Chullin

should not what has been [unlawfully] prepared on the Sabbath be forbidden,1 since I have declared it to be abominable unto you?2 — Scripture says: For it is holy unto you,3 that means, ‘it’ is holy, but what has been prepared on it is not holy. Furthermore if a man ploughed with an ox and an ass together, or if he muzzled a cow when it was treading out [the corn], should it4 not be forbidden, since I have declared these acts to be abominable to you?5 — Surely if what has been [unlawfully] prepared on the Sabbath, which is a grave matter, is permitted, how much more so these! Should not [the produce of a field sown with] diverse kinds of seeds be forbidden, since I have declared it to be abominable to you?6 — From the fact that the Divine Law states with regard to diverse kinds in a vineyard. Lest [the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard] be defiled [tikdash],7 [which has been interpreted as,] ‘lest it be burnt in fire’8 [tukad esh], it follows that diverse kinds of seeds [sown in a field] are permitted. But perhaps [the inference is this]: whereas diverse kinds in a vineyard are forbidden to be eaten and also to be made use of, diverse kinds of seeds are forbidden to be eaten but are permitted to be made use of? — These [latter] have been compared with diverse kinds of cattle, for it is written: Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed,9 and just as the issue [of the mating of diverse kinds] of thy cattle is permitted, so the produce of [diverse kinds of seed sown in] thy field is permitted. And whence do we know that the issue of diverse kinds of cattle is permitted? — From the fact that the Divine Law has prohibited the offering of a cross-breed10 to the Most High we may infer that to the common person it is permitted. Should not ‘It and its young’ be forbidden, since I have declared it to be abominable to you?11 — Since the Divine Law has forbidden an animal that is out of time12 for an offering to the Most High it follows that such13 is permitted to the common person. Should not [the mother-bird] which has been sent away from the nest be forbidden, since I have declared it to be abominable to you?14 — The Torah would not order to send it away if it would thereby lead to transgression.15 R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Whence do we know that flesh [cooked] in milk is forbidden [to be eaten]? From the verse: Eat not of it raw, nor cooked in any cooking with water.16 Now the verse need not have added ‘in any cooking’; why then does it say ‘in any cooking’? To teach you that there is another cooking which is [also forbidden to be eaten] like this. And which is it? It is flesh [cooked] in milk. Said to him R. Johanan, himself; v. supra 15a, and Ter. II, 3. or ass which had committed the trespass (Tosaf.). V. however, Rashi infra s.v. vrnt tk. VIII, 1. be forbidden for all time and for all use; nevertheless it is established law that even though the law has been transgressed both animals are permitted; v. supra 78a. slaughter them on different days. nest, would eat it, and so be led into sin by another's performance of a precept. It must therefore be permitted.