Avodah Zarah, Daf Kaf Vav, Part 2
Introduction
Today s section discusses the prohibition of nursing each other s children.
בת ישראל לא תניק
תנו רבנן בת ישראל לא תניק בנה של נכרית מפני שמגדלת בן לעבודה זרה ונכרית לא תניק את בנה של בת ישראל מפני שחשודה על שפיכות דמים דברי רבי מאיר
וחכמים אומרים נכרית מניקה את בנה של בת ישראל בזמן שאחרות עומדות על גבה אבל לא בינו לבינה
An Israelite woman should not nurse etc.
Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite woman should not nurse the child of an idolater, because she is raising a child for idolatry; nor should an idolatrous woman nurse a child of an Israelite woman, because she is liable to murder it, the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: An idolatrous may nurse a child of an Israelite woman, so long as there are others standing by her, but not if she is on her own.
This baraita is the same as that which we saw yesterday concerning midwifery.
ורבי מאיר אומר אפילו אחרות עומדות על גבה נמי לא דזימנין דשייפא ליה סמא לדד מאבראי וקטלא ליה
R. Meir says: Even if others are standing by her [it is still prohibited] for she may take the opportunity to rubbing in poison on her breast beforehand and so kill the child.
R. Meir does not allow the non-Jew to nurse the Jewish child even if others are watching because she still may find the opportunity to kill the child.
וצריכא דאי אשמעינן מילדת בההיא קאמרי רבנן דשרי דלא אפשר משום דאחרות רואות אותה אבל מניקה דאפשר דשייפא ליה סם לדד מאבראי וקטלא ליה אימא מודי ליה לרבי מאיר
And both cases are necessary; for if we were told about a midwife only [we might have thought that] only in that case do the Sages permit for others see her, but in the case of nursing, where it is possible for her to apply poison to the breast beforehand and kill the child, they might agree with R. Meir.
The Talmud now explains why we need both baraitot. If we only had the source about the prohibition of midwifery, we might have thought that the rabbis agree with R. Meir that it is prohibited for a non-Jewish woman to nurse a Jewish child, because she might be able to surreptitiously kill the child. The sages would permit midwifery because it is easier to supervise.
ואי אשמעינן מניקה בההיא קאמר רבי מאיר דאסור משום דשייפא ליה סם לדד מאבראי וקטלא ליה אבל מילדת דלא אפשר היכא דאחרות עומדות על גבה אימא מודי להו לרבנן צריכא
If [on the other hand] we were told only about nursing, [we might have thought that] only in that case does R. Meir forbid, because she could kill the child by applying poison to her breast beforehand, but in the case of a midwife, where she could do no harm while others are standing by her, he might agree with the Rabbis; [hence both are] necessary.
This is the flipside of the argument. If we only had the case of the nursing, we might have thought that R. Meir prohibited in that case because she could surreptitiously murder the child but that he would agree with the rabbis that she could serve as a midwife because she could be supervised.
Therefore we need both cases to know that R. Meir and the sages consistently disagree.