1 An argument inferring one case from another case can be refuted only by adducing a feature in the one case which is less or more grave than in the other, and not by any peculiarity whatsoever. An argument inferring one case from two cases can be refuted by any peculiarity whatsoever. An argument inferring one case from three cases, the argument from the three cases going round and round, so that the inference is made from the features common to all, can be refuted by any peculiarity whatsoever; but if it is not so, it can only be refuted by adducing in the one case a feature which is less grave or more grave than in the other, and not by any peculiarity whatsoever. But we may refute it thus: This may be so of diverse kinds in a vineyard since they had no period of fitness! — R. Adda b. Ahaba said: This therefore informs us that the original roots of divers kinds sown In a vineyard are forbidden, so that there was a time when these kinds had a period of fitness, namely, before they took root. R. Shemaiah b. Ze'ira raised the following objection. [We have learnt:] If a man carried a perforated plant-pot [sown with cereals] through a vineyard and [what was in] it increased by a two-hundredth part. it is forbidden. Now only if it increased [by a two-hundredth part] is it [forbidden], but if it had not increased it would not [be forbidden]. — Abaye answered: There are two texts: It is written: Lest the produce be forfeited. and it is also written: The seed [which thou hast sown]. How can we explain this? Thus, if they were sown originally [in the vineyard, they are forbidden] as soon as they have taken root, if sown [elsewhere] and brought [into the vineyard], if they increased [a two-hundredth part] they are [forbidden], but if they had not increased they would not [be forbidden]. Our Mishnah is not in accordance with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Judah says on behalf of R. Simeon: Flesh cooked in milk is forbidden as food but is permitted for general use, for it is written: For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. [Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk]; whilst elsewhere it is written: And ye shall be holy men unto me; [therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs]. Just as there it is forbidden as food but is permitted for general use, so here too it is forbidden as food but is permitted for general use. R. AKIBA SAYS, WILD ANIMALS AND FOWLS etc. But have not these been applied to Samuel's interpretations? — R. Akiba is of the opinion that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition; therefore no specific verse is necessary [to show that the prohibition of flesh in milk applies to] forbidden fat or [to the flesh of an animal] that died of itself; moreover [the prohibition naturally applies to] an embryo [for it] IS as an ordinary kid; consequently all the expressions are Superfluous and serve therefore to exclude wild animals, fowl and unclean animals. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS, IT IS WRITTEN, YE SHALL NOT EAT OF ANYTHING etc. What is the difference between the views of R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba? — The difference between them is as regards wild animals: R. Jose the Galilean holds that wild animals are prohibited Biblically, whereas R. Akiba holds that wild animals are prohibited Rabbinically. Or, you may Say, the difference between them is as regards fowls: R. Akiba maintains that wild animals and fowls are not included In the prohibition of the Torah but are prohibited Rabbinically, whereas R. Jose the Galilean maintains that fowls are not even prohibited by the Rabbis. There is also [a Baraitha] taught to the same effect: In the place of R. Eliezer they used to cut wood [on the Sabbath] to make charcoal in order to forge an iron instrument. In the place of R. Jose the Galilean they used to eat fowl's flesh cooked in milk. Levi once visited the house of Joseph the fowler, and was served with a peacock's head cooked in milk and said nothing to them about it. When he came to Rabbi [and related this]. Rabbi said to him: Why did you not lay them under a ban? He replied. Because it was the place of R. Judah b. Bathyra and I imagine that he must have expounded to them the view of R. Jose the Galilean who said: A FOWL IS EXCLUDED SINCE IT HAS NO MOTHER'S MILK. MISHNAH. THE [MILK IN THE] STOMACH [OF AN ANIMAL] OF A GENTILE OR [IN THE STOMACH OF] A NEBELAH IS FORBIDDEN. IF A MAN CURDLED MILK WITH THE SKIN OF THE STOMACH OF AN ANIMAL THAT WAS VALIDLY SLAUGHTEREDᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖ
2 AND IT IMPARTED ITS FLAVOUR [TO THE MILK]. IT IS FORBIDDEN. THE [MILK IN THE] STOMACH OF A VALIDLY SLAUGHTERED ANIMAL WHICH HAD SUCKED FROM A TREFAH ANIMAL. IS FORBIDDEN; THE [MILK IN THE] STOMACH OF A TREFAH ANIMAL WHICH HAD SUCKED FROM A VALID ANIMAL IS PERMITTED, BECAUSE THE MILK REMAINS COLLECTED INSIDE. GEMARA. But is not the stomach [of an animal] of a gentile nebelah? — R. Huna answered. We are dealing here with the case of a kid that was bought from a gentile. and we apprehend that it sucked from a trefah animal. But do we apprehend that it sucked from a trefah animal? Behold it has been taught: One may buy eggs from gentiles and need have no fear lest they are of birds that were nebelah or trefah! — Say, rather, we apprehend lest it sucked from an unclean animal. And why is it that we do not apprehend [sucking] from a trefah animal but we do apprehend [sucking] from an unclean animal? — Because trefah animals are not common whilst unclean animals are. If these are common, then even with regard to our own [kids] we should be apprehensive? — With regard to our own, since we keep away from unclean animals, and whenever we see them together we separate them, the Rabbis imposed no restriction as a precaution; with regard to theirs, however, since they do not keep away from unclean animals, and whenever they see them together they do not separate them, the Rabbis imposed a restriction as a precaution. Samuel answered: They are to be taken as one thus: The [milk in the] stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile is nebelah [and therefore forbidden]. But how could Samuel have said so? Behold Samuel has stated. The reason for forbidding the cheese of gentiles is because they curdle it with the skin of the stomach of a nebelah. This implies, does it not, that the [milk In the] stomach is permitted? There is no contradiction here. This [sc. our Mishnah] was taught before he [R. Joshua] retracted, the other after he retracted. THE [MILK IN THE] STOMACH OF A VALIDLY SLAUGHTERED ANIMAL WHICH HAD SUCKED FROM A TREFAH ANIMAL IS FORBIDDEN etc. But does not the first clause state, THE [MILK IN THE] STOMACH OF [AN ANIMAL] OF A GENTILE. OR [IN THE STOMACH OF] A NEBELAH. IS FORBIDDEN? — R. Ashi answered. In the first clause it would appear that one is eating nebelah, but here [in the final clause] the animal has been slaughtered. Said to him Raba. But is this not all the more reason [to forbid it]? For if in the case of nebelah, which is a loathsome matter, and if you were to permit [the milk in] its stomach one would not come to eat of its flesh, you say it is forbidden; is it not then all the more reason to forbid [the milk in the stomach of] a trefah animal which had been slaughtered, for if you were to permit it one would come to eat of its flesh? — Rather said R. Isaac in the name of R. Johanan. There is no contradiction here. This [the first clause was taught] before he [R. Joshua] retracted; the other [the final clause] after he retracted; [the first clause, however, of] our Mishnah was allowed to stand. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: One may curdle [milk] with the [milk in the] stomach of a nebelah, but not — with the [milk in the] stomach of an animal slaughtered by an idolater. Thereupon R. Simeon b. Abba said before him: This is, is it not, in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer who maintains that the thoughts of an idolater are usually directed towards idolatry? — He replied: Of course. According to whom else could it be? When R. Samuel b. R. Isaac came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Johanan: One may curdle [milk] with the [milk in the] stomach both of a nebelah and an animal slaughtered by an idolater for we are not concerned with the view of R. Eliezer. The law is: One may not curdle [milk] with the skin of the stomach of a nebelah, but one may with the [milk in the] stomach of a nebelah, and also with the [milk in the] stomach of an animal slaughtered unto idolatry. ([One may also curdle milk] with the [milk found in the] stomach of a validly slaughtered animal which had sucked from a trefah animal, and certainly with the [milk found in the] stomach of a trefah animal which had sucked from a valid animal, because the milk that is collected within is considered as dung.) MISHNAH. IN CERTAIN RESPECTS THE PROHIBITION OF THE FAT IS MORE STRICT THAN THE PROHIBITION OF THE BLOOD, AND IN CERTAIN RESPECTS THE PROHIBITION OF THE BLOOD IS MORE STRICT THAN THE PROHIBITION OF THE FAT. THE PROHIBITION OF THE FAT IS MORE STRICT, IN THAT THE FATᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈ