Chullin

here it was a ‘kid of the goats’, but elsewhere, wherever ‘kid’ is stated, it includes [the young of] the cow and the ewe. And might we not derive the rule from that?1 — There is another verse which says: The skins of the kids of the goats;2 here it was ‘kids of the goats’, but elsewhere, wherever ‘kid’ is stated, it includes [the young of] the cow and the ewe. And might we not derive the rule from the latter?1 — [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.3 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’. 4 Samuel said: ‘Kid’ includes the forbidden fat;5 ‘kid’ includes that which died of itself;6 ‘kid’ includes the foetus.7 ‘Kid’ excludes the blood; ‘kid’ excludes the afterbirth; ‘kid’ excludes the unclean animal.8 ‘In its mother's milk’, and not in the milk of a male;9 ‘in its mother's milk’, and not in the milk of a slaughtered animal;10 ‘in its mother's milk’ and not in the milk of an unclean animal.11 But is not the term ‘kid’ written only three times,12 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;13 blood [is excluded because] it does not come under the term ‘kid’;14 the afterbirth also because it is a mere excretion;14 two verses now remain, one to include the foetus and the other to exclude an unclean animal. Does Samuel then hold that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition? 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?15 From the verse: And die therein if they profane it,16 thus excluding this [unclean terumah], since it already stands profaned!17 — 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’. 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’.18 Or further you may also say, if you will, the one is his own opinion, the other is the opinion of his teacher. 19 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?20 — 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 a mother, but [in the milk of] this [she-goat], since it can become a mother, it is forbidden. 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;21 the other says: He does not incur stripes. 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. 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.22 They differ only with regard to the cooking thereof: he who says he incurs stripes argues that there is only one prohibition here;23 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’,24 [to signify that] limitation; thus in these two cases the term ‘kid’ means a goat, but elsewhere ‘kid’ means the young of any clean animal. 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. it. 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. no more be a ‘mother’. since unclean animals are expressly precluded by the term ‘kid’, their milk is also excluded from the prohibition. 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. arising by reason of the priest's uncleanness cannot be superimposed. one prohibition to be superimposed upon an already existing prohibition. superimposed upon an existing prohibition. This is not to imply that R. Eliezer was the teacher of Samuel (Rashi). forbidden fat does not enter into consideration here. seethe a kid etc.