Chullin

may be eaten [by a priest] in company with a non-priest at the table,1 and may be given to any priest one likes.2 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 Land3 [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.4 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.5 R. Shesheth demurred saying: Yet after all6 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’7 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’. 8 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.9 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 they10 differ only with regard to the placing [upon the table] but not with regard to the eating thereof,11 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.12 — 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.13 Agra, the father-in-law of R. Abba, recited: A fowl and cheese may be eaten without restriction.14 He recited it15 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]. 16 It was taught: Beth Shammai say. One must17 clean [the mouth];18 Beth Hillel say. One must rinse it.19 Now what is meant by ‘one must clean’ and ‘one must rinse’? upon a precautionary measure. 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). 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. 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. 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. strict ruling. opinion of xhkuehpt or xkuect mentioned in Tosef. Hul. VIII, 3. to the hands.