What is including in the prohibition of milk and meat? Is eating birds (chicken) also forbidden from the Torah? If one vows not to eat meat, what is including in that category? Can one infer from the mishna is chicken is also forbidden to be eaten with milk from the Torah or only from the rabbis? Do we always hold that one doesn’t make a decree to prevent violating another decree? The gemara starts to discuss waiting between milk and meat/meat and milk – what needs to be done in order to prevent eating them together?
Chullin 104
March 11, 2019 | ד׳ באדר ב׳ תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 104
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?
§ The 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.
§ The 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]?
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
Chullin 104
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?
§ The 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.
§ The 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]?
Follow
