## Chullin Daf 114a

###### Chullin 114a:1
[Chullin 114a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:1)

כֵּיוָן דְּעַל אֲכִילָה לָא לָקֵי, אַבִּישּׁוּל נָמֵי לָא לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This link between cooking and eating indicates that **since one is not flogged for eating** forbidden fat cooked in milk, as agreed upon above, one **also is not flogged for cooking** the two together.


###### Chullin 114a:2
[Chullin 114a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:2)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַבִּישּׁוּל – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָקֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַאֲכִילָה. מַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה – דְּהָא אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה – לְהָכִי אַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲכִילָה בִּלְשׁוֹן בִּישּׁוּל, כֵּיוָן דְּאַבִּישּׁוּל לָקֵי – אַאֲכִילָה נָמֵי לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** the opposite: **With regard to cooking, everyone agrees that** one **is flogged** for this act, since the principle of a prohibition not taking effect where another prohibition already exists is not relevant. **When they disagree,** it is **with regard to eating. The one who says he is not flogged** applies the principle **that a prohibition does not take effect** where another **prohibition** already exists, and the fat was already prohibited for consumption in its own right before being cooked with milk. **And the one who says he is flogged** holds that it was **for this** reason that **the Merciful One expressed** the prohibition of **eating** meat cooked in milk using **the language of cooking,** to teach that **since one is flogged for cooking** forbidden fat in milk, one **also is flogged for eating** the product.


###### Chullin 114a:3
[Chullin 114a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:3)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מָר אֲמַר חֲדָא, וּמָר אֲמַר חֲדָא, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a third explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: **And if you wish, say** that **one Sage said one** statement **and one Sage said another** statement, **and they do not disagree,** as they are referring to different cases. The Sage who said that one is flogged is referring to the transgression of cooking forbidden fat with milk, whereas the one who said one is not flogged is referring to the consumption of forbidden fat with milk. Everyone agrees that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and therefore one is flogged only for cooking forbidden fat in milk, but not for eating the two together.


###### Chullin 114a:4
[Chullin 114a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּמֵי חָלָב – פָּטוּר, דָּם שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ בְּחָלָב – פָּטוּר, הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקַּרְנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָן בְּחָלָב – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *Tosefta* (8:3): **One who cooks** meat **in whey,** the liquid leftover after milk has been curdled, is **exempt** from lashes, as whey is not defined as milk for purposes of the prohibition. Likewise, for **blood that one cooked in milk,** he is **exempt,** as blood is not considered meat. Similarly, with regard to **the bones, the tendons, the horns, and the hooves that one cooked in milk,** he is **exempt.**


###### Chullin 114a:5
[Chullin 114a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:5)

הַפִּגּוּל, וְהַנּוֹתָר, וְהַטָּמֵא, שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָן בְּחָלָב – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *Tosefta* continues: By contrast, with regard to prohibited ***piggul*** meat, i.e., meat from an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to sprinkle its blood or partake of its meat beyond its designated time, **and** similarly prohibited ***notar*,** meat from an offering whose period for consumption has expired, **and** the prohibited **impure** meat of an offering, **that one cooked in milk,** he is **liable** to be flogged for violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. This indicates that the prohibition applies to items already prohibited for consumption, contrary to the above opinion attributed to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.


###### Chullin 114a:6
[Chullin 114a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:6)

הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This *tanna*** of the *baraita* **maintains** in general that **a prohibition takes effect** where another **prohibition** already exists, whereas Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi are of the opposite opinion. It is conceivable that these Sages, who are *amora’im*, disagree with that *tanna*, as the issue of whether a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists is a well-known dispute among the *tanna’im* themselves.


###### Chullin 114a:7
[Chullin 114a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:7)

הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּמֵי חָלָב פָּטוּר, מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דִּתְנַן: מֵי חָלָב הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחָלָב, וְהַמּוֹחַל הֲרֵי הוּא כְּשֶׁמֶן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן בִּישּׁוּל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב – מֵי חָלָב אֵינוֹ כְּחָלָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was stated in the above *baraita*: **One who cooks** meat **in whey is exempt** from lashes. The Gemara comments: This ruling **supports** the opinion **of Reish Lakish, as we learned** in a mishna, with regard to liquids that render food susceptible to ritual impurity (*Makhshirin* 6:5): The halakhic status of **whey is like** that of **milk,** which is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity, **and** the halakhic status of olive **secretion is like** that of **oil,** which also renders food susceptible to impurity. With regard to this mishna, **Reish Lakish says: They taught** this *halakha* **only** with regard to **rendering seeds,** i.e., produce, **susceptible** to impurity. **But with regard to cooking meat in milk,** the halakhic status of **whey is not like** that of **milk.**


###### Chullin 114a:8
[Chullin 114a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ, בַּחֲלֵב פָּרָה וְרָחֵל מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: From the phrase **“in its mother’s milk” I have** derived **only** that the prohibition applies **to** the **mother** goat’s **milk. From where** do I derive that it also applies **to the milk of a cow and a ewe?**


###### Chullin 114a:9
[Chullin 114a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:9)

אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה אִמּוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֶסְרָה עִמּוֹ בְּהַרְבָּעָה – נֶאֶסְרָה עִמּוֹ בְּבִשּׁוּלוֹ, פָּרָה וְרָחֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרוּ עִמּוֹ בְּהַרְבָּעָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרוּ עִמּוֹ בְּבִשּׁוּלוֹ! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**You** can **say an *a fortiori*** inference: **Just as** a kid’s **mother, which is not prohibited for mating with** the kid, as they are of the same species, **is** nevertheless **prohibited for cooking with it,** as stated in the verse, **is it not right that a cow or a ewe, which are prohibited for mating with it,** as they are of different species, **should be prohibited for cooking with it?** Therefore, **the verse states** elsewhere: **“In its mother’s milk,”** a second time, to include a cow and a ewe.


###### Chullin 114a:10
[Chullin 114a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:10)

וְהָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא? הָא אָתְיָא לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the conclusion of the *baraita*. **But why do I** need **a verse? It was** just **derived** through the *a fortiori* inference.


###### Chullin 114a:11
[Chullin 114a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:11)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּדִינָא פִּירְכָא, מֵהֵיכָא קָא מַיְיתֵית לַהּ? מֵאִמּוֹ, מָה לְאִמּוֹ שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֶסְרָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, תֹּאמַר בְּפָרָה שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֶסְרָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** It is needed **because one can say that** the **refutation of the** *a fortiori* **inference** is present **from the outset,** i.e., there is a difficulty with the comparison: **From where do you derive** the inference? It is derived **from its mother** goat, which the *baraita* presents as being treated more leniently than a cow or ewe since it may be mated with a kid. But there is a stringent aspect of the mother goat not shared by a cow or ewe: **What** is unique **about its mother?** It is unique **in that it is prohibited for slaughter with it,** since one may not slaughter an animal and its mother on the same day (see Leviticus 22:28). **Will you say** the same **about a cow, which is not prohibited for slaughter with it?** Therefore, **the verse states: “In its mother’s milk,”** to include a cow and a ewe.


###### Chullin 114a:12
[Chullin 114a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:12)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ, בַּחֲלֵב אֲחוֹתוֹ גְּדוֹלָה מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The above *baraita* accounts for two of the Torah’s three mentions of the phrase “in its mother’s milk.” The Gemara now addresses the third. It **is taught** in **another** *baraita*: From one instance of the phrase **“in its mother’s milk” I have** derived **only** that the prohibition applies **to the milk of its mother,** if the mother is less than a year old and has not yet entered the pen for the purpose of its owner’s separating the annual animal tithe. **From where** do I derive that it also applies **to the milk of its older sister,** i.e., one that is more than a year old that has already entered the pen for the animal tithe in the previous year?


###### Chullin 114a:13
[Chullin 114a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:13)

אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה אִמּוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה עִמּוֹ לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר – נֶאֶסְרָה עִמּוֹ בְּבִשּׁוּל, אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנְסָה עִמּוֹ לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה עִמּוֹ בְּבִשּׁוּל! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**You** can **say an *a fortiori*** inference: **Just as** a kid’s **mother, which enters the pen to be tithed with it, is** nevertheless **prohibited for cooking with it, is it not right that its sister, which does not enter the pen to be tithed with it, should be prohibited for cooking with it?** Therefore, **the verse states** elsewhere: **“In its mother’s milk,”** a third time, to include the older sister in the prohibition.


###### Chullin 114a:14
[Chullin 114a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:14)

וְהָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, הָא אָתְיָא לַיהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּדִינָא פִּירְכָא, מֵהֵיכָא קָא מַיְיתֵית לַהּ? מֵאִמּוֹ, מָה לְאִמּוֹ, שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֶסְרָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, תֹּאמַר בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֶסְרָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why do I** need **a verse? It was** just **derived** from the *a fortiori* inference. **Rav Ashi said:** It is needed **because one can say** that the **refutation of** that *a fortiori* **inference** is present **from the outset. From where do you derive** the inference? It is derived **from its mother.** But one may respond: **What** is unique **about its mother?** It is unique **in that it is prohibited for slaughter with it** on the same day. **Will you say** the same *halakhot* apply **to its older sister, which is not prohibited for slaughter with it?** Therefore, **the verse states: “In its mother’s milk,”** including the older sister.


###### Chullin 114a:15
[Chullin 114a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:15)

אַשְׁכְּחַן אֲחוֹתוֹ גְּדוֹלָה, אֲחוֹתוֹ קְטַנָּה מִנַּיִן? אָתְיָא מִבֵּינַיָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **We have found** a source for the *halakha* that **its older sister** is included in the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. **From where** is it derived that the same applies to **its younger sister,** one that has not yet entered the pen for the tithe? The Gemara responds: **It is derived from between them,** i.e., from the combination of the mother and the older sister.


###### Chullin 114a:16
[Chullin 114a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:16)

מֵהֵי תֵּיתֵי? תֵּיתֵי מֵאִמּוֹ – מָה לְאִמּוֹ שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֶסְרָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה? אֲחוֹתוֹ גְּדוֹלָה תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לַאֲחוֹתוֹ גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנְסָה עִמּוֹ לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר? אִמּוֹ תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates on the need for both cases in order to derive the third: **From which** of the two cases **should it be derived?** If **it should be derived from its mother,** one can claim: **What** is unique **about its mother?** It is unique **in that it is prohibited for slaughter with it** on the same day, unlike the younger sister. One may respond: **Its older sister can prove** the point, since it is not prohibited for slaughter with the kid, but it is still included in the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. But this can be refuted as well: **What** is unique **about its older sister?** It is unique **in that it does not enter the pen to be tithed with it,** unlike the younger sister. One may respond that **its mother can** then **prove** the point, as it can enter the pen to be tithed with the kid and is still included in the prohibition.


###### Chullin 114a:17
[Chullin 114a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:17)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן: שֶׁהוּא בָּשָׂר, וְאָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֲחוֹתוֹ קְטַנָּה, שֶׁהוּא בָּשָׂר, וְאָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** consequently, **the inference has reverted** to its starting point: **The aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case; **their common element** is **that** both the mother and older sister are **meat and** it is **prohibited to cook** them **in milk.** If so, **I will also include its younger sister** in the prohibition, **since it is** also **meat, and** therefore it is **prohibited to cook** it **in milk.**


###### Chullin 114a:18
[Chullin 114a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:18)

אִי הָכִי, אֲחוֹתוֹ גְּדוֹלָה נָמֵי תֵּיתֵי מִבֵּינַיָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** the inclusion of **its older sister** in the prohibition can **also be derived from between them,** i.e., from the combination of the kid’s mother and a cow. Although both a cow and the mother possess unique stringencies not shared by the older sister, i.e., the prohibition of mating and of slaughtering with the kid, respectively, neither possesses both stringencies, and the *halakha* with regard to the older sister can be derived from their common element, i.e., that they are both meat and prohibited to cook in milk, as stated above. If so, what need is there to derive this *halakha* from the verse?


###### Chullin 114a:19
[Chullin 114a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/114a:19)

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Yes,** it **is indeed so;** the *halakha* with regard to the older sister is derived from the common denominator of the mother and a cow. **Rather, why do I** need the verse’s additional mention of the phrase **“in its mother’s milk?” It is necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: When the verse states: **“In its mother’s milk,” I have** derived **only** the prohibition to cook the kid **in its mother’s milk;**