Meilah — Daf 16a

לא שנו אלא לענין טומאה אבל לענין אכילה טהורין בפני עצמן וטמאים בפני עצמן ולוי אמר אפילו לאכילה נמי מצטרפין

ורב אסי אמר טהורים לעצמן וטמאין לעצמן איכא דאמרי פליגא אדרב ואיכא דאמרי לא פליגא

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

אימא הא חיי שניהם מצטרפין ומני רבי יהודה היא דאמר אבר מן החי נוהג בטמאה

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

ועוד תניא חצי זית פרה בחייה וחצי זית גמל במיתתה אין מצטרפין אבל חצי זית מפרה וחצי זית מגמל בין בחייה בין במיתתה מצטרפין קשיא רישא אסיפא אלא לאו שמע מינה מיתת שניהם מצטרפין

אמר לך רב אסי האי תנא סבר איסור חל על איסור

This1 has been taught only with reference to defilement,2 but with regard to eating, clean animals3 form one group for themselves and unclean animals4 another. And Levi said: Also in regard to eating do they all combine with one another.5 And R. Assi said: Clean animals for themselves and unclean for themselves. Some say he differs from Rab,6 while others say he does not differ from him.7 An objection was raised: [The flesh of] a dead cow8 and a living camel9 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?10 — No, refer thus: But if both were alive they could combine; and this would be in agreement with R. Judah's view who holds11 that the prohibition to eat a limb [cut off] from a living creature12 applies also to unclean animals. But what would be the case if both were dead? Could they not combine? If so, why just instance13 ‘the flesh of a dead cow and a living camel’,14 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 clause15 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!16 — 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 21. 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. to defilement.