E. [109a] We may derive from this the conclusion that R. Judah reasons in accord with the view that if one stirred it from start to finish and if one covered it from start to finish, [all the contents are] prohibited.
F. Why is this the case? Lo [because he stirred it up, each piece of meat absorbed so little that it was as if it had] absorbed nothing at all. It makes sense to say that he did not stir it very well and he did not cover it very well. [The milk would be absorbed in sufficient quantity in a piece of meat and that would render prohibited the rest of the meat.]
II.4
A. Said the master [consider the following, A above]: The opinion of sages appears preferable when one has stirred [the pot] and covered [the pot] [T. 8:6]. What does it mean, stirred [the pot]? And what does it mean, covered [the pot]? If you say it means that one stirred it at the finish, but did not stir it at the start and [that it means] that one covered it at the finish, but did not cover it at the start, lo it was stated, The opinion of R. Judah is preferable in these [circumstances].
B. Rather [it must mean] that one stirred it from start to finish and that he covered it from start to finish. We may derive the conclusion that the sages reasoned in accord with the view that if one stirred it at the finish but did not stir it at the start, or if one covered it at the finish, but did not cover it at the start, [the contents are] permitted.
C. It seems logical to conclude that [sages] reasoned in accord with the view that [when it is cooked in a mixture, a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it is treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is nullified, leaving the mixture itself] permitted [II.1 G, above].
D. Said R. Aha from Difti to Rabina, “On what basis do you conclude that the dispute hinges on [a principle regarding whether or not a prohibited substance] can be extracted? Perhaps regarding [the issue of a prohibited substance that] can be extracted [from the item that contained it, when it is cooked in a mixture, is not treated as if it entered the mixture on its own and is not nullified, leaving the mixture itself] according to all [parties in the dispute] prohibited.
E. “And here the dispute hinges on [the view of the parties regarding] the principle [of nullification in a mixture of items] of the same classification. And R. Judah is consistent with his own opinion on that issue. For he said that [prohibited] items of the same classification [in a mixture with permitted items] are not nullified. And the sages are consistent with their opinion. For they said that [prohibited] items of the same classification [in a mixture with permitted items] are nullified.”
F. What then is the interpretation of this matter? If you say that it makes sense to maintain the sages reason regarding the principle [of nullification in a mixture of items] of the same classification, that here they reason in accord with the view of R. Judah [that the items are not nullified], and accordingly they dispute over [the principle of whether or not a prohibited substance] can be extracted, this is in accord with what Rabbi said, “The opinion of R. Judah appears preferable in this matter [when one has not stirred (the pot) and has not covered (the pot)], and the opinion of sages appears preferable in this matter [when one has stirred (the pot) and covered (the pot)]” [T. 8:6, cited above at II.3 A].
G. But if you say that [it makes sense to maintain regarding the principle of whether or not a prohibited substance] can be extracted, that all parties agree that [a circumstance where this principle is applied] is prohibited, and here they dispute over the principle [of nullification in a mixture of items] of the same classification, then this statement, The opinion of R. Judah appears preferable... should also state where it does not appear preferable. And there is nothing further to say about this matter.
Unit I.1 identifies the operative principle of M. and its basis. II.1 analyzes the reasoning behind M. and clarifies its theory of mixtures of prohibited and permitted substances. II.2 presents a second-level issue, namely, the punishment for eating such a mixture. It concludes by citing a T.-text from Makkot. II.3-4 introduce the T.-passage relevant to M.'s concern and spell out its implications.
8:3 C-H
C. The udder:
D. one cuts it open and takes out its milk.
E. [If] he did not cut it open, he does not transgress on that account.
F. The heart:
G. One cuts it open and takes out its blood.
H. [If] he did not cut it open, he does not transgress on that account.
I.1
A. [109b] Said R. Zira, said Rab, “[One who eats the udder] he does not transgress on that account and he is permitted [to eat it to begin with].”
B. Lo, we taught, He does not transgress on that account. [This implies that if he already ate it,] he has not transgressed, lo, there is a prohibition [against eating it to begin with]. It is logical to conclude also that there is no prohibition [against eating the udder]. But [they taught this rule for the udder for the sake of balance with the rule for the heart] because it was necessary to teach in the latter text of the Mishnah: The heart: One cuts it open and takes out its blood. [If] he did not cut it open, he does not transgress on that account [F-H]. There [regarding the rule for the heart] he does not transgress [if he ate it without removing the blood]. Lo, there is a prohibition [against eating it to begin with]. [Accordingly, the Mishnah-passage] taught also in the former text, he does not transgress on that account [E].
C. Let us say this text supports the present assertion: The udder of a nursing cow: one cuts it open and takes out its milk. [If] he did not cut it open, he does not transgress on that account. The heart: one cuts it open and takes out its blood. If he cooked it, he cuts it open after it is cooked [T. 8:8] and it is permitted.
D. [The text informs us that] the heart needs to be cut open [if he wants to eat it after it is cooked]. But [this implies that] the udder does not need to be cut open [if he wants to eat it after it is cooked].
E. But perhaps for the heart it is effective to cut it up [to remove the blood after it is cooked]. But for the udder it is not effective [to cut it after it is cooked to remove the milk so that he may eat it].
F. And there are those who say [there is another version of the preceding text, A-E]: Said R. Zira, said Rab, “[One who eats the udder] he does not transgress on that account and he is prohibited [to eat it to begin with].”
G. Let us say this text supports the present assertion: He does not transgress on that account. [This implies that if he already ate it,] he has not transgressed, lo, there is a prohibition [against eating it to begin with]. It is logical to conclude also that there is no prohibition [against eating the udder]. But [they taught this rule for the udder for the sake of balance with the rule for the heart] because it was necessary to teach in the latter text of the Mishnah: The heart: One cuts it open and takes out its blood. [If] he did not cut it open, he does not transgress on that account [F-H]. There [regarding the rule for the heart] he does not transgress [if he ate it without removing the blood]. Lo, there is a prohibition [against eating it to begin with]. [Accordingly, the Mishnah] taught also in the former text, he does not transgress on that account [E].
H. Come and take note: The udder of a nursing cow: one cuts it open and takes out its milk. [If] he did not cut it open, he does not transgress on that account. The heart: one cuts it open and takes out its blood. If he cooked it, he cuts it open after it is cooked [T. 8:8] and it is permitted.
I. [The text informs us that] the heart needs to be cut open [if he wants to eat it after it is cooked]. But [this implies that] the udder does not need to be cut open [if he wants to eat it after it is cooked].
J. But perhaps for the heart it is effective to cut it up [to remove the blood after it is cooked]. But for the udder it is not effective [to cut it after it is cooked to remove the milk so that he may eat it].
K. There is a Tannaite teaching that accords with the first version of the rule of Rab: An udder which one cooked in its milk is permitted. A maw which one cooked [in its milk] — one is liable [T. 8:9 A-B].
L. And what is the difference between this case [of the udder] and that case [of the maw]? In this case [of the maw there is milk that issued from another animal] collected inside [the maw]. But in this case [of the udder there is no milk that issued from another animal] collected inside [the udder].
I.2
A. How does one cut it? Said R. Judah, “He cuts it across its length and width and presses it against the wall [to squeeze out the milk].”
B. Said R. Eleazar to his servant, “Cut it for me and I will eat it.”
C. What novel point does this make? It is taught explicitly in the Mishnah [that one may do this]. Lo this makes the novel point that [to be permitted to eat it] one does not need to cut it across its length and width and press it against the wall.
II.1
A. Said Yalta to R. Nahman, “What is the case? For everything that the Torah prohibited, it permitted something [equivalent] in its place. (1) It prohibited [eating an animal's] blood. But it permitted [us to eat its] liver. (2) [It prohibited intercourse during the issue of] menstrual blood. [But it permitted intercourse during the issue of] blood of purification [i.e., that flows after initial intercourse with a virgin or after childbirth]. (3) [It prohibited eating] the fat of beasts. [But it permitted eating] the fat of wild animals. (4) [It prohibited eating meat of] the swine. [But it permitted eating] the brain of the mullet fish (Cashdan: or sturgeon). (5) [It prohibited eating] the moor-hen. [But it permitted eating] the tongue of a fish. (6) [It prohibited relations with] a married woman. [But it permitted relations with] a divorced woman [even] during the life of her husband. (7) [It prohibited relations with one's] brother's wife. [But it permitted relations with] a levir [i.e., the brother's wife after he dies with no issue]. (8) [It prohibited relations with] a Samaritan woman. [But it permitted relations with a captive woman] who was attractive.
B. “I crave [to eat a recipe made from] meat and milk. [What is the equivalent for that?]”
C. R. Nahman said to his butchers, “Roast an udder for her on a spit.”
D. But lo we taught the matter [that one may eat the udder if], One cuts it open. This applies to where he cooks it in a pot. But lo, it was taught, If he cooked it [cf. T. 8:8, cited above at I.1 C]. [This implies that] if he already [cooked it], then yes, [he may eat it]. But [to cook it] to begin with, no [one may not eat it].
No comments:
Post a Comment