IV.1
A. [A mnemonic is given.] Consider now [based on III.1 A] [115a] food prepared on the Sabbath should be prohibited [to eat]. For lo I declared it abominable to you. Scripture says [to rule this out], “[You shall keep the Sabbath,] because it is holy for you; [every one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death]” (Exod. 31:14-15). It is holy, but the food prepared on it is not holy [i.e., prohibited].
B. [Concerning] one who plows with an ox and an ass [yoked together] or who muzzles a cow and threshes with it, let these [products that result from the prohibited acts] be prohibited. For lo I declared it abominable to you. Let us consider this matter. What is the case with regard to the Sabbath? [Performing prohibited] preparations is a severe matter yet [the products that result] are permitted. For these [actions of plowing or threshing that are less severe], it is more logical to conclude [that the products that result are permitted].
C. [Concerning one who sows] mixed kinds of seeds [in one field], let these [plants that grow] be prohibited. For lo I declared it abominable to you. Since the Torah stated explicitly regarding mixed kinds in a vineyard, “[You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed,] lest the whole yield be forfeited to the sanctuary, [the crop which you have sown and the yield of the vineyard]” (Deut. 22:9). [And this has been interpreted], “Lest the whole yield be burned by fire [a play on the words tqdš, tqd 'š].” We may derive from this that [the plants that result from] mixed kinds of seeds are permitted.
D. But it makes sense to maintain that [the results] of mixed kinds in a vineyard are prohibited both for eating and for deriving any benefit. Mixed kinds of seeds are prohibited for eating but are permitted for deriving other benefits. [Scripture] juxtaposed [the rules prohibiting mixed kinds of seeds] to [the rules prohibiting] mixed kinds of animals. As it is written, “[You shall keep my statutes.] You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; [nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff]” (Lev. 19:19). What is the case regarding your cattle? That which results from [mixing the kinds] is permitted. So even with regard to [sowing mixed kinds of seeds in] your field. That which results from [mixing the seeds] is permitted.
E. And what is the source of the rule itself regarding [the permission to use the products from] mixed kinds of cattle? [It is logical to argue that] since the Torah prohibited mixed kinds for high purposes [i.e., sacrifice in the Temple], we may derive that [mixed kinds] are permitted for an ordinary use.
F. [Concerning one who slaughtered on the same day] the mother and its offspring, let these be prohibited. [It is logical to argue that] since the Torah prohibited an animal slaughtered at an improper time for high purposes [i.e., the Temple], we may derive that [an animal slaughtered at the wrong time] is permitted for an ordinary use. [The issue for the mother and offspring is that they were slaughtered on the same day, i.e., at the wrong time in relation to each other.]
G. [Concerning one who did not] send [the mother bird] away from the nest [before taking the young], let these [young and the mother] be prohibited. The Torah did not say that one should send it away to lead a person to stumble [into sin by eating the mother bird not knowing that it had been sent away from the nest].
V.1
A. Said Resh Laqish, “What is the source for the prohibition against eating meat [cooked] with milk? As it says, `Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, [but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts]' (Exod. 12:9). Now it did not have to teach us, `Boiled with water.' What does it come to teach us [by adding], `Boiled with water'? To inform you that there is another kind of boiling that is [prohibited] like this is [prohibited]. And what is that? It is [the boiling together of] meat and milk.”
B. Said to him R. Yohanan, [115b] “Do you reject as implausible that which Rabbi taught?” [As follows:]
C. “[Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water.] You shall not eat it; [that all may go well with you and with your children after you, when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord]” (Deut 12:23-25). [This last repetition is superfluous.] Scripture speaks here of the prohibition of meat cooked with milk. You may say, does scripture speak of meat and milk? Or does scripture refer only to one of all the other prohibitions of the Torah?
D. You may say, go and learn [the correct interpretation] based on [one of] the thirteen principles of hermeneutics: [this is an example of] a matter that is inferred from the subject of its context. What is the subject that scripture speaks of [in this verse]? [It makes reference to] two categories [i.e., blood and meat. But Rashi interprets: invalid Holy Things that were redeemed fall into two categories. They are permitted for consumption like unconsecrated animals but prohibited from work or shearing like Holy Things.] So too here [in this phrase of the verse the reference is to the prohibition of meat and milk —] two categories.
E. If I had [derived the prohibition only] from this [verse] I would have reasoned that this concern applies [to prohibit] eating [meat cooked with milk]. But that to derive benefit [from the mixture] — there was no [prohibition]. It comes to make the novel point [based on the extra language in the verse regarding the Paschal lamb, cited above in A that benefit is prohibited].
F. And according to Rabbi, what is the source for [the prohibition against] deriving benefit [from the mixture]? He derives the inference from this: It is stated here, “[You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner;] for you are a people holy (qdš) to the Lord your God. [You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk]” (Deut. 14:21). And it is stated further, “[None of the daughters of Israel shall be a Temple prostitute;] none of the sons of Israel shall be a Temple prostitute (qdš)” (Deut. 23:17). [Based on the commonality of the word qdš in both verses you may conclude that the same laws apply to both instances.] What is the case there? [The verse prohibits] deriving benefit [from a prostitute]. So too here [the verse prohibits] deriving benefit [from the mixture].
G. [Another source for deriving the prohibition against selling meat cooked with milk]: The House of R. Eliezer taught: “You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a people holy (qdš) to the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk” (Deut. 14:21). [Scripture implies that] if you sell it [i.e., meat of carrion], you should not first cook it [in milk] and sell it [because that is prohibited].
H. The House of R. Eliezer taught: [The Torah states,] “You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk” (Exod. 23:19, 34:26, Deut. 14:21) three times. One for the prohibition of eating; and one for the prohibition of deriving benefit [from the mixture]; and one for the prohibition of cooking.
I. It was taught on Tannaite authority: Issi b. Judah says, “What is the source for the rule that meat cooked with milk is prohibited? It is stated here, `For you are a people holy (qdš) to the Lord your God. [You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk]' (Deut. 14:21). And it is stated further, `You shall be people consecrated (qdš) to me; therefore you shall not eat any meat that is mangled by beasts in the field; [you shall throw it to the dogs]' (Exod. 22:31). [Based on the commonality of the word qdš in both verses you may conclude that the same laws apply to both instances.] What is the case there? [The verse] prohibits it. So too here [the verse] prohibits it.”
J. I infer from this only [that it is prohibited] to eat it. What is the source for the rule [that it is prohibited] to derive benefit from it? This may be inferred a fortiori. What is the case regarding orlah-produce? No transgression was committed with it [and] it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Regarding meat cooked with milk where a transgression was committed [by cooking it together] is it not logical to deduce that it be prohibited to derive benefit from it?
K. But what is the case regarding orlah-produce [that makes it different with regard to the law from meat and milk]? There never was a time when it was valid. [The nature of the prohibition of] leaven on Passover will prove the matter. For [like meat and milk] there was a time when it was valid and [yet] it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.
L. [But you may object to the comparison of the prohibitions of leaven on Passover and milk and meat on the following grounds:] What is the case regarding [the prohibition of] leaven on Passover? [Violation of] it entails the punishment of extirpation. [Hence that prohibition is more stringent. Violation of the prohibition of meat and milk entails only the punishment of stripes.]
M. [The nature of the prohibition of] mixed kinds grown in a vineyard will prove the matter. For [violation of that prohibition] does not entail the punishment of extirpation and [yet] it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.
N. Why then do I need to derive [the prohibition] from an inference based on the same language in two verses? Let us derive it all from an inference a fortiori from the rule for orlah-produce [as follows].
O. What is the case regarding orlah-produce? No transgression was committed with it [and] it is prohibited both to eat it and to derive benefit from it. Regarding meat cooked with milk where a transgression was committed [by cooking it together] is it not logical to deduce that it be prohibited both to eat it and to derive benefit from it?
P. [You cannot make this argument because you can counter it as follows.] [The nature of the prohibitions for] one who plows with an ox and an ass [yoked together] or one who muzzles the mouth of a cow and threshes with it will prove the matter. For [like meat and milk] a transgression was committed [when he performed the acts]. But they permitted [benefit to be derived from the violation]. [Hence we should be permitted to derive benefit from meat cooked with milk.]
Q. [Going back to M:] Why do I need to say that [the nature of the prohibition of] mixed kinds grown in a vineyard will prove the matter. It makes sense to say that [the nature of the prohibition of] orlah-produce will prove the matter.
R. And we find ourselves trapped in a logical circle until we infer [the nature of the prohibition of meat cooked with milk] from the common elements [of all the rules].
S. Said R. Ashi, “[You could not have concluded this] because you could have said, [the nature of the prohibition of] carrion-meat will prove the matter. For it is prohibited to eat it and [yet] it is permitted to derive benefit from it.”
T. Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi, “This is what we stated in the name of Resh Laqish, `In all instances of logical inferences derived [inductively] from common characteristics [of the law in different cases] we may refute them from arguments based on only those cases [i.e., the prohibitions of leaven on Passover or of orlah-produce]. We may not refute them based on additional cases [i.e., the prohibition of carrion].'”
U. If this is the case then [as we said above] let us infer [the nature of the prohibition of meat cooked with milk] from the common elements [of all the rules].
V. [We cannot do this because] one could refute the reasoning as follows: What is the element common to them [i.e., that differentiates leaven and orlah-produce]? They grow in the ground. [Meat and milk do not.]
W. [Going back to M:] If this is the case then on this basis also we could refute the objection from the case of mixed kinds grown in a vineyard [by arguing that the case is different because] they grow in the ground [and meat and milk do not].
X. Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi, “This is what we stated in the name of Resh Laqish, `In all instances of logical inferences derived [inductively] from common characteristics [of the law in different cases] we may refute them from just any [arguments]. In all instances of inferences derived [deductively] from [statements such as], `No, if you state the rule applies in this matter will you state that it applies in that matter?' we may refute them based on [another deductive argument such as an argument] a fortiori, but not on the basis of just any [argument at all].'”
Y. Then one could refute the reasoning as follows: What is common to all of them [i.e., that differentiates leaven, orlah-produce and mixed kinds in a vineyard from meat and milk]? They grow in the ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment