Meilah 31

לא שנו אלא לענין טומאה אבל לענין אכילה טהורין בפני עצמן וטמאים בפני עצמן

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the first clause.');">¹</span>

ולוי אמר

has been taught only with reference to defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XI, 39. An olive's bulk conveys uncleanness.');">²</span>

אפילו לאכילה נמי מצטרפין

but with regard to eating, clean animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, if they died of themselves, or if slaughtered not according to ritual, are prohibited as nebelah, v. Deut. XIV, 21.');">³</span>

ורב אסי אמר

form one group for themselves and unclean animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which even if not slaughtered according to ritual are prohibited only by reason of their uncleanness, v. Lev. XI, 8, but do not come under the category of nebelah, according to the principle that a prohibition cannot take hold of something which has already been forbidden.');">⁴</span>

טהורים לעצמן וטמאין לעצמן

another.

איכא דאמרי

And Levi said: Also in regard to eating do they all combine with one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He holds that unclean animals not slaughtered according to ritual do come under the category of nebelah.');">⁵</span>

פליגא אדרב ואיכא דאמרי

And R'Assi said: Clean animals for themselves and unclean for themselves.

לא פליגא

Some say he differs from Rab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is assumed to relate also to defilement.');">⁶</span>

מיתיבי

while others say he does not differ from him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But refers to eating only.');">⁷</span>

מיתת פרה וחיי גמל אין מצטרפין זה עם זה הא מיתת שניהם מצטרפין וקשיא לרב אסי

An objection was raised: [The flesh of] a dead cow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the nebelah of a clean animal.');">⁸</span>

אימא

and a living camel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cut off while the camel was alive. A camel is an unclean animal.');">⁹</span>

הא חיי שניהם מצטרפין ומני רבי יהודה היא דאמר

cannot combine with one another, from which it follows that if both, however, were dead their flesh would combine.

אבר מן החי נוהג בטמאה

Does this not contradict R'Assi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first explanation of R. Assi's statement, Rashi: Rab is not contradicted as this statement might refer to defilement.');">¹⁰</span>

אבל מיתת שניהם מאי

- No, refer thus: But if both were alive they could combine; and this would be in agreement with R'Judah's view who holds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 101b.');">¹¹</span>

לא מצטרפי א"כ מאי איריא דרהיט ותני מיתת פרה וחיי גמל הא אפילו מיתת שניהם לא מצטרפי

that the prohibition to eat a limb [cut off] from a living creature<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen.IX, 4.');">¹²</span>

ועוד תניא

applies also to unclean animals.

חצי זית פרה בחייה וחצי זית גמל במיתתה אין מצטרפין אבל חצי זית מפרה וחצי זית מגמל בין בחייה בין במיתתה מצטרפין

But what would be the case if both were dead?

קשיא רישא אסיפא

Could they not combine?

אלא לאו שמע מינה

If so, why just instance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what was (the idea) that he rushed and instanced . .'.');">¹³</span>

מיתת שניהם מצטרפין

'the flesh of a dead cow and a living camel',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the concluding clause of the previous statement.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר לך רב אסי

surely even if both were dead they could not combine?

האי תנא סבר איסור חל על איסור

And furthermore, have we not learnt: 'Half an olive size [of the flesh] of a living cow and half an olive-size of th of a dead camel cannot combine with one another, but half an olive size of the flesh of a cow and half an olive-size of that of a camel can combine with one another if both are alive or both dead'. There would be a contradiction between the opening clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If your inference be right.');">¹⁵</span> and the concluding. You must therefore come to the conclusion that in the case of both animals being dead they can combine with one another!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contradicting R. Assi.');">¹⁶</span> - R'Assi would reply: This Tanna holds that a prohibition can apply to something that has been prohibited already by reason of another prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While his statement is following the view that such a prohibition cannot take effect.');">¹⁷</span>