Chullin

whenever a man does not incur stripes for the eating he likewise does not incur stripes for the cooking thereof. Another version runs as follows: There is no dispute at all that for the cooking he certainly incurs stripes; they differ only with regard to the eating thereof: he who says he does not incur stripes contends that a prohibition cannot be superimposed upon an existing prohibition, and he who says he incurs stripes contends that for this very reason did the Divine Law express the prohibition of eating by the term ‘cooking’ [to signify that] whenever a man incurs stripes for the cooking he likewise incurs stripes for the eating thereof. Alternatively you may say: One teaches one thing, the other teaches another thing,1 but they do not differ at all. An objection was raised. If a man cooked [flesh] in whey, he is not liable. If he cooked blood in milk, he is not liable. If he cooked bones, nerves, horns or hoofs in milk, he is not liable. If he cooked [consecrated flesh] that was piggul2 or left over3 or unclean [flesh] in milk, he is liable! — That Tanna is of the opinion that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition.4 ‘If a man cooked flesh in whey, he is not liable’. This supports the view of R. Simeon b. Lakish. For we have learnt: Whey is counted as milk, and the sap [of olives] is counted as oil.5 Said R. Simeon b. Lakish: They taught this only in respect of rendering seeds susceptible to contract uncleanness,6 but in respect of the prohibition of cooking flesh in milk whey is not counted as milk. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written: Thou shalt not seethe a kid] in its mother's milk.7 From this I know [that the kid is forbidden]8 in its mother's milk,9 but whence do I know [that it is also forbidden]8 in cow's milk or in ewe's milk?9 From the following a fortiori argument: If [in the milk of] its mother, a species with which the kid may be mated, it is forbidden to cook [the kid], how much more [in the milk of] a cow or of a ewe, with which species the kid may not be mated,10 is it forbidden to cook [the kid]! And the text also states: In its mother's milk.11 But why is this [latter] verse necessary? It has been inferred [from the a fortiori argument], has it not? — R. Ashi answered: Because one can argue that the first proposition of the [a fortiori] argument is unsound: Whence do you adduce the argument? From ‘its mother’! [As against this it may be argued] that is so in the case of its mother,12 since it is forbidden to be slaughtered [with the kid on the same day];13 will you then say the same in the case of a cow12 which is not forbidden to be slaughtered [with the kid on the same day]? The text therefore teaches, ‘In its mother's milk’. Another [Baraitha] teaches: It is written: ‘In its mother's milk’. From this I know [that the kid is forbidden] in its mother's milk, but where do I know [that it is forbidden] in the milk of its ‘older sister’!14 From the following a fortiori argument: If [in the milk of] its mother, which enters the cattle-pen together [with the kid] to be tithed,15 it is forbidden to cook [the kid], how much more [in the milk of] its ‘older sister’, which does not enter the cattlepen together [with the kid] to be tithed,15 is it forbidden to cook the kid! 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. Ashi answered: Because one can argue that the first proposition of the [a fortiori] argument is unsound. Whence do you adduce the argument? From its mother! [As against this it may be argued] that is so in the case of its mother, since it is forbidden to be slaughtered [with the kid on the same day]; will you then say the same in the case of its ‘older sister’ which is not forbidden to be slaughtered [with the kid on the same day]? The text therefore teaches, ‘In its mother's milk’.16 We have thus learnt [the prohibition with regard to] ‘the older sister’, but whence do we know it with regard to ‘the younger sister’?17 It can be inferred from both together.18 But from which do you proceed to make the inference? You may infer it from ‘its mother’. But [if it be objected to that] this is so in the case of ‘its mother’, since it may not be slaughtered [with the kid on the same day].19 then the case of ‘the older sister’ argues otherwise.20 And [if it be objected to that] this is so in the case of ‘the older sister’, since it does not enter the cattlepen with the kid to be tithed,21 then the case of ‘its mother’ argues otherwise.22 The argument thus goes round; the reason given for this does not apply to the other, and the reason given for the other does not apply to this one. What they have in common is that each is flesh,23 and in the milk of each [the kid] may not be cooked; thus I will include ‘the younger sister’ too, for since it is flesh,23 [the kid] may not be cooked in its milk. But by this argument ‘the older sister’ can also be inferred from both together?24 — This is indeed so. Then for what purpose do I require the verse: ‘In its mother's milk’?25 — It is required for what has been taught. It is written: ‘In its mother's milk’. We know [that it is forbidden] in its mother's milk, refers to the eating thereof. 4, 5. received from his teachers, but after criticizing it Rashi expresses his preference for the interpretation of R. Joseph Bonfils, according to which ‘older sister’ and ‘younger sister’ are both goats, the former, however, being a goat of last year's breeding which had already been counted with other goats for the purposes of tithing, the latter being one which has not been counted with others for tithing. goats for the purposes of tithing nor vice versa. Moreover (b) an animal which has once been counted with others for the purposes of tithing cannot be counted again. The ‘older sister’ therefore cannot be counted together with kids for tithing either because of (a) or (b), according to whichever interpretation is adopted. V. preceding note. which applies one extra verse to include the cow and ewe, and the third verse he consequently employs for the ‘older sister’. inferred from the mother and the older sister. milk. kid in its milk. appears from Rashi too. V. Glos. of Maharam Schiff a.l. Tanna of the first Baraitha in which it was shown that there is a verse expressly stated to include the cow and ewe), so that no verse is required to teach the prohibition even in the case of ‘the older sister’ (Rashi). teaching of the first Baraitha q.v.), but the third is indeed superfluous.