(Exodus 23:19) "The first of the first-fruits of your land": What is the intent of this section? (Devarim 26:2) "Then you shall take of the first of all the fruits of the earth" tells me only of fruits per se. Whence do I derive (the same for) first-fruits which he trod into liquids? From (Ibid.) "shall you bring to the house of the L–rd your G–d" — in any event.
And what is the difference between the former (i.e., fruits) and the latter (i.e., liquids)? The first — he brings and recites (the bikkurim declaration); the second — he brings and does not recite.
3
(דברים כו,ב) "אֲשֶׁר תָּבִיא מֵאַרְצְךָ", לְהוֹצִיא אֲרִיסִין וְחָכוֹרוֹת,*חָכוֹרוֹת: חוכרי קרקעות. וְהַסִּיקָרִיקוֹן*סִיקָרִיקוֹן. sikarikón: מי שקנה רכוש שהוחרם על ידי השלטון הרומי. וְהַגָּזְלָן. "אֲשֶׁר יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ", לְהוֹצִיא גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים. "נֹתֵן לָךְ", לְהוֹצִיא נָשִׁים טוֹמְטוֹם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.
"the first-fruits of your land": to exclude (from the mitzvah of bikkurim) tenant-farmers, renters, thieves and extortionists. (Devarim 26:3) "which the L–rd swore to our fathers": to exclude proselytes and servants. (Ibid.) "which the L–rd your G–d gives to you (singular)": to exclude women, tumtum (indeterminate gender), and hermaphrodite.
4
מַשְׁמָע מוֹצִיאָן שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרוּ,*יִקְרוּ: יקראו. כך בלשון חכמים. וּמוֹצִיאָן שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיאוּ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תָּבִיא", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
Does this imply that they are excluded from reading (the bikkurim declaration) or from bringing (the fruit)? It is, therefore, written (Exodus 23:19) "shall you bring" — in any event.
(Exodus 23:19) "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk": R. Shimon says: Why is this written in three places? (here, (Exodus 34:26) and (Devarim 14:21). They correspond to the three covenants that the Holy One Blessed be He forged with Israel: one in Chorev, one Arvoth Moav, and one in Mount Gerizim and Mount Eival.
R. Yoshiyah says: The first was stated first, and "firsts" are not expounded. Why is the second stated? A clean animal confers tumah (uncleanliness) by being carried, and an unclean animal confers tumah by being carried. If you have learned about a clean animal that it is forbidden to cook its flesh in its (mother's) milk, I might think that the same holds true for an unclean animal. It is, therefore, written "in the milk of its mother," and not in the milk of an unclean animal. The third: "in the milk of its mother," but not in human milk.
Variantly: whether non-consecrated or consecrated (animals). Rebbi says: Because it is written (in the same context as meat and milk) "the first of the fruits of your land," I might think that only at the time that bikkurim obtain and only in the place that bikkurim obtain, only there does (the prohibition of) meat and milk obtain, but not otherwise; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 14:21) "You shall not eat all carrion (neveilah) … You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Just as (the prohibition of) carrion obtains both in the land and outside the land, both before the Temple and not before the Temple, so (the prohibition of) meat and milk.
R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written "You shall not eat all carrion … You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." I might think that what is forbidden as carrion may not be cooked in milk, so that a bird which is forbidden as carrion, may not be cooked in milk. It is, therefore, written "in its mother's milk" — to exclude a bird, where "mother's milk" does not obtain.
("You shall not eat all carrion") to exclude (from being forbidden specifically as "carrion"), an unclean beast, which is one (i.e., forbidden) both in being slaughtered and in dying.
"You shall not cook": This tells me only that cooking it is forbidden. Whence to I derive (the same for) eating it? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the Pesach offering, which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so may they not be eaten!
No, this may be true of the Pesach offering, which may not be cooked in any liquid — wherefore it may not be eaten. Would you say the same for meat and milk, which (meat) is not forbidden, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten?
R. Akiva says: It need not be written (that eating meat and milk is forbidden), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh), which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, then meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so should it be forbidden to be eaten!
No, this may be true of the thigh sinew, which was forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it is forbidden to be eaten, as opposed to meat and milk, which was not forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten.
This is refuted by the instance of fats and blood, which, though they do not confer tumah by being carried are forbidden to be eaten, so that meat and milk, likewise, though it does not confer tumah by being carried, should be forbidden to be eaten.
No, this (that they may not be eaten) may be true of fats and blood, which are liable to kareth, as opposed to meat and milk, which is not liable to kareth. It must, therefore, be written (Devarim 12:24) "You shall not eat it," to include meat and milk as forbidden to be eaten.
Issi b. Guria says: "Holiness" is mentioned here (in respect to meat and milk [Devarim 14:21]), and "holiness" is mentioned elsewhere (Exodus 22:30) "And men of holiness shall you be unto Me, and flesh in the field, treifah (torn) you shall not eat." Just as there, eating is forbidden, so, here.
This tells me only of the prohibition against eating. Whence do I derive the prohibition against the derivation of benefit? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from arlah (the fruit of trees of the first three years), with which no transgression has been done, how much more so from meat cooked in milk, with which a transgression (the cooking) has been done!
No, this may be true of chametz on Pesach, which is liable to kareth (cutting-off), as opposed to (cooking) meat and milk, which is not liable to kareth.
Rebbi says: It is written (Devarim 14:21) "… or sell it to the gentile. You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Scripture hereby tells us: If you sell it, do not cook it and sell it — whence it is derived that it is forbidden in the derivation of benefit.
"You shall not cook a kid, etc.": This tells me only of its mother's milk. Whence do I derive (the same for) its older sister's milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to cook it in the milk of its mother, who does not enter the shed alone with it to be tithed, how much more so is it forbidden in the milk of its sister, who does enter the shed along with it to be tithed!
Whence is (the same derived for cooking) its flesh in its own milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If re shechitah (slaughtering), where "fruit" with "fruit" is permitted (i.e., it is permitted to slaughter two siblings on the same day), "fruit" (child) with mother is forbidden, then here (re cooking) where "fruit" (child) with "fruit" (milk) is forbidden, how much more so is it forbidden to cook "fruit" (milk) with mother! " so here (these are intended).
Whence is (the same derived for cooking) the milk of goats with sheep? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in reviah (mating of animals) where the Torah permitted "fruit" with mother (in cooking) it forbade "fruit" with (milk of) mother, then here where in reviah it forbade "fruit with fruit" (i.e., mating goat and sheep), how much more so does it forbid (in cooking) "fruit" with (milk of) mother!
Rebbi says: It is written here "its mother," and elsewhere (Leviticus 22:27) "its mother." Just as there Scripture writes "ox, sheep, or goat, so here (these are intended).
"You shall not cook a goat in its mother's milk": It is only meat and milk that you are forbidden to cook together and not other forbidden things. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If it is forbidden to cook together meat and milk, each of which, in itself, is permitted, how much more so the other forbidden things in the Torah, each of which, in itself, is forbidden! It is, therefore, written (to indicate otherwise) "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" (—that, specifically).
This tells me only of non-consecrated food (as being thus forbidden). Whence do I derive (the same for) consecrated food? How can you ask? If it is forbidden with non-consecrated food, would it not (certainly) be forbidden with consecrated food? — No, it may be so with non-consecrated food, where melikah (pinching a bird's neck to slaughter it) is forbidden, as opposed to consecrated food, where melikah is not forbidden. It is, therefore, written ([in juxtaposition] Exodus 34:26) "… the house of the L–rd your G–d. You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Thus far the section of judgments.
(שמות כג,יט) "רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים כו,ב) "וְלָקַחְתָּ מֵרֵאשִׁית כָּל פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר תָּבִיא מֵאַרְצְךָ אֲשֶׁר יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ, וְשַׂמְתָּ בַטֶּנֶא, וְהָלַכְתָּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם." אֵין לִי אֶלָּא פֵּרוֹת דֶּרֶךְ בִּכּוּרִים, מַשְׁקִין מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תָּבִיא בֵּית יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
(Exodus 23:19) "The first of the first-fruits of your land": What is the intent of this section? (Devarim 26:2) "Then you shall take of the first of all the fruits of the earth" tells me only of fruits per se. Whence do I derive (the same for) first-fruits which he trod into liquids? From (Ibid.) "shall you bring to the house of the L–rd your G–d" — in any event.
וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ? אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין וְקוֹרִין, וְאֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין.
And what is the difference between the former (i.e., fruits) and the latter (i.e., liquids)? The first — he brings and recites (the bikkurim declaration); the second — he brings and does not recite.
(דברים כו,ב) "אֲשֶׁר תָּבִיא מֵאַרְצְךָ", לְהוֹצִיא אֲרִיסִין וְחָכוֹרוֹת,*חָכוֹרוֹת: חוכרי קרקעות. וְהַסִּיקָרִיקוֹן*סִיקָרִיקוֹן. sikarikón: מי שקנה רכוש שהוחרם על ידי השלטון הרומי. וְהַגָּזְלָן. "אֲשֶׁר יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ", לְהוֹצִיא גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים. "נֹתֵן לָךְ", לְהוֹצִיא נָשִׁים טוֹמְטוֹם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.
"the first-fruits of your land": to exclude (from the mitzvah of bikkurim) tenant-farmers, renters, thieves and extortionists. (Devarim 26:3) "which the L–rd swore to our fathers": to exclude proselytes and servants. (Ibid.) "which the L–rd your G–d gives to you (singular)": to exclude women, tumtum (indeterminate gender), and hermaphrodite.
מַשְׁמָע מוֹצִיאָן שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרוּ,*יִקְרוּ: יקראו. כך בלשון חכמים. וּמוֹצִיאָן שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיאוּ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תָּבִיא", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
Does this imply that they are excluded from reading (the bikkurim declaration) or from bringing (the fruit)? It is, therefore, written (Exodus 23:19) "shall you bring" — in any event.
וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְבֵין אֵלּוּ? אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין וְקוֹרִין, וְאֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין.
And what is the difference between the former and the latter? The former bring and read; the latter bring and do not read.
"לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֶמְרָה בִשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת? כְּנֶגֶד שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרִיתוֹת שֶׁכָּרַת הַמָּקוֹם עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל: אַחַת בְּחוֹרֵב, וְאַחַת בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב, וְאַחַת בְּהַר גְּרִזִים וְהַר עֵיבָל.
(Exodus 23:19) "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk": R. Shimon says: Why is this written in three places? (here, (Exodus 34:26) and (Devarim 14:21). They correspond to the three covenants that the Holy One Blessed be He forged with Israel: one in Chorev, one Arvoth Moav, and one in Mount Gerizim and Mount Eival.
רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ אוֹמֵר: הָרִאשׁוֹן, תְּחִלָּה נֶאֱמַר, וְאֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין תְּחִלּוֹת; שֵׁנִי לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי הַדִּין: בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה מְטַמָּא בַמַּשָּׂא, וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מְטַמָּא בַמַּשָּׂא; אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל טְהוֹרָה שֶׁבְּשָׂרָהּ אָסוּר לְהִתְבַּשֵּׁל בַּחֲלָבָהּ, יָכֹל אַף טְמֵאָה יְהֵי בְשָׂרָהּ אָסוּר לְהִתְבַּשֵּׁל בַּחֲלָבָהּ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ", וְלֹא בַּחֲלֵב טְמֵאָה, וְלֹא בַּחֲלֵב אָדָם.
R. Yoshiyah says: The first was stated first, and "firsts" are not expounded. Why is the second stated? A clean animal confers tumah (uncleanliness) by being carried, and an unclean animal confers tumah by being carried. If you have learned about a clean animal that it is forbidden to cook its flesh in its (mother's) milk, I might think that the same holds true for an unclean animal. It is, therefore, written "in the milk of its mother," and not in the milk of an unclean animal. The third: "in the milk of its mother," but not in human milk.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת? אַחַת לַבְּהֵמָה, וְאַחַת לַחַיָּה, וְאַחַת לָעוֹף.
R. Yonathan says: Why is it written in three places? Once for a beast, once for an animal, once for a bird.
אַבָּא חֲנִין אוֹמֵר מִשֵּׁם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת? אַחַת לִבְהֵמָה גַסָּה, וְאַחַת לְעִזִּים, וְאַחַת לִרְחֵלִים.
Abba Channan says in the name of R. Elazar: Why is it written in three places? Once for a large beast, once for goats, once for sheep.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר:*שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. בגניזה: שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת? אַחַת לִבְהֵמָה גַסָּה, וְאַחַת לִבְהֵמָה דַקָּה, וְאַחַת לְחַיָּה.
R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Why is it written in three places? Once for a large beast, once for a small beast, once for an animal.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר:*שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. בגניזה: שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת? אֶחָד לְבִשּׁוּל, אֶחָד לְאִסּוּר אֲכִילָה, אֶחָד לְאִסּוּר הֲנָיָה,
Variantly: Once to forbid eating, once to forbid derivation of benefit, once to forbid cooking.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ, אֶחָד בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ, אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת.
Variantly: whether in the land (Eretz Yisrael) or outside the land, once before the Temple (i.e., when it exists), once not before the Temple.
לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: "רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ", לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶלָּא בִזְמַן שֶׁהַבִּכּוּרִין נוֹהֲגִין, וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁהַבִּכּוּרִין נוֹהֲגִין, שָׁם בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב נוֹהֵג. בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין הַבִּכּוּרִין נוֹהֲגִין שָׁם, מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַבִּכּוּרִין נוֹהֲגִין שָׁם, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים יד,כא) "לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה... לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." מַה נְּבֵלָה נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, אַף בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב יְהֵי נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת.
Variantly: whether non-consecrated or consecrated (animals). Rebbi says: Because it is written (in the same context as meat and milk) "the first of the fruits of your land," I might think that only at the time that bikkurim obtain and only in the place that bikkurim obtain, only there does (the prohibition of) meat and milk obtain, but not otherwise; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 14:21) "You shall not eat all carrion (neveilah) … You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Just as (the prohibition of) carrion obtains both in the land and outside the land, both before the Temple and not before the Temple, so (the prohibition of) meat and milk.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת? פְּרָט לִבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, פְּרָט לַחַיָּה, פְּרָט לָעוֹפוֹת.
R. Akiva says: Why is it written in three places? To exclude an animal, to exclude an unclean beast, to exclude a bird.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (דברים יד,כא) "לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה", וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים יד,כא) "לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." אֶת שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִשֵּׁם נְבֵלָה, אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בֶּחָלָב, עוֹף שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִשֵּׁם נְבֵלָה, יָכֹל יְהֵי אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בֶּחָלָב? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." יָצָא עוֹף, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֲלֵב אֵם,
R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written "You shall not eat all carrion … You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." I might think that what is forbidden as carrion may not be cooked in milk, so that a bird which is forbidden as carrion, may not be cooked in milk. It is, therefore, written "in its mother's milk" — to exclude a bird, where "mother's milk" does not obtain.
יָצַאת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, אַחַת בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, אַחַת בְּמִיתָתָהּ.
("You shall not eat all carrion") to exclude (from being forbidden specifically as "carrion"), an unclean beast, which is one (i.e., forbidden) both in being slaughtered and in dying.
"לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בְּבִשּׁוּל. וּמְנַיִן שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה? אָמַרְתָּ קוֹל וָחֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה, אִם הַפֶּסַח, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ 'בַּל תְּבַשֵּׁל', יֵשׁ בּוֹ 'בַּל תֹּאכַל', בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ 'בַּל תְּבַשֵּׁל', דִּין הוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ 'בַּל תֹּאכַל'.
"You shall not cook": This tells me only that cooking it is forbidden. Whence to I derive (the same for) eating it? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the Pesach offering, which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so may they not be eaten!
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַפֶּסַח, שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ בְכָל דָּבָר, לְפִיכָךְ הוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, תֹּאמַר בְּבָשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּרוֹ בְּכָל דָּבָר, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יְהֵי אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה!
No, this may be true of the Pesach offering, which may not be cooked in any liquid — wherefore it may not be eaten. Would you say the same for meat and milk, which (meat) is not forbidden, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten?
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ! אִם גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ 'בַּל תְּבַשֵּׁל', יֵשׁ בּוֹ 'בַּל תֹּאכַל', בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ 'בַּל תְּבַשֵּׁל', דִּין הוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ 'בַּל תֹּאכַל'.
R. Akiva says: It need not be written (that eating meat and milk is forbidden), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh), which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, then meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so should it be forbidden to be eaten!
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה, שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ קוֹדֵם לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה, לְפִיכָךְ הוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, תֹּאמַר בְּבָשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּרוֹ קוֹדֵם לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יְהֵי אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה!
No, this may be true of the thigh sinew, which was forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it is forbidden to be eaten, as opposed to meat and milk, which was not forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten.
וַהֲרֵי נְבֵלָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּרָהּ קוֹדֵם לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה, הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה, הִיא תּוֹכִיחַ עַל בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּרוֹ קוֹדֵם לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה!
This is refuted by (the instance of) carrion, which, even though it was not forbidden before the giving of the Torah, is forbidden to be eaten.
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּנְּבֵלָה, שֶׁהִיא מְטַמָּא בַמַּשָּׂא, לְפִיכָךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה, תֹּאמַר בְּבָשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בַמַּשָּׂא, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יְהֵי אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
No, this may be true of carrion, which confers tumah by being carried, as opposed to meat and milk, which does not confer tumah by being carried!
וַהֲרֵי חֵלֶב וְדָם יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁאֵינָן מְטַמִּין בַּמַּשָּׂא, הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה, הֵם יוֹכִיחוּ עַל בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בַמַּשָּׂא, יְהֵי אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
This is refuted by the instance of fats and blood, which, though they do not confer tumah by being carried are forbidden to be eaten, so that meat and milk, likewise, though it does not confer tumah by being carried, should be forbidden to be eaten.
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְחֵלֶב וְדָם, שֶׁחַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת, לְפִיכָךְ הֵן אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה, תֹּאמַר בְּבָשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלָיו כָּרֵת, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יְהֵי אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (דברים יב,כד) "לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ". שׁוּב עוֹד (דברים יב,כה) "לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ", לְהָבִיא בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב שֶׁיְּהֵי אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
No, this (that they may not be eaten) may be true of fats and blood, which are liable to kareth, as opposed to meat and milk, which is not liable to kareth. It must, therefore, be written (Devarim 12:24) "You shall not eat it," to include meat and milk as forbidden to be eaten.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: (דברים יב,כג) "וְלֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר." לְהָבִיא בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב שֶׁיְּהֵי אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
Issi says (Ibid. 23) "You shall not eat the life with the flesh" — to include meat (cooked) in milk as forbidden to be eaten.
אִיסֵי בֶן גּוּר אַרְיֵה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּן קְדֻשָּׁה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן קְדֻשָּׁה; מַה קְּדֻשָּׁה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן, אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה, אַף קְדֻשָּׁה הָאֲמוּרָה כָּן תְּהֵי אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה.
Issi b. Guria says: "Holiness" is mentioned here (in respect to meat and milk [Devarim 14:21]), and "holiness" is mentioned elsewhere (Exodus 22:30) "And men of holiness shall you be unto Me, and flesh in the field, treifah (torn) you shall not eat." Just as there, eating is forbidden, so, here.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, וּמְנַיִן שֶׁאָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה? אָמַרְתָּ קוֹל וָחֹמֶר הוּא: מָה, אִם עָרְלָה, שֶׁלֹּא נֶעְבְּדָה בָהּ עֲבֵרָה,*נֶעְבְּדָה: נעשתה. הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה בַהֲנָיָה, וּבָשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁנֶּעְבְּדָה בוֹ עֲבֵרָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה.
This tells me only of the prohibition against eating. Whence do I derive the prohibition against the derivation of benefit? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from arlah (the fruit of trees of the first three years), with which no transgression has been done, how much more so from meat cooked in milk, with which a transgression (the cooking) has been done!
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בָּעָרְלָה, שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שָׁעַת הֶתֵּר, לְפִיכָךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה בַהֲנָיָה, תֹּאמַר בְּבָשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שָׁעַת הֶתֵּר, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה!
No, this may be true of arlah, which was never permitted, as opposed to meat and milk, which was permitted (before the cooking)!
וַהֲרֵי חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שָׁעַת הֶתֵּר, וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה, הוּא יוֹכִיחַ עַל בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שָׁעַת הֶתֵּר, יְהֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה.
This is refuted by chametz on Pesach, which was permitted (before Pesach) and from which benefit may not be derived.
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בֶּחָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, לְפִיכָךְ הוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה, תֹּאמַר בְּבָשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, לֹא יְהֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה!
No, this may be true of chametz on Pesach, which is liable to kareth (cutting-off), as opposed to (cooking) meat and milk, which is not liable to kareth.
וַהֲרֵי כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת, וַאֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה, הֵן יוֹכִיחוּ עַל בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, יְהֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה.
This is refuted by klai hakerem (forbidden hybridization of plants), which, though not liable to kareth is forbidden in the derivation of benefit.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: (דברים יד,כא) "אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי... לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל". גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתְּ מוֹכְרוֹ, לֹא תְּבַשְּׁלֶנּוּ וְתִמְכְּרֶנּוּ. הָא לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה.
Rebbi says: It is written (Devarim 14:21) "… or sell it to the gentile. You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Scripture hereby tells us: If you sell it, do not cook it and sell it — whence it is derived that it is forbidden in the derivation of benefit.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חֲלֵב אִמּוֹ, חֲלֵב אֲחוֹתוֹ, מְנַיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קוֹל וָחֹמֶר הוּא: מָה, אִם אִמּוֹ, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִכְנֶסֶת עִמּוֹ לַדֵּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר,*אִמּוֹ, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִכְנֶסֶת. בכ"י אוקספורד: שנכנסת. אָסוּר לְהִתְבַּשֵּׁל בַּחֲלָבָהּ, אֲחוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנִּכְנֶסֶת עִמּוֹ לַדֵּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר,*אֲחוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנִּכְנֶסֶת. בכ"י אוקספורד: שאינה נכנסת. דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי אָסוּר לְהִתְבַּשֵּׁל בַּחֲלָבָהּ.
"You shall not cook a kid, etc.": This tells me only of its mother's milk. Whence do I derive (the same for) its older sister's milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to cook it in the milk of its mother, who does not enter the shed alone with it to be tithed, how much more so is it forbidden in the milk of its sister, who does enter the shed along with it to be tithed!
וַחֲלֵב עַצְמָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ, מְנַיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קוֹל וָחֹמֶר הוּא: מָה, אִם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִתִּיר פְּרִי עִם פְּרִי, אָסַר פְּרִי עִם הָאֵם, וְכָן, שֶׁאָסַר פְּרִי עִם פְּרִי, דִּין הוּא שֶׁנֹּאסַר אֵם עִם פְּרִי.
Whence is (the same derived for cooking) its flesh in its own milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If re shechitah (slaughtering), where "fruit" with "fruit" is permitted (i.e., it is permitted to slaughter two siblings on the same day), "fruit" (child) with mother is forbidden, then here (re cooking) where "fruit" (child) with "fruit" (milk) is forbidden, how much more so is it forbidden to cook "fruit" (milk) with mother! " so here (these are intended).
וַחֲלֵב עִזִּים בִּרְחֵלִים, מְנַיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחֹמֶר: וּמָה, אִם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִתִּיר פְּרִי עִם פְּרִי בִּרְבִיעָה, אָסַר פְּרִי עִם הָאֵם, וְכָן שֶׁאָסַר פְּרִי עִם פְּרִי בִּרְבִיעָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁנֹּאסַר אֵם עִם פְּרִי.
Whence is (the same derived for cooking) the milk of goats with sheep? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in reviah (mating of animals) where the Torah permitted "fruit" with mother (in cooking) it forbade "fruit" with (milk of) mother, then here where in reviah it forbade "fruit with fruit" (i.e., mating goat and sheep), how much more so does it forbid (in cooking) "fruit" with (milk of) mother!
הוּא הַדִּין אַף לַבָּקָר.
And this is, likewise, the halachah for cattle.
מִפְּנֵי מָה דִבֶּר הַכָּתוּב בִּגְדִי? שֶׁהֶחָלָב מְרֻבֶּה בְּאִמּוֹ.
Why, then, does Scripture speak (specifically) of a goat? Because a mother goat has a plentiful supply of milk.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "אִמּוֹ", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (ויקרא כב,כז) "אִמּוֹ". מָה "אִמּוֹ" הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן, בְּשׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַף "אִמּוֹ" הָאֲמוּרָה כָּן, בְּשׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Rebbi says: It is written here "its mother," and elsewhere (Leviticus 22:27) "its mother." Just as there Scripture writes "ox, sheep, or goat, so here (these are intended).
"לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב אַתְּ אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל, לֹא כָל שְׁאָר כָּל הָאִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. וְהָיָה בַדִּין: מָה, אִם בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב, שֶׁזֶּה מֻתָּר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה מֻתָּר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרִין בְּבִשּׁוּל, וּשְׁאָר כָּל הָאִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁזֶּה אָסוּר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה אָסוּר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהוּ אֲסוּרִין בְּבִשּׁוּל? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ", בָּשָׂר בֶּחָלָב אַתְּ אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל, וְלֹא שְׁאָר כָּל הָאִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
"You shall not cook a goat in its mother's milk": It is only meat and milk that you are forbidden to cook together and not other forbidden things. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If it is forbidden to cook together meat and milk, each of which, in itself, is permitted, how much more so the other forbidden things in the Torah, each of which, in itself, is forbidden! It is, therefore, written (to indicate otherwise) "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" (—that, specifically).
"לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּחֻלִּין, בַּמֻּקְדָּשִׁין מְנַיִן? אָמַרְתָּ, קוֹל וָחֹמֶר הוּא: אִם נֶאֱסֹר בַּחֻלִּין, לֹא נֶאֱסֹר בַּמֻּקְדָּשִׁין? לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּחֻלִּין, שֶׁכֵּן אָסַר מְלוּקָה בַּחֻלִּין,*מְלוּקָה: צפור שהומתה כמו במקדש, על ידי מליקה, כריתת ראשה בצפורן מצד העורף, ולא בשחיטת הקנה. תֹּאמַר בַּמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, שֶׁלֹּא אָסַר מְלוּקָה בַּמֻּקְדָּשִׁין! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "בֵּית יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ." חַסְלַת מַסֶּכֶת אִם כֶּסֶף.
This tells me only of non-consecrated food (as being thus forbidden). Whence do I derive (the same for) consecrated food? How can you ask? If it is forbidden with non-consecrated food, would it not (certainly) be forbidden with consecrated food? — No, it may be so with non-consecrated food, where melikah (pinching a bird's neck to slaughter it) is forbidden, as opposed to consecrated food, where melikah is not forbidden. It is, therefore, written ([in juxtaposition] Exodus 34:26) "… the house of the L–rd your G–d. You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Thus far the section of judgments.