Chullin

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,1 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!2 — R. Adda b. Ahaba said: This3 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.4 it is forbidden.5 Now only if it increased [by a two-hundredth part] is it [forbidden], but if it had not increased it would not6 [be forbidden]. — Abaye answered: There are two texts: It is written: Lest the produce7 be forfeited.8 and it is also written: The seed [which thou hast sown].8 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 Mishnah9 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];10 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].11 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 these12 been applied to Samuel's interpretations?13 — 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.14 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.15 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 GENTILE16 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 SLAUGHTERED diverse kinds; the original roots, however, that were planted or sown, do not come under the prohibition of diverse kinds. vineyard, and so there is an increase in the plant-pot by reason of the vineyard. Here there were in the pot one hundred and ninety.nine parts of permitted growth to one part forbidden, hence the whole is forbidden. But if they were in the proportion of two hundred to one the entire growth in the pot would be permitted. was an increase in the one by reason of the other. supersedes the Sabbath, all the necessary requisites such as the making or preparation of the knife, or the kindling of fire to obtain warm water etc. may also be performed on the Sabbath. V. Shab. 130a.