מעילה 16 — parallel

16:1

This has been taught only with reference to defilement, but with regard to eating, clean animals form one group for themselves and unclean animals another. And Levi said: Also in regard to eating do they all combine with one another. And R. Assi said: Clean animals for themselves and unclean for themselves. Some say he differs from Rab, while others say he does not differ from him. An objection was raised: [The flesh of] a dead cow and a living camel cannot combine with one another, from which it follows that if both, however, were dead their flesh would combine. Does this not contradict R. Assi? — No, refer thus: But if both were alive they could combine; and this would be in agreement with R. Judah's view who holds that the prohibition to eat a limb [cut off] from a living creature applies also to unclean animals. But what would be the case if both were dead? Could they not combine? If so, why just instance ‘the flesh of a dead cow and a living camel’, surely even if both were dead they could not combine? And furthermore, have we not learnt: ‘Half an olive size [of the flesh] of a living cow and half an olive-size of that 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 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! — R. Assi would reply: This Tanna holds that a prohibition can apply to something that has been prohibited already by reason of another prohibition. 17

—

16:2

Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: As to the eating of unclean reptiles, one is liable to the penalty of lashes only when one has consumed an olive-size. Why? Because the expression ‘eating’ is used in that connection. But did not R. Jose son of R. Hanina recite before R. Johanan: [It is written]: Ye shall therefore separate between the clean beast and the unclean and between the unclean fowl and the clean and ye shall not make your souls detestable by beast or by fowl or by anything wherewith the ground teemeth, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. Scripture speaks at the be ginning of eating and ends with defilement, in order to indicate that as with reference to defilement the lentil is the standard size so also with regard to eating. Whereupon R. Johanan praised him. Now, does this not contradict Rab's ruling? — No, there is no difficulty, for the one deals with reptiles while they are dead the other while they are alive. But, said Abaye to him, does not Rab refer his statement to the Mishnah and our Mishnah speaks of ALL REPTILES, [apparently] even though they are dead? — Replied R. Joseph: This is your assumption. The fact is that Rab made an independent statement. [It said]: ‘R. Johanan praised him’. To this an objection was raised. [We have learnt]: ‘There is no standard size for entire limbs [of unclean animals]. Even less than an olive-size of nebelah and less than a lentil-size of a reptile effect defilement’, And R. Johanan remarked: The penalty of lashes, however, is inflicted only for an olive-size! — Said Raba: Scripture speaks only of those that are separated. Said R. Adda son of Ahabah, to Raba: If so, why not draw a distinction also with reference to beasts between those that are separated and those that are not sepa rated?14

—