Chullin 226:1

כאן גדי עזים הא כל מקום שנאמר גדי סתם אפילו פרה ורחל במשמע

here it was a 'kid of the goats', but elsewhere, wherever 'kid' is stated, it includes [the young of] the cow an the ewe.

ולילף מיניה

And might we not derive the rule from that?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That wherever 'kid' is mentioned it means the kid of the goats as in the verse quoted.');">¹</span>

כתיב קרא אחרינא (בראשית כז, טז) ואת עורות גדיי העזים כאן גדיי העזים הא כל מקום שנאמר גדי סתם אפילו פרה ורחל במשמע

- There is another verse which says: The skins of the kids of the goats;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXVII, 16.');">²</span>

ולילף מיניה

here it was 'kids of the goats', but elsewhere, wherever 'kid' is stated, it includes [the young of] the cow and the ewe.

הוו להו שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

And might we not derive the rule from the latter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That wherever 'kid' is mentioned it means the kid of the goats as in the verse quoted.');">¹</span>

הניחא למ"ד אין מלמדין אלא למ"ד מלמדין מאי איכא למימר

- [No, because] we have here two verses which teach the same thing, and one may not draw any conclusions from two verses which teach the same thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 61b.');">³</span>

תרי מיעוטי כתיבי עזים העזים

This is well according to him who maintains that one may not draw conclusions from such verses, but what can be said according to him who maintains that one may draw conclusions from such verses? - There are here two limiting particles: 'goats', 'the goats'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The definite article I added to the word 'goats' in each of the above verses is superfluous and is interpreted as a limitation; thus in these two cases the term 'kid' means a goat, but elsewhere 'kid' means the young of any clean animal.');">⁴</span>

אמר שמואל

Samuel said: 'Kid' includes the forbidden fat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a man cooked the forbidden fat of an animal, or a piece of nebelah, in milk and ate it, he would be liable twice: for eating forbidden fat or nebelah, and for eating flesh cooked in milk. The special point of this statement of Samuel is that the prohibition of 'flesh in milk' can be superimposed upon the existing prohibition of forbidden fat or nebelah. V. infra.');">⁵</span>

גדי לרבות את החלב גדי לרבות את המתה גדי לרבות את השליל גדי להוציא את הדם גדי להוציא את השליא גדי להוציא את הטמאה

'kid' includes that which died of itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 622, n. 10.');">⁶</span>

בחלב אמו ולא בחלב זכר בחלב אמו ולא בחלב שחוטה בחלב אמו ולא בחלב טמאה

'kid' includes the foetus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh of a foetus is accounted as the flesh of an ordinary animal and the prohibition of 'flesh in milk' applies to it.');">⁷</span>

הא תלתא גדי כתיבי ואנן שיתא דרשינן

'Kid' excludes the blood; 'kid' excludes the afterbirth; 'kid' excludes the unclean animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a man cooked blood or the afterbirth of an animal or a piece of an unclean animal in milk and ate it he would not be liable for eating flesh cooked in milk. Of course he would be liable for eating blood, or for eating of an unclean animal.');">⁸</span>

קסבר שמואל

'In its mother's milk', and not in the milk of a male;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it so happened that a male had milk.');">⁹</span>

איסור חל על איסור ואיסור חלב ומתה מחד קרא נפקי דם נמי לאו גדי הוא ושליא נמי פירשא בעלמא הוא

'in its mother's milk', and not in the milk of a slaughtered animal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The milk extracted from a slaughtered animal cannot be said to be 'mother's milk', for the slaughtered animal can no more be a 'mother'.');">¹⁰</span>

פשו להו תרי חד לרבות את השליל וחד למעוטי בהמה טמאה וסבר שמואל איסור חל על איסור

'in its mother's milk' and not in the milk of an unclean animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only the milk of that species of animal is prohibited whose flesh would be included under the term 'kid', and since unclean animals are expressly precluded by the term 'kid', their milk is also excluded from the prohibition.');">¹¹</span>

והאמר שמואל משום ר' אלעזר

But is not the term 'kid' written only three times,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 621, n. 5.');">¹²</span>

מנין לכהן טמא שאכל תרומה טמאה שאינו במיתה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, ט) ומתו בו כי יחללוהו פרט לזו שמחוללת ועומדת

yet we give six interpretations to it! - Samuel holds the view that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition, so that the application of the prohibition [of 'flesh in milk'] to forbidden fat and also to that which died of itself is derived from one verse;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from that verse which is required for the general statement of the law. See, however, Rashi who emends the text by omitting 'Samuel is of the view . . existing prohibition'; for, according to Rashi, Samuel's view as stated is the result of the interpretation here, and not the cause and reason of this interpretation.');">¹³</span>

איבעית אימא

blood [is excluded because] it does not come under the term 'kid';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not require any expression of the verse to exclude it.');">¹⁴</span>

בעלמא איסור חל על איסור ושאני התם דמיעט רחמנא ומתו בו

the afterbirth also because it is a mere excretion;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not require any expression of the verse to exclude it.');">¹⁴</span>

איבעית אימא

two verses now remain, one to include the foetus and the other to exclude an unclean animal.

בעלמא קסבר שמואל אין איסור חל על איסור ושאני הכא דרבי רחמנא גדי

Does Samuel then hold that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition?

ואיבעית אימא

Surely Samuel has said in the name of R'Eliezer: Whence do we know that if a priest who was unclean ate unclean terumah he would not be liable to death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Death by the hands of Heaven; v. Sanh. 83a.');">¹⁵</span>

הא דידיה הא דרביה

From the verse: And die therein if they profane it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 9.');">¹⁶</span>

בעא מיניה רב אחדבוי בר אמי מרב

thus excluding this [unclean terumah], since it already stands profaned!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unclean terumah is already subject to one prohibition viz., a priest may not eat thereof, and a second prohibition arising by reason of the priest's uncleanness cannot be superimposed.');">¹⁷</span>

המבשל בחלב גדי שלא הניקה מהו

- You may say, if you will, that in all cases a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition, but it is different there for the Divine Law expressly disallowed it by the expression 'And die therein if they profane it'.

א"ל

Or you may say, if you will, that in all cases Samuel is of the opinion that a prohibition cannot be superimposed upon an existing prohibition, but it is different here for the Divine Law expressly allowed it by the expression 'kid'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes the forbidden fat and the animal that died of itself; hence in this case the Torah expressly sanctioned one prohibition to be superimposed upon an already existing prohibition.');">¹⁸</span>

מדאיצטריכא לשמואל למימר בחלב אמו ולא בחלב זכר זכר הוא דלא אתי לכלל אם אבל האי כיון דבא לכלל אם אסור

Or further you may also say, if you will, the one is his own opinion, the other is the opinion of his teacher.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Eliezer, in whose name Samuel had reported the above ruling. He maintains that a prohibition cannot be superimposed upon an existing prohibition. This is not to imply that R. Eliezer was the teacher of Samuel (Rashi) .');">¹⁹</span>

אתמר המבשל חלב בחלב רבי אמי ורבי אסי חד אמר

R'Ahadboi B'Ammi enquired of Raba: What is the law if one cooked [flesh] in the milk of a she-goat that had not given suck?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., had not yet brought forth young. Does 'mother' in the text mean an animal that has brought forth young or not?');">²⁰</span>

לוקה וחד אמר

- He replied: Since it was necessary for Samuel to state, the expression 'in its mother's milk', and not in the milk of a male, [it is clear that] only a male [is excluded] for it cannot become mother, but [in the milk of] this [she-goat], since it can become a mother, it is forbidden.

אינו לוקה

It was stated: [In the case where] a man cooked forbidden fat in milk, [there is a dispute between] R'Ammi and R'Assi: one says: He incurs stripes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably if he ate it, for he has thereby transgressed the prohibition of 'flesh in milk'. The penalty for eating forbidden fat does not enter into consideration here.');">²¹</span>

לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמ"ד לוקה קסבר

the other says: He does not incur stripes.

איסור חל על איסור ומאן דאמר אינו לוקה קסבר

Shall we say that they differ in this: he who says he incurs stripes maintains that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition, and he who says he does not incur stripes maintains that a prohibition cannot be superimposed upon an existing prohibition? - No.

אין איסור חל על איסור

All agree that a prohibition cannot be superimposed upon an existing prohibition; and [consequently] there is no dispute at all that for eating this he does not incur stripes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the prohibition of 'flesh in milk' cannot be superimposed upon the existing prohibition of forbidden fat.');">²²</span>

לא דכ"ע אין איסור חל על איסור אאכילה דכ"ע לא פליגי דלא לקי כי פליגי אבשול מ"ד לוקה חד איסורא הוא

They differ only with regard to the cooking thereof: he who says he incurs stripes argues that there is only one prohibition here;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., for cooking flesh in milk. The prohibition of forbidden fat is only in respect of the eating thereof.');">²³</span>

ומ"ד אינו לוקה להכי אפקה רחמנא לאכילה בלשון בישול

and he who says he does not incur stripes argues that for this very reason did the Divine Law express the prohibition of eating by the term 'cooking',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Torah has in every instance expressed the prohibition of eating 'flesh in milk' by the words: Thou shalt not seethe a kid etc.');">²⁴</span> [to signify that]