1)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who cooks ...

1. ... meat in whey (a by-product of milk) ...

2. ... meat in blood or ...

3. ... bones, Gidin, horns or hooves in milk - is Patur.

(b)The reason for these rulings is - either because they are not considered Chalav and G'di, respectively.

(c)On the other hand, the Tana rules that - one is Chayav for eating Pigul, Nosar and Tamei that were cooked in milk (even though one is Chayav for eating Pigul, Nosar and Tamei anyway).

(d)To reconcile Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi, who, we just concluded hold Ein Isur Chal al Isur, we will establish the Beraisa like those Tana'im who hold Isur Chal al Isur', whereas they follow the opinion of the Tana'aim who hold Ein Isur Chal al Isur.

2)

(a)We just cited the Beraisa which exempts someone who cooks meat in whey, which in fact, supports a statement of Resh Lakish, in connection with the Mishnah in Machshirin, which states that - Mei Chalav is considered milk, and that Mochel (the juice that seeps out of olives) is considered oil.

(b)Resh Lakish qualifies this Mishnah, confining Mei Chalav to the Din of Machshir Zera'im (rendering seeds ready to receive Tum'ah). It is not considered milk however - regarding Basar be'Chalav.

3)

(a)Taking the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " literally (see also Tosfos DH 'ba'Chaleiv Parah'), the Beraisa initially learns the prohibition of cooking a piece of kid-goat in the milk of a cow and a sheep - from a Kal va'Chomer from its mother (the goat), with which it is not prohibited to interbreed, then how much more so other animals, with which interbreeding is prohibited

(b)The Tana then learns the same thing from the second "ba'Chaleiv Imo" (in Ki Sissa, the initial Pasuk is in Mishpatim).

(c)Granted, Shmuel did need all three Pesukim (of "ba'Chaleiv Imo" [the third Pasuk is in Re'ei]) to preclude the milk of a Zachar, a Shechutah and a Temei'ah). The Tana however, learns all three Halachos by implication from the first Pasuk).

(d)And from the extra "G'di" the Tana includes Basar Chayah ve'Of in the prohibition. We reconcile this with Rebbi Akiva, who precludes Basar Chayah ve'Of from the very same words - by restricting R. Akiva to the opinion that incorporates claves and lambs in the word "G'di".

(e)The third "G'di" comes to preclude Basar Beheimah Temei'ah, and our Tana learns that Basar Sh'lil is automatically included in the Isur - because Rebbi Akiva considers a Sh'lil an animal (as we will see shortly).

4)

(a)To explain why the Tana retracts from the initial Kal va'Chomer, Rav Ashi cites a Pircha on the Kal-va'Chomer me'Ikra de'Dina (from a goat to other animals), as a result of which we are forced to learn them from "Imo". Me'Ikra de'Dina means - from the opening part of the Kal-va'Chomer Mah Imo she'Lo Ne'esrah Imo be'Harva'ah.

(b)Rav Ashi's Pircha is - the fact that "Imo" possesses a Chumra that does not exist by other animals - namely, that it cannot be Shechted on the same day as the kid-goat, whereas other animals can.

5)

(a)Another Beraisa tries to learn that one is Chayav for cooking the G'di in the milk of its big sister - a cow, from a Kal-va'Chomer from the milk of its mother (only it subsequently learns it from "ba'Chaleiv Imo", just like the previous Tana did).

(b)The Kal-va'Chomer is that - if the kid-goat may not be cooked in the milk of a goat which enters into the pen to be Ma'asered together with it, then how much more so may it not be cooked together with a cow, which does not.

(c)It is possible for the kid's mother to enter the pen together with it to be Ma'asered - bearing in mind that a goat can give birth within a year of being born.

6)

(a)The Tana then goes on to learn the G'di's little sister - a lamb, from its mother and its big sister.

(b)He does not learn it from ...

1. ... its mother (on her own) - because a goat is different, inasmuch as it may not be Shechted on the same day as the kid (whereas a lamb may).

2. ... big sister (on its own) - because a cow is different, inasmuch as it cannot enter the pen to be Ma'asered together with the kid whereas a lamb can).

(c)He therefore learn it - from a combination from the kid's mother and its big sister.

7)

(a)When we then ask, in that case, why we cannot also learn its big sister from a combination, we mean that - we can learn the prohibition of a kid in cow's milk from a combination of a kid in goat's milk and a kid in sheep's milk.

(b)We first learn from its mother, which enters the pen together with it to be Ma'asered, how much more so its big sister, which does not. When we ask that its mother is different, because it is forbidden to Shecht it on the same day, we answer by referring to its little sister, which is not. And there is nothing more to ask, since its little sister enters the pen together with it to be Ma'asered, just like its mother does.

(c)We know that lambs and kid-goats are placed in the same pen to be Ma'asered - from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Ma'asar Bakar va'Tzon ... ", because "Tzon incorporates sheep and goats.

(d)We initially conclude that - this is indeed the case (and we do learn big sister from the combination of mother and little sister).

8)

(a)The current explanation is flawed however, in that we cannot possibly learn the big sister from the litle sister - since we have no independent source for the little sister, only a Binyan Av, which we learn partially from its big sister.

(b)Neither can the Tana mean to say that we learn the little sister from "ba'Chaleiv Imo" and the big sister from the little sister - because it is obvious that we learn the Isur of cooking in its milk with regard to the more stringent of the two (the cow which, cannot be Ma'asered together with it); and besides, what do we then mean when we ask Ela ba'Chaleiv Imo Lamah li?

(c)We therefore reinterpret big sister to mean a big goat that has already been Ma'asered. We cannot learn it from the first "ba'Chaleiv Imo", from which we learn the milk of a cow and a sheep (like the previous Beraisa) - because it is not forbidden to interbreed, like they are.

(d)And when we ask I Hachi, Achoso Gedolah Nami Teisi mi'Beinaihu, we mean that - just as we learn its little sister (which has not yet been Ma'asered) from a combination of its mother and its big sister, why should we not also learn its big sister from a combination of its mother (which is forbidden to Shecht on the same day, but not to interbreed with it, and from a cow, which is forbidden to interbreed with it, but not to Shecht on the same day as it).

9)

(a)When we now ask Ela "ba'Chaleiv Imo" Lamah li?, we are referring to the third Pasuk. We learned from ...

1. ... the first "ba'Chaleiv Imo" - the basic Halachah.

2. ... the second "ba'Chaleiv Imo" - the prohibition of cooking a kid in the milk of a cow (ve'Lo ba'Chaleiv Parah).

(b)And we cite a Beraisa which learns from the third Pasuk the Isur of cooking the kid-goat in its own milk. Initially, the Tana tries to learn this from a Kal va'Chomer. When he says ...

1. ... she'Lo Ne'esar P'ri im P'ri bi'Shechitah, he means that - there is no prohibition to Shecht two sibling calves on the same day.

2. ... Ne'esar P'ri im ha'Eim bi'Shechitah, he means that - on the other hand, there is an Isur to Shecht a mother and its baby on the same day.

(c)And when he says ...

1. ... Makom she'Ne'esar P'ri im P'ri be'Bishul, he means that - where there is an Isur to cook a kid together with its mother's milk.

2. ... Eino Din she'Ne'esar P'ri im ha'Eim be'Bishul - it should certainly be forbidden to cook a kid in its own milk.

(d)The very fact that we need a Pasuk to forbid the kid in its own milk proves - that our final interpretation of Achoso is the correct one, because if the kid itself requires a Pasuk to be incorporated in the prohibition, so too, does its sister.

10)

(a)Rav Achdevui bar Ami tries to ascribe the Tana's refutation of the Kal-va'Chomer (in favor of the Pasuk) to the Pircha Sus ben Susya Achi Pirda Yochi'ach, meaning that - in the case of a horse whose mother is a horse and whose father is a donkey, and who has a sister that is a mule, one is permitted to breed it with its mother, even though breeding with its sister is forbidden ...

(b)... in which case, by the same token, cooking the kid-goat in its own milk ought to be permitted too).

(c)Rav Achdevui bar Ami does not mention that the Pircha is me'Ikra de'Dina (like Rav Ashi did earlier) - because his Pircha is based on the second stage of the Kal-va'Chomer (Ne'esar P'ri im ha'Eim bi'Shechitah ... ) and not from the initial one'.

(d)We reject this Pircha however, because of Pered ben Susya Achi Pirdah - where the mule is permitted with its sister, but forbidden with its mother (thereby reinforcing the Kal-va'Chomer) ...

(e)... a proof that the Isur in the previous case is not due to P'ri im P'ri, but because of the seed of the father (which is not pertinent in our case, where the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother's milk has nothing to do with the father.

11)

(a)Mar b'rei de'Ravina therefore presents the Pircha with regard to the case of an Eved, the son of a Shifchah, whose sister is a Shifchah Meshuchreres (who has been set free), and whose mother is a Shifchah, in which case - he is forbidden to marry his sister, even though he is permitted to his mother.

(b)We refute this Pircha too however based on the fact that - the Isur to marry his sister is based on the fact that she is Meshuchreres, and not on the fact that it is P'ri im P'ri ...

(c)... as is evident from the case of an Eved whose mother is a Shifchah Meshuchreres and whose sister, a Shifchah, to whom he is permitted, even though he is forbidden to his mother.

12)

(a)To explain the Pircha, Rav Idi bar Avin then cites K'lai Zera'im - the prohibition of planting wheat together with lentils, for example.

(b)When we say that P'ri im P'ri is forbidden, but P'ri im ha'Eim is permitted, in that context we mean that - one is forbidden to plant the two species together, even though planting either species in the earth [with reference to Eim]) is permitted.

(c)We refute the Pircha however - by virtue of the fact that in any event, it is the earth which causes the Isur, which is not the case by Basar be'Chalav.

(d)And this explanation is evident from the fact that - if one were to place the two species in the same jar, they would not be forbidden.

(e)Rav Ashi finally presents the Pircha on the Kal-va'Chomer, in that We cannot learn the prohibition of cooking P'ri im Imo from P'ri im P'ri - because, unlike P'ri im P'ri, which are two separate entities, P'ri im Imo were originally part of one body. Consequently, if not for the Pasuk "ba'Chaleiv Imo", one would be permitted to cook them together (in spite of the Kal va'Chomer).

13)

(a)Rav Ashi learns from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sochal Kol To'eivah" - the principle Kol she'Ti'avti l'cha, harei Hu be'Bal Tochal. Consequently, since the Torah has forbidden cooking meat together with milk, such a mixture becomes forbidden to eat.

(b)And he learns the Isur of Hana'ah based on a principle of Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Elazar, who learns that - wherever the Torah writes "Lo Yochal", "Lo Sochal" or "Lo Sochlu", it incorporates an Isur Hana'ah.

(c)Consequently, Basar be'Chalav too, will be Asur be'Hanah - since the Pasuk that Rav Ashi just quoted uses the words "Lo Sochal".

14)

(a)And the reason that some Isurin (such as that of Neveilah) are not Asur be'Hana'ah, in spite of the Torah's use of the word "Lo Sochal ... ", is - because the Torah specifically permits them, as we will now see).

(b)In the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Neveilah) "la'Ger asher bi'She'arecha Titnenah ... O Machor le'Nochri" - Ger refers to a Ger Toshav, who observes the seven Mitzvos b'nei No'ach but who eats Neveilah.

(c)The Torah gives him precedence - because it is a Mitzvah to sustain him (as the Torah teaches in B'har).

(d)Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, learns from the juxtaposition of "Titnenah" to ...

1. ... "O Machor" that - one may also sell Neveilah to a Ger.

2. ... "va'Achalah" to "O Machor la'Nochri" that - one may also give it to a Nochri.

(e)Had the Torah meant what it wrote literally - it ought to have inverted the order of the words, and placed "Titnenah ve'Achalah" before "la'Ger asher bi'She'arecha".

15)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah - Devarim ki'Chesavan (The Torah's words must be taken literally).

(b)Had the Torah meant to include giving Neveilah to a Nochri and selling it to a Ger, it ought to have written "Titnenah va'Achalah u'Machor le'Nochri" (with a 'Vav', rather than the word "O").

(c)Rebbi Meir counters that - the Torah needs to write "O", to give precedence to giving to a Ger over selling to a Nochri.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah finds this unnecessary however - because, seeing as it is a Mitzvah to sustain a Ger Toshav, it goes without saying that his needs take precedence over those of a Nochri (even though it means a loss of pocket for the owner).