Study Chullin folio 104B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
may be eaten with a non-priest present at the same table. The rabbis 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 rabbis do not issue one decree to prevent viol
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, your inference would be valid if the Mishnah 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 a
But the Mishnah 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 o
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 prohibit
The Talmud 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