Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who cooks ...

1. ... meat in whey (a by-product of milk) - is Patur.
2. ... meat in blood is Patur, too, as is someone who cooks ...
3. ... bones, Gidin, horns or hooves in milk.

(b) The reason for these rulings is - either because they are not considered "G'di" or because they are not considered 'Chalav'.

(c) On the other hand, the Tana rules - that one is Chayav for eating Pigul, Nosar and Tamei that were cooked in milk (even though one is Chayav for eating Pigul, Nosar and Tamei anyway).

(d) In spite of having just concluded that both Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi hold 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', there is no problem from this Beraisa, which clearly holds 'Isur Chal al Isur' - since the Tana'im argue over this issue in many places, in which case the Amora'im have support for their opinion elsewhere.

(a) We just cited the Beraisa which exempts someone who cooks meat in whey, which in fact, supports a statement of Resh Lakish. The Tana in Machshirin rules - that 'Mei Chalav' is considered milk, and that 'Mochel' (the juice that seeps out of olives) is considered oil.

(b) Resh Lakish qualifies this Mishnah, confining Mei Chalav to the Din of 'Machshir Zera'im (rendering seeds ready to receive Tum'ah). It is not considered milk, he says - regarding Basar be'Chalav.

(a) Taking the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " literally (see also Tosfos DH 'ba'Chaleiv Parah'), the Beraisa learns the prohibition of cooking a piece of kid-goat in the milk of a cow and a sheep - first from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from its mother (the goat), with which it *is not forbidden* to interbreed, then how much more so other animals, with which *it is*, and then from the Pasuk "ba'Chaleiv Imo" (any animal whose mother has milk [we will query this discrepancy shortly]).

(b) It is possible to learn this from "ba'Chaleiv Imo" (even though Shmuel needed all three Pesukim "ba'Chaleiv Imo" to preclude the milk of a Zachar, a Shechutah and a Temei'ah) - because this Tana maintains that, by implication, "ba'Chaleiv Imo" automatically implies all three.

(c) He learns that the prohibition pertains to species other than a goat - from the second "G'di".

(a) From the extra "G'di" he includes Basar Chayah ve'Of in the prohibition - because he translates "G'di" as 'kid-goat. Rebbi Akiva, on the other hand, precludes Basar Chayah ve'Of from the very same words, because, according to him, the one "G'di" includes all animals, like the earlier Tana.

(b) The third "G'di" comes to preclude Basar Beheimah Temei'ah, and this Tana learns that Basar Sh'lil is included in the Isur - automatically, because a Sh'lil is an animal too (as we will see according to Rebbi Akiva).

(c) Rav Ashi asks a Pircha on the 'Kal-va'Chomer' me'Ikra de'Dina (from a goat to other animals), as a result of which we are forced to learn them from "Imo". 'me'Ikra de'Dina' means - from the opening part of the 'Kal-va'Chomer' 'Mah Imo she'Lo Ne'esrah Imo be'Harva'ah'.

(d) Rav Ashi's 'Pircha' is - the fact that 'Imo' possesses a Chumra that does not exist by other animals, namely, that it cannot be Shechted on the same day as the G'di, whereas other animals can.

(a) Another Beraisa tries to learn that one is Chayav for cooking the G'di in the milk of its big sister from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from the milk of its mother (only it subsequently learns it from "ba'Chaleiv Imo", just like the previous Tana did). The Tana is referring to cooking a kid in the milk of a cow.

(b) The 'Kal-va'Chomer' is - that if the kid may not be cooked in the milk of a goat which enters into the pen to be Ma'asered together with it, then how much more so may it not be cooked together with a cow, with witch it cannot enter the pen to be Ma'asered.

(c) It is possible for the kid's mother to enter the pen together with it to be Ma'asered - bearing in mind that a goat can give birth within a year of being born.

(a) The Tana then goes on to learn the G'di's 'little sister' from its 'mother' and its 'big sister'. By its 'little sister' the Tana means a sheep.

(b) He does not learn it from its ...

1. ... 'mother' together with the 'big sister' - because a sheep is similar to a cow inasmuch as, unlike a cow, it does enter the pen together with a kid-goat to be Me'asered.
2. ... its 'mother' (on its own) - because a goat is different, inasmuch as it may not be Shechted on the same day as the kid (which a sheep can).
3. ... 'big sister (on its own) - because a cow is different, inasmuch as it cannot enter the pen to be Ma'asered together with the kid whereas a sheep can).

(c) We therefore learn it - from a combination from the kid's 'mother' and its 'sister'.

(a) When we then ask that, in that case, we can also learn its big sister from a combination, we mean - that we can learn the prohibition of a kid in cow's milk from a combination of a kid in goat's milk and a kid in sheep's milk.

(b) We first learn from its mother, which enters the pen together with it to be Ma'asered, how much more so its big sister, which does not. When we ask that its mother is different, because it is forbidden to Shecht it on the same day, we answer by bringing in its little sister, which is not. And there is nothing more to ask, since its little sister enters the pen together with it to be Ma'asered, just like its mother does.

(c) We know that lambs and kid-goats are placed in the same pen to be Ma'asered - from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Ma'asar Bakar va'Tzon ... ", because "Tzon incorporates sheep and goats.

(d) We conclude - that this indeed the case?

(a) The current explanation is flawed however. We cannot possibly learn 'the big sister' from the 'small sister' - since we have no independent source for the 'small sister', and only learn it from a Binyan Av - partially from the 'big sister'.

(b) Neither can the Tana mean to say that we learn the 'small sister' from "ba'Chaleiv Imo" and the 'big sister' from the 'little sister' - because it is obvious that we learn the Isur of cooking in its milk with regard to the more stringent of the two (i.e. the cow which, cannot be Ma'asered together with it); and besides, what do we then mean when we ask 'Ela ba'Chaleiv Imo Lamah Li'?

(c) We therefore reinterpret 'big sister' to mean a big goat that has already been Ma'asered. We cannot learn it from the first "ba'Chaleiv Imo", from which we learn the milk of a cow and a sheep (like the previous Beraisa) - because it is not forbidden to interbreed, like they are.

(d) And when we ask 'I Hachi, Achoso Gedolah Nami Teisi mi'Beinaihu', we mean - that just as we learn its little sister (which has not yet been Ma'asered) from a combination of its mother and its big sister, why should we not also learn its big sister from a combination of its mother (which is forbidden to Shecht on the same day, but not to interbreed with it, and from a cow, which is fobidden to interbreed with it, but not to Shecht on the same day as it).

9)

(a) When we now ask 'Ela "ba'Chaleiv Imo" Lamah Li'?, we are referring to the third Pasuk. We need ...

1. ... the first "ba'Chaleiv Imo" - for the basic Halachah.
2. ... the second "ba'Chaleiv Imo" - to teach us the prohibition of cooking a kid in the milk of a cow ('ve'Lo ba'Chaleiv Parah'.

(b) And we cite a Beraisa which learns from the third Pasuk, the Isur of cooking the kid-goat in its own milk. Initially, the Tana tries to learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer'. When he says ...

1. ... 'Lo Ne'esar P'ri im P'ri bi'Shechitah', he means - that there is no prohibition to Shecht two sibling calves on the same day. 2. ... 'Ne'esar P'ri im ha'Eim bi'Shechitah, he means - that, on the other hand, there is an Isur to Shecht a mother and a child on the same day.

(c) And when he says ...

1. ... 'Makom she'Ne'esar P'ri im P'ri be'Bishul', he means - that there is an Isur to cook a kid together with its mother's milk.
2. ... 'Eino Din she'Ne'esar P'ri im ha'Eim be'Bishul' - it should certainly be forbidden to cook a kid in its own milk.

(d) The very fact that we need a Pasuk to forbid the kid in its own milk proves - that our final interpretation of 'Achoso' is the correct one, because if the kid itself requires a Pasuk to be incorporated in the prohibition, so too, does its (biological) sister.

(a) Rav Achdevui bar Ami tries to ascribe the Tana's refutal of the 'Kal-va'Chomer (in favor of the Pasuk) to the Pircha 'Sus ben Susya Achi Pirda Yochi'ach' meaning - that a horse whose mother is a horse and father, a donkey, and who has a sister that is a mule, that one is permitted to breed with its mother, even though breeding with its sister is forbidden (in which case, by the same token, cooking the kid-goat in its own milk ought to be permitted too).

(b) Rav Achdevui bar Ami does not mention that the Pircha was 'me'Ikra de'Dina' (like Rav Ashi did earlier) - because his Pircha is based on the second stage of the 'Kal-va'Chomer' ('Ne'esar P'ri im ha'Eim bi'Shechitah ... ') and not from the first '.

(c) We reject this Pircha however, because of 'Pered ben Susya Achi Pirdah' - where the mule is permitted with its sister, but forbidden with its mother (thereby reinforcing the 'Kal-va'Chomer') ...

(d) ... a proof that the Isur in the previous case is not due to 'P'ri im P'ri', but because of the seed of the father (which is not pertinent in our case, where the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother's milk has nothing to do with its father.

(a) Mar b'rei de'Ravina therefore presents the Pircha with regard to the case of an Eved, the son of a Shifchah, whose sister is a Shifchah Meshuchreres (who has been set free), and whose mother is a Shifchah, in which case - he is forbidden to 'marry' his sister, even though he is permitted to his mother.

(b) We refute this Pircha too however - on the grounds that the Isur to marry his 'sister' is based on the fact that she is Meshuchreres, and not on the fact that it is 'P'ri im P'ri' ...

(c) ... as is evident from the case of an Eved whose mother is a Shifchah Meshuchreres and whose sister, a Shifchah, to whom he is permitted, even though he is forbidden to his mother.

(a) To explain the Pircha, Rav Idi bar Avin then cites K'lai Zera'im - the prohibition of planting wheat together with lentils, for example.

(b) When we say that P'ri im P'ri is forbidden, but P'ri im ha'Eim is permitted, in that context we mean - that one is forbidden to plant the two species together, even though planting either species in the earth [with reference to 'Eim']) is permitted.

(c) We refute the Pircha however - by virtue of the fact that in any event, it is the earth which causes the Isur, which is not the case by Basar be'Chalav.

(d) And this explanation is evident by the fact - that if one were to place the two species in the same jar, they would not be forbidden.

(e) Rav Ashi finally presents the Pircha on the 'Kal-va'Chomer'. We cannot learn the prohibition of cooking 'P'ri im Imo' from P'ri im P'ri he says - because, unlike P'ri im P'ri, which are two separate entities, P'ri im Imo were originally part of one body. Consequently, if not for the Pasuk "ba'Chaleiv Imo", one would be permitted to cook them together (despite the 'Kal va'Chomer').

(a) Rav Ashi learn from the Pasuk "Lo Sochal Kol To'eivah" - that since the Torah has forbidden cooking meat together with milk, such a mixture becomes forbidden once they were?

(b) And he learns the Isur of Hana'ah based on a principle of Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Elazar, who learns - that wherever the Torah writes "Lo Yochal", "Lo Sochal" or "Lo Sochlu", it means to incorporate an Isur Hana'ah.

(c) Consequently, Basar be'Chalav too, will be Asur be'Hanah, since the Pasuk that Rav Ashi just quoted uses the words "Lo Sochal".

(a) Nevertheless, there are some Isurin that are not Asur be'Hana'ah, in spite of the Torah's use of the word "Lo Sochal ... " (such as that of Neveilah), which we will learn - from the fact that the Torah specifically permits them there as we shall now see).

(b) When the Torah writes (in connection with Neveilah) "*le'Ger* Asher bi'She'arecha Titnenah ... O Machor le'Nochri" - it is referring to a Ger Toshav, who observes his seven Mitzvos and who is permitted to eat Neveilah. The Torah gives him precedence, because it is a Mitzvah to sustain him (as we learn in Parshas Behar).

(c) Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, learns from the juxtaposition of "Titnenah" to ...

1. ... "O Machor" - that one may also *sell* Neveilah to a Ger.
2. ... "va'Achalah" to "O Machor la'Nochri" - that one may also *give* it to a Nochri.

(d) Had the Torah meant literally what it wrote - it ought to have inverted the order of the words, and placed "Titnenah ve'Achalah" before "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha".

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah - 'Devarim ki'Chesavan'.

(b) Had the Torah meant to include giving Neveilah to a Nochri and selling it to a Ger, the way Rebbi Meir learns, it ought to have written "Titnenah va'Achalah *u*'Machor le'Nochri" (with a 'Vav', rather than the word "O").

(c) Rebbi Meir counters - that the Torah needs to write "O", to give precedence to giving to a Ger over selling to a Nochri.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah finds this unnecessary however - because, seeing as it is a Mitzvah to sustain a Ger Toshav, it goes without saying that his needs take precedence over those of a Nochri (even though it means a loss of pocket for the owner).