Chullin 113b (קיג:) — the Talmud in English

which indicates specifically

here

where it is explicitly stated, “

goat kid,”

but wherever it is stated “

kid”

without specification—

even a cow and a ewe are included!

And we challenge this:

And let us derive from it?

And we answer:

It is written

another

verse concerning the blessings of Jacob and Esau: “

and

the skins of the goat kids,”

which indicates specifically

here

where it is explicitly stated, “

the goat kids,”

but wherever it is stated ‘kid’ without specification—

even a cow and a ewe are included!

And we challenge this:

And let us derive from it?

And we answer:

These two verses constitute

those two verses

two verses that come together to teach one principle.

And whenever two verses come together to teach one principle, they do not teach it elsewhere.

And we challenge this:

That works well according to the one who says that they do not teach elsewhere; but according to the one who says that they do teach elsewhere, what can be said?

And we answer:

Two restrictive expressions are written.

For in both places it would have been possible to write “

goats,” but it is written “

”

the goats” with a heh. The superfluous heh is a restriction, teaching us that the term kid refers only to a goat kid, and not to the kid mentioned in the context of meat and milk. [See Tosafot, who raise the question of why two restrictions are necessary].

Shmuel said: “Kid”—

to include forbidden fat—

for if one cooked forbidden fat in milk, he transgresses two prohibitions by eating it: one because of forbidden fat and one because of meat and milk.

“Kid”—

to include an unslaughtered animal carcass.

For if one cooked the meat of an animal carcass in milk, he receives two sets of lashes for eating it.

And the verse comes to teach that although the prohibition of meat and milk cannot take effect upon the prohibition of an animal carcass, because of the principle that one prohibition does not take effect upon another, nevertheless the Torah included it, so that the prohibition should take effect here.

“Kid”—

to include an unborn fetus,

whose meat is likewise prohibited when cooked with milk.

“Kid”—

to exclude blood,

which is not considered meat.

“Kid”—

to exclude the placenta,

which is the sac surrounding the fetus, and there is no prohibition against cooking it with milk.

“Kid”—

to exclude

the meat of

an impure animal,

which does not become prohibited even if one cooks it in the milk of a pure animal. “

In the milk of its mother”—

but not in the milk of a male,

if it happened that he had teats containing a small amount of milk.

“In the milk of its mother”—

but not in the milk of a slaughtered animal,

for once she has been slaughtered, she is no longer fit to be “its mother,” since she can no longer give birth.

“In the milk of its mother”—

but not in the milk of an impure animal.

For if one cooked the meat of a pure animal in the milk of an impure animal, it does not become prohibited. This is the meaning of the verse: Do not cook a kid in the milk of one whose meat is prohibited to cook with milk. And we have excluded the impure animal, permitting it to be cooked with milk; therefore, there is no prohibition against cooking the pure animal in the milk of the impure animal.

And we challenge this:

There are three occurrences of “kid” written, but

whereas

we derive six occurrences of “

kid”

from them!?

And we answer:

Shmuel holds that one prohibition does take effect upon another prohibition.

And

therefore

, the prohibition of forbidden fat and

meat

of an unslaughtered animal carcass are derived from a single verse.

That is, from the first occurrence of “kid,” which is needed for the very substance of the law.

Blood too—

is not “

kid”

at all,

and no verse is needed to exclude it.

And the placenta too—

is merely waste,

and no verse is needed to exclude it.

Two remain occurrences of “kid,” after one occurrence is needed for the very substance of the law.

“kid,” after one occurrence was needed for the basic law itself.

One—

to include an unborn fetus,

and one—

to exclude an impure animal.

And we are astonished:

And

if

Shmuel holds that one prohibition does take effect upon another prohibition,

but did Shmuel not say in the name of Rabbi Elazar: From where is it derived that an impure priest who ate impure teruma is not liable to death? As it is stated

with regard to one who eats pure teruma while his body is impure: “

And they shall die through it, for they have profaned it”—

excluding this case, since it is already profaned!

That is, the prohibition against eating teruma while one’s body is impure does not take effect upon the prohibition against eating impure teruma. We see that Shmuel holds that one prohibition does not take effect upon another.

And we answer:

Alternatively, one may say that ordinarily

Shmuel holds

that one prohibition does take effect upon another, but there it is different, because the Merciful One excluded it with the phrase “

And they shall die through it.”

Alternatively, ordinarily Shmuel holds that one prohibition does not take effect upon another, but here it is different, because the Merciful One included it by means of “

kid.”

And alternatively, this statement is his own, while that statement is his teacher’s,

namely, Rabbi Elazar, in whose name Shmuel said that every animal is included by the phrase “the goat kids.”

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami asked Rav: If one cooks milk in the milk of a kid that has not yet nursed

yet—

what is the law?

That is, the kid has not yet given birth, but already has milk in its udders, close to the time when it is due to give birth.

Does the fact that “its mother” is written indicate that she must already have been fit to be a mother—that is, that she must already have given birth—or do we not make this inference?

He said to him: Since Shmuel had to state “

in the milk of its mother”

and not in the milk of a male,

it follows that

it is specifically a male that can never become a mother, but this one,

which has not yet nursed,

since it can become a mother, it is prohibited.

It was stated: One who cooks forbidden fat in milk.

They disagreed about this law:

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

One said: He receives lashes, and one said: He does not receive lashes.

And we assumed that they were disagreeing with regard to eating it,

when he was warned on account of eating meat and milk. [See Rashi for how they derive all the verses].

Shall we say that this is the basis of their dispute?

The one who says that he receives lashes holds—

that one prohibition does take effect upon another prohibition,

and therefore the prohibition of meat and milk takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat.

And the one who says that he does not receive lashes holds—

that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition,

and the prohibition of meat and milk does not take effect, and he was not warned on account of the prohibition of forbidden fat.

And we reject this:

No.

Everyone agrees that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition.

With regard to eating, everyone agrees that he does not receive lashes

on account of meat and milk, since one prohibition does not take effect upon another.

They disagree with regard to cooking,

for with regard to cooking, the prohibition is solely on account of meat and milk and not on account of forbidden fat, since there is no prohibition against cooking forbidden fat.

The one who says that he receives lashes,

because

it is one prohibition.

There is no issue here of one prohibition taking effect upon another.

And the one who says that he does not receive lashes

holds:

For this reason the Merciful One expressed the prohibition of eating in the language of “

cooking,”

as it is written: “You shall not ‘cook’ a kid in the milk of its mother.” And they derive from the fact that “cooking” is written three times, one of them coming to prohibit the “eating” of meat cooked in milk, to teach us —

since he does not receive lashes for eating it, he likewise does not receive lashes for cooking it.