חולין 104 — Soncino English Talmud

¹IF A PERSON VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FLESH. HE MAY PARTAKE OF THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS. GEMARA. It follows [from our Mishnah] that the flesh of fowls is prohibited by the law of the Torah; now in accordance with whose view would this be? It surely is not in accordance with R. Akiba's view, for R. Akiba maintains that the flesh of wild animals and of fowls is not prohibited by the law of the Torah. Consider now the final clause: IF A PERSON VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FLESH, HE MAY PARTAKE OF THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS. It follows however that he is forbidden the flesh of fowl, which is in accordance with R. Akiba's view, namely, that any variation concerning which the agent would ask for special instructions is deemed to be of the same species. For we have learnt: If a person vowed to abstain from vegetables, he is permitted gourds; R. Akiba forbids them. They said to R. Akiba: Is it not a fact that when a man says to his agent. ‘Bring me vegetables’, the other might [come back and] say. ‘I can only obtain gourds’? He replied. Exactly so; for he surely would not come back and say. ‘I can only obtain pulse’. This proves that gourds are included among vegetables and pulse is not included among vegetables. [Must it then be that] the first clause of our Mishnah is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, and the second clause is in accordance with R. Akiba's view? — R. Joseph said: The author [of our Mishnah] is Rabbi who incorporated the views of various Tannaim: with regard to vows he adopted the view of R. Akiba, and with regard to flesh [cooked] in milk he adopted the view of the Rabbis. R. Ashi said: The whole of our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Akiba's view, for this is what it means, EVERY KIND OF FLESH IS FORBIDDEN TO BE COOKED IN MILK: some being forbidden by the law of the Torah and others by the enactment of the Scribes, EXCEPTING THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS, which are neither prohibited by the law of the Torah nor by the enactment of the Scribes. AND IT IS ALSO FORBIDDEN TO PLACE etc. R. Joseph said: You can infer from this that the flesh of fowl [cooked] in milk is prohibited by the law of the Torah, for were it only [prohibited by the enactment] of the Rabbis, seeing that the actual eating thereof is [prohibited only as] a precautionary measure, would we forbid the placing [of them together upon the table] as a safeguard against the eating thereof? And whence do you derive the rule that we do not impose a precautionary measure upon a precautionary measure? — From the following [Mishnah] which we have learnt: The dough-offering [of produce grown] outside the Land [of Israel]^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ

^ᵃnote:For the usual connotation of ‘flesh’, as used in ordinary speech, includes all kinds of flesh excepting that of fish and of locusts. The interpretation of expressions used in vows is always in accordance with the general use of the ordinary man.
^ᵇnote:It is assumed for the present that the prohibition in the first clause of our Mishnah — which includes fowls — is Biblical, otherwise the precautionary measure imposed in the second clause would not be applied to fowls (v. Tosaf.).
^ᶜnote:Anything which is not quite the same as the original thing requested but about which an agent would consider it proper to consult his principal is regarded as of the same species as the original thing requested; for were it not so, the agent would reject it immediately:without even consulting his principal. In the case of our Mishnah, if a person were to send another to buy flesh, the latter, if unable to obtain flesh of cattle, would certainly return and ask his principle whether or not he may buy fowls. Hence fowl is included in the term ‘flesh’.
^ᵈnote:Ned. 54a.
^ᵉnote:Thus proving that gourds are not vegetables since the agent considers it necessary to obtain special authority to buy them.
^ᶠnote:Since it is common knowledge that pulse is not included among vegetables, an agent sent to buy vegetables and not being able to obtain any would certainly not return to his principle and say: ‘I can only obtain pulse’. He might as well reply, ‘I could only obtain fish or cheese’. Most probably and rightly he would say: ‘I could not obtain any vegetables’. The fact that he replies, ‘I could only obtain gourds’, proves, according to R. Akiba, that they are included among vegetables.
^ᵍnote:The flesh of cattle.
^ʰnote:The flesh of wild beasts and of fowls.
^ⁱnote:[As to the precautionary measure in the second clause (cf. p. 576, n. 4) R. Ashi accepts the explanation of Abaye infra pp. 578-9; v. Adreth, ohaushj.]
^ʲnote:This would be imposing a precautionary measure (sc. restriction of placing them together on the table) upon a precautionary measure (sc. the restriction of eating fowls cooked in milk) which is not done.
^ᵏnote:Hal. IV, 8.
^ˡnote:Cf. Num. XV, 20; Of the first of your dough you shall offer up a cake for a heave-offering. This law only applied to Palestine, i.e., to dough made from produce grown in the land of Israel (cf. ibid. 18), but the Rabbis ordained that it be observed outside Palestine, i.e., in respect of dough made from produce grown outside the Land of Israel, as a precautionary measure safeguarding the dough-offering of Palestinian produce. If, therefore, a non-priest ate the dough-offering offered from produce grown outside the Land of Israel he has transgressed a Rabbinic enactment

²may be eaten [by a priest] in company with a non-priest at the table, and may be given to any priest one likes. Said Abaye to him, I grant you, if we were told that the dough-offering [of produce grown] outside the Land [may be eaten] in the Land [in company with a non-priest at the table], in which case there would be good cause to enact a precautionary measure on account of the dough-offering [of produce grown] in the Land which is ordained by the Torah, and yet we do not take this precaution, that the inference can be made. But outside the Land of Israel [it is allowed] surely because there is no reason to take any precautionary measure. In the case [of our Mishnah], however, if you permit one to place [upon the table] fowl and cheese, one might even place [upon the table] flesh and cheese, and so come to eat flesh with milk which is prohibited by the law of the Torah. R. Shesheth demurred saying: Yet after all it is but cold [food] with cold [food]! — Abaye answered: It is prohibited lest it be placed upon the table in a boiling pot. But even In that case it is only in a ‘second vessel’ and a second vessel cannot bring anything to the boil! — It is only prohibited lest it be placed upon the table in the ‘first vessel’. MISHNAH. A FOWL MAY BE PLACED UPON THE TABLE TOGETHER WITH CHEESE BUT MAY NOT BE EATEN WITH IT: SO BETH SHAMMAI. BETH HILLEL SAY: IT MAY NEITHER BE PLACED [UPON THE TABLE TOGETHER WITH CHEESE] NOR EATEN WITH IT. R. JOSE SAID: THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE BETH SHAMMAI ADOPT THE LENIENT RULING AND BETH HILLEL THE STRICT RULING. OF WHAT TABLE DID THEY SPEAK? OF THE TABLE UPON WHICH ONE EATS; BUT ON THE TABLE WHEREON THE FOOD IS SET OUT ONE MAY WITHOUT ANY HESITATION PLACE THE ONE [FOOD] BESIDE THE OTHER. GEMARA. Is not R. Jose's opinion identical with that of the first Tanna? And should you say that there is a difference between them with regard to the actual eating [of fowl with cheese], the first Tanna maintaining that they differ only with regard to the placing [upon the table] but not with regard to the eating thereof, whereas R. Jose says that they differ even with regard to the eating thereof, Beth Shammai adopting the lenient ruling and Beth Hillel the strict ruling — but surely we have already learnt: R. Jose reports six cases in which Beth Shammai adopt the lenient ruling and Beth Hillel the strict ruling, and this is one of them, viz., A fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese but may not be eaten with it; so Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel say: It may neither be placed together with it nor eaten with it. — Rather what the [teacher of our Mishnah] tells us is merely that the first Tanna [whose opinion is expressed anonymously] is R. Jose; for whosoever reports a thing in the name of him that said it brings deliverance into the world, as it is said: And Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai. Agra, the father-in-law of R. Abba, recited: A fowl and cheese may be eaten without restriction. He recited it and he himself explained it thus: it means without washing the hands or cleaning the mouth [between the eating of the one and the other]. R. Isaac the son of R. Mesharsheya once visited the house of R. Ashi. He was served with cheese which he ate and then was served with meat which he also ate without washing his hands [between the courses]. They said to him: Has not Agra the father-in-law of R. Abba recited that a fowl and cheese may be eaten without restriction? A fowl and cheese, yes; but meat and cheese, no! — He replied: That is the rule only at night, but by day I can see [that my hands are clean]. It was taught: Beth Shammai say. One must clean [the mouth]; Beth Hillel say. One must rinse it. Now what is meant by ‘one must clean’ and ‘one must rinse’?^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ

^ᵐnote:And we do not apprehend lest the non-priest eat of it. To prohibit this would be to impose a precautionary measure upon a precautionary measure.
^ⁿnote:Even to a priest an ‘am ha-arez (v. Glos.) i.e., one who does not observe the strict rules of levitical cleanness. With regard to the dough-offering taken from produce grown in the Land of Israel this was not allowed, for only those priests who upheld the laws of the Torah were entitled to receive the priestly dues (cf. II Chron. XXXI, 4).
^ᵒnote:I.e., it was brought into the Land of Israel.
^ᵖnote:For outside the Land of Israel there cannot possibly occur any infringement of the law of dough.offering.
^ᵠnote:There is virtually but one precautionary measure here, namely, the placing of fowl and cheese on the table is declared forbidden as a safeguard against the placing of flesh and cheese on the table, for the placing of the two together on the table will almost certainly lead to the eating thereof, thus involving the transgression of a Biblical prohibition. Cf. Torath Hayyim, a.l.
^ʳnote:Even if it is held that fowl with milk is prohibited by the law of the Torah there can still be shown two precautionary measures before one approaches the actual prohibition of the Torah. For it must be remembered that the Torah forbade flesh and milk that had been cooked together in the one pot; but if the flesh and the milk were in the same pot, not cooked together, they would be permitted by the law of the Torah but forbidden by the Rabbis only as a precautionary measure. Now to prohibit the placing together upon the table of these two cold foods as a safeguard against the eating thereof is again superimposing precautionary measures one upon the other.
^ˢnote:I.e., a vessel into which boiling food or liquid has been poured, in contradistinction from ‘a first vessel’, i.e., a vessel taken direct from the fire where it has been at the boil. A ‘first vessel’ can bring other foodstuffs to the boil even when removed from the fire, and in the case of ‘flesh and milk’ would involve a transgression of the law of the Torah.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘stew pot’.
^ᵘnote:In the majority of cases the position is the reverse, i.e., Beth Hillel adopt the lenient ruling and Beth Shammai the strict ruling.
^ᵛnote:Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
^ʷnote:For in this case all agree that it is forbidden to eat the two (sc. fowl and cheese) together.
^ˣnote:‘Ed. V, 2.
^ʸnote:Esther, II, 22.
^ᶻnote:iruehptc ‘freely’, from root rep. V. Alfasi a.l. for the variant xhkuehptc, explained as referring to the opinion of xhkuehpt or xkuect mentioned in Tosef. Hul. VIII, 3.
^ᵃᵃnote:Having received it on tradition from his teacher (Rashi).
^ᵃᵇnote:There is therefore no need to wash the hands between the courses at all.
^ᵃᶜnote:After eating cheese and before eating meat.
^ᵃᵈnote:By eating some dry bread, v. infra.
^ᵃᵉnote:Sc. the mouth; so apparently according to Rashi. R. Nissim, Torath Hayyim, and others, however, refer the rinsing to the hands.