the Divine Law should have said: ‘Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; unto the stranger that is within thy gates thou mayest give it that he may eat it, as well as sell it’. Wherefore does it say ‘or’? To prove that the words are to be taken literally, viz., giving away to a stranger and selling to a gentile. And R. Meir? — He would reply that ‘or’ indicates that it is preferable to give it away [as a gift] to a stranger rather than sell it to a gentile. And R. Judah? — He would say that no Scriptural term is needed to indicate this preference of giving it away to the stranger rather than selling it to a gentile, it stands to reason, since the one you are bidden to support whereas the other you are not bidden to support. (Mnemonic: Sabbath; Ploughing; Divers kinds of seeds; It and its young; Letting the mother bird go from the nest). According to this,
—