Chullin 113b — the Talmud in English

which implies specifically

here

it is stated explicitly

“a kid of goats,”

but wherever it says

“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 blessing of Jacob and Esau,

“And the skins of the kids of the goats,”

“and the skins of the kids of the goats,”

which implies specifically

here

where it is stated explicitly

“the kids of the goats”;

but wherever it says “kid” without specification—

even a cow and a ewe are included!

And we challenge this:

And let us derive from it?

And we answer:

They become

these two verses—

two written passages that come as one.

And any two written passages that come as one do not teach.

And we challenge this:

This works well according to the one who says that they do not teach; but according to the one who says that they do teach, what is there to say?

And we answer:

Two exclusions are written.

For it could have written in both places

“goats,”

but it is written

“the goats,” with a heh. And the superfluous heh is an exclusion, teaching us that only the name “kid” means a kid of goats, but not the kid mentioned in the prohibition of meat with milk. [And see Tosafot, who raised the question of why two exclusions are needed].

Shemuel said: “Kid”—

to include the fat,

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

“Kid”—

to include the dead animal.

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

And the verse comes to say that although the prohibition of meat with milk cannot take effect upon the prohibition of a carcass, because of the principle that a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition, nevertheless the Torah included it so that it should take effect here.

“Kid”—

to include the fetus,

for its meat too is forbidden to be cooked in milk.

“Kid”—

to exclude the blood,

for it is not considered meat.

“Kid”—

to exclude the afterbirth,

for it is the sac surrounding the fetus, and there is no prohibition against cooking it in milk.

“Kid”—

to exclude the

meat of the animal

that is impure,

for even if one cooked it in pure milk, it does not become forbidden.

“In the milk of its mother”—

and 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”—

and not in the milk of a slaughtered animal,

for from the moment it was slaughtered it is not fit to be “its mother,” since it cannot give birth.

“In the milk of its mother”—

and 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 forbidden. For this is the meaning of the verse: “You shall not cook a kid in the milk of one whose meat is forbidden to be cooked in milk.” And we have excluded the impure animal, which is permitted to be cooked in milk; therefore there is no prohibition against cooking the pure animal in the milk of the impure animal.

And we challenge this:

But three “kid” [expressions] are written, and

if

we derive six

“kid”

[teachings from them]!?

And we answer:

Shemuel holds that a prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition.

And

therefore

, the prohibition of fat and

meat

of a dead animal emerge from one verse.

That is, from the first “kid,” which was required to be written for the fundamental law itself.

The blood likewise—

is it not

“kid”

itself,

and a verse is not needed to exclude it.

And the afterbirth likewise—

it is merely excrement,

and a verse is not needed to exclude it.

Two remain

“kid” [expressions], after one was needed for the fundamental law.

One—

to include the fetus,

and one—

to exclude an impure animal.

And we wonder:

And

if

Shemuel holds that a prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition?

But did Shemuel not say in the name of Rabbi Elazar: From where [do we know] that an impure priest who ate impure teruma is not subject to death? As it is stated

concerning one who eats pure teruma while his body is impure,

“And they shall die through him, when they profane it”—

exclude this one, for it is already profaned!

That is, the prohibition against eating teruma while his body is impure does not take effect upon the prohibition against eating impure teruma. We see that Shemuel holds that a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition.

And we answer:

If you wish, say: In general,

Shemuel holds

that a prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition, but there it is different, for the Merciful One excluded it

with “And they shall die through him.”

If you wish, say: In general Shemuel holds that a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition, but here it is different, for the Merciful One included it

with “kid.”

And if you wish, say: This one is his own, and that one is his teacher’s,

namely Rabbi Elazar, in whose name Shemuel said that every animal is learned from “the kids of the goats.”

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

still—

what is the law?

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

Do we infer from the fact that it says “its mother” that it had already been fit to be a mother—that is, that it had already given birth—or do we not infer this?

He said to him: Since Shemuel needed to say

“in the milk of its mother”

“and not in the milk of a male,”

it follows that

it is the male that does not come to the status of a mother, but this one,

that has not nursed,

since it comes to the status of a mother, is forbidden.

It was stated: One who cooks 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 thought that they disagree concerning the eating,

when they warned him on account of eating meat with milk. [And see Rashi as to how they expound all the verses].

Shall we say that this is the matter over which they disagree?

The one who says that he receives lashes holds—

that a prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition,

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

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

that a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition,

and the prohibition of meat with milk does not take effect, while they did not warn him on account of the prohibition of fat.

And we reject this:

No.

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

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

because of meat with milk, since a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition.

When they disagree is concerning cooking,

for with regard to cooking, the prohibition is only because of meat with milk and not because of fat, since there is no prohibition against cooking fat.

The one who says that he receives lashes,

for

it is one prohibition.

And there is no prohibition here taking effect upon another prohibition.

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 it is written three times, one of which comes for the prohibition of “eating” meat that was cooked in milk, to say

since with regard to eating he does not receive lashes, with regard to cooking as well he does not receive lashes.