驳那一推:三年果禁 怎能与奶里煮的肉相比?三年果禁 更重——它从来不曾有过合用之时;奶里煮的肉却曾有合用之时(肉与奶各自本是许的,同煮才禁)。革玛拉遂另举:那么拿逾越节的酵物来证罢——它节前本是合用的,却仍不可得益处。
-
革玛拉驳那一推:三年果禁 怎能与奶里煮的肉相比呢?三年果禁 是更重的——它从来不曾有过合用之时。
The Gemara rejects this inference: What comparison can be made to orla, which is more stringent than meat in milk, as it never had a time when it was fit?
-
奶里煮的肉你能这样说么?那是曾有过合用之时的。
Can you say the same with regard to meat in milk, which had a time when it was fit?
-
三年果禁 的果子从一有便是禁的;肉与奶在同煮之先,各自本是许的。
Unlike orla fruits, which were prohibited from the beginning of their existence, both meat and milk were permitted on their own before they were cooked together.
-
故革玛拉另举一证:那么拿逾越节的酵物来证罢——可见这一层不是关键,因那酵物在逾越节以前本是合用的,却仍不可从它得益处。
Therefore, the Gemara brings other proofs: Let leavened bread on Passover prove that this issue is not a factor, as it had a time when it was fit, before Passover, and yet it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.