Daf Yomi — Chullin 104 (חולין קד)Daf Yomi — Julín 104 (חולין קד)דף יומי — חולין קד

הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר מוּתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים.

And one who takes a vow that meat is prohibited to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers.

גְּמָ׳ הָא עוֹף אָסוּר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָאָמַר: חַיָּה וָעוֹף אֵינוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

GEMARA: Since the mishna does not distinguish between the meat of animals and that of birds, it may consequently be inferred that the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law, just like the meat of animals. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t he say that the prohibition of the meat of undomesticated animals and birds cooked in milk is not by Torah law?

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר – מוּתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים, הָא עוֹף אָסוּר, אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: כֹּל מִילֵּי דְּמִימְּלִיךְ עֲלֵיהּ שָׁלִיחַ – בַּר מִינֵיהּ הוּא.

The Gemara continues: But say the latter clause of the mishna: One who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers. It may consequently be inferred that it is prohibited for him to eat birds. If so, here we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Anything about which an agent sent to purchase a given item would inquire, being unsure whether it qualifies as that type of item, is considered its type.

דְּתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיָּרָק, מוּתָּר בַּדִּלּוּעִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וַהֲלֹא אוֹמֵר אָדָם לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״קַח לָנוּ יָרָק״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא דִּלּוּעִין״!

As it is taught in a mishna (Nedarim 54a): One who takes a vow that vegetables are forbidden to him is permitted to eat gourds, as people do not typically consider gourds a type of vegetable, but Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: But it is a common occurrence that a person says to his agent: Purchase vegetables for us, and the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns and says: I found only gourds. This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.

אָמַר לָהֶן: כֵּן הַדָּבָר, כְּלוּם אוֹמֵר ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא קִטְנִית״?! אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּלּוּעִין בִּכְלַל יָרָק, וְאֵין קִטְנִית בִּכְלַל יָרָק. רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves that my opinion is correct. Does the agent return and say: I found only legumes? Rather, it is evident that gourds are included in the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent explains that he found only gourds, and asks whether he should purchase them. But legumes are not included in the category of vegetables, and that is why an agent would not even ask about them. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva should also hold that one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating birds. And if so, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי הִיא, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְתַנָּאֵי, בִּנְדָרִים סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בְּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן.

Rav Yosef said: That is not difficult. The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna according to the opinions of different tanna’im. In the latter clause, with regard to vows, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas in the first clause, with regard to meat cooked in milk, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הַבָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב, מֵהֶן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וּמֵהֶן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים, שֶׁאֵינָם לֹא מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְלֹא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.

Rav Ashi said a different explanation: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as indicated by the latter clause, concerning vows. And as for the first part of the mishna, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to cook any meat cooked in milk, some types of meat by Torah law, i.e., that of domesticated animals, and some types of meat by rabbinic law, i.e., that of undomesticated animals and birds. This prohibition applies to all types of meat except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, which are not prohibited, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law.

וְאָסוּר לְהַעֲלוֹת [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּשַׂר עוֹף בְּחָלָב דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן – אֲכִילָה גּוּפַהּ גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נִגְזַר הַעֲלָאָה אַטּוּ אֲכִילָה?

new sugyaThe mishna teaches further: And it is prohibited to place any meat with cheese on one table. Rav Yosef said: Conclude from this clause that eating the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind that the prohibition against eating it applies merely by rabbinic law, this would be because the consumption of the meat of birds cooked in milk is itself a rabbinic decree, lest one come to eat the meat of an animal in milk. And would we decree against placing birds together with cheese on one table due to the possibility of consumption, which is itself a decree? The Sages do not enact one decree to prevent the violation of another decree.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּלָא גָּזְרִינַן גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה? דִּתְנַן: חַלַּת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not issue one rabbinic decree to prevent violation of another rabbinic decree? The source is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 4:8): Ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, which must be eaten by a priest,

נֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְנִיתֶּנֶת לְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה.

may be eaten with a non-priest present at the same table. The Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting this lest the non-priest partake of the ḥalla, as the separation of ḥalla outside of Eretz Yisrael is itself a rabbinic decree. This proves that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree. And similarly, ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael may be given to any priest that one wishes, even an uneducated priest who would not guard its state of ritual purity. This is in contrast to ḥalla from Eretz Yisrael, which may be given only to priests who observe the halakhot of ritual purity.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן חַלַּת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בָּאָרֶץ, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם חַלַּת הָאָרֶץ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְלָא גָּזְרִינַן – אִיכָּא לְמִשְׁמָע מִינַּהּ.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, your inference would be valid if the mishna in tractate Ḥalla had taught us this with regard to ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that had been brought into Eretz Yisrael. As in that case, there could be reason to decree against eating it while a non-priest is at the same table, despite the fact that the non-priest eating it is prohibited only by rabbinic law, due to the concern that one might come to eat ḥalla from Eretz Yisrael, which is prohibited to the non-priest by Torah law, at the same table as a non-priest; and yet we do not decree against this practice. If so, there would be grounds to learn from this mishna that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree.

אֶלָּא חוּצָה לְאָרֶץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר הוּא. אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי שָׁרֵית לֵיהּ לְאַסּוֹקֵי עוֹף וּגְבִינָה, אָתֵי לְאַסּוֹקֵי בָּשָׂר וּגְבִינָה, וּמֵיכַל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

But the mishna actually teaches this halakha with regard to ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that remains there. It therefore proves nothing about compound decrees, as it can be claimed that the practice is permitted only because there is no reason to decree. Since by Torah law the obligation of ḥalla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, there is no chance that such behavior will lead to transgression of Torah law. But here, if you permit one to place the meat of birds and cheese on the same table, some might come to place the meat of domesticated animals and cheese on a single table and to eat this meat cooked in milk, thereby transgressing a prohibition by Torah law.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: סוֹף סוֹף צוֹנֵן בְּצוֹנֵן הוּא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה בְּאִילְפָּס רוֹתֵחַ.

Rav Sheshet objects to the premise of Rav Yosef’s inference: Even if one were to posit that the meat of birds in milk is prohibited by Torah law, ultimately this is still a decree issued due to another decree, as it is a case of cold food in another cold food, consumption of which is itself prohibited by rabbinic law. Abaye said: It is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a boiling stewpot, which is a manner of cooking and therefore prohibited by Torah law.

סוֹף סוֹף, כְּלִי שֵׁנִי הוּא, וּכְלִי שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ מְבַשֵּׁל! אֶלָּא גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה בְּאִילְפָּס רִאשׁוֹן.

The Gemara counters: Ultimately, even a stewpot is only a secondary vessel, i.e., not the vessel that was on the fire, and as a rule, a secondary vessel does not cook. Rather, one must say that it is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a stewpot that is a primary vessel, i.e., that was on the fire. This is certainly cooking meat in milk, and it is prohibited by Torah law.

מַתְנִי׳ הָעוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא עוֹלֶה וְלֹא נֶאֱכָל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: זוֹ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.

MISHNA: The meat of birds may be placed with cheese on one table but may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Rabbi Yosei said: This is one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.

בְּאֵיזֶה שׁוּלְחָן אָמְרוּ? בְּשׁוּלְחָן שֶׁאוֹכֵל עָלָיו, אֲבָל בְּשׁוּלְחָן שֶׁסּוֹדֵר עָלָיו אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל – נוֹתֵן זֶה בְּצַד זֶה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.

The mishna elaborates: With regard to which table are these halakhot stated? It is with regard to a table upon which one eats. But on a table upon which one prepares the cooked food, one may place this meat alongside that cheese or vice versa, and need not be concerned that perhaps they will be mixed and one will come to eat them together.

גְּמָ׳ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? וְכִי תֵּימָא: אֲכִילָה גּוּפַהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: בְּהַעֲלָאָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, בַּאֲכִילָה לָא פְּלִיגִי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲכִילָה גּוּפַהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.

GEMARA: The Gemara challenges: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to that of the first tanna. And if you would say that there is a difference between them with regard to the permissibility of eating itself, as the first tanna says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to placing meat of birds with cheese on one table, which indicates that with regard to eating they do not disagree, and Rabbi Yosei said in response to this that they also disagree with regard to the permissibility of eating meat of birds in milk, and this is itself one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, one can refute this claim.

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְזוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן – עוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא עוֹלֶה וְלֹא נֶאֱכָל!

The refutation is as follows: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says that six matters are included as the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and this is one of them: The meat of birds is placed with cheese on one table, but it may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei agrees that even according to Beit Shammai the meat of birds may not be eaten with cheese.

אֶלָּא, הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן: מַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר דָּבָר בְּשֵׁם אוֹמְרוֹ מֵבִיא גְּאוּלָּה לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּשֵׁם מׇרְדֳּכָי״.

Rather, this is what the mishna teaches us: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei. The identification is important, since whoever reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated with respect to the incident of Bigthan and Teresh: “And Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordecai” (Esther 2:22), and Mordecai was later rewarded for saving the king’s life, paving the way for the miraculous salvation.

תְּנָא אַגְרָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא: עוֹף וּגְבִינָה נֶאֱכָלִין בְּאַפִּיקוֹרַן. הוּא תָנֵי לַהּ, וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: בְּלֹא נְטִילַת יָדַיִם וּבְלֹא קִינּוּחַ הַפֶּה.

new sugyaThe Gemara continues discussing the consumption of poultry cooked in milk. The Sage Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely [apikoren], i.e., there is no need to be strict in this matter. The Gemara notes: He, Agra, teaches it and he says it, i.e., explains his statement: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten without washing one’s hands and without wiping the mouth between the consumption of each.

רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי, אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ גְּבִינָה – אֲכַל, אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ בִּשְׂרָא – אֲכַל, וְלָא מְשָׁא יְדֵיהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא תָּאנֵי אַגְרָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא: עוֹף וּגְבִינָה נֶאֱכָלִין בְּאֶפִּיקוֹרֶן, עוֹף וּגְבִינָה – אִין, בָּשָׂר וּגְבִינָה – לָא!

The Gemara relates: Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. They brought him cheese, and he ate it. Next they brought him meat, and he ate it without first washing his hands. The members of Rav Ashi’s household said to him: But didn’t Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, teach only that the meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely? One can infer that with regard to the meat of birds and cheese, yes, one may eat them without washing one’s hands in between, but with regard to the meat of domesticated animals and cheese, no, one may not.

אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּלֵילְיָא, אֲבָל בִּימָמָא הָא חָזֵינָא.

Rav Yitzḥak said to them: This statement of Agra applies only if one eats them at night, as one cannot see whether some of the food of the previous dish still remains on his hands, and he must therefore wash them. But if one eats by day, I can see that no food remains on his hands, and consequently there is no need to wash them.

תַּנְיָא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַנֵּחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מֵדִיחַ. מַאי ״מְקַנֵּחַ״ וּמַאי ״מֵדִיחַ״?

It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: Between the consumption of meat and milk one must wipe out his mouth, and Beit Hillel say that he must rinse his mouth. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word: Wipe [mekane’aḥ], and what is the meaning of the word: Rinse [mediaḥ]?