Meilah 16a — the Talmud in English

They taught this only:

what the Mishna taught, “all carcasses,” implying that impure animals combine with pure animals

but

the combining

with regard to impurity.

But with regard to

the prohibition of

eating,

“all carcasses” do not combine;

rather: the pure

combine

among themselves

to be liable to lashes for the prohibition of a carcass,

and the impure among themselves,

to be liable to lashes for the prohibition of eating an impure animal. And not because of the prohibition of a carcass, for the prohibition of a carcass does not take effect upon the prohibition of an impure animal.

And Levi said: even with regard to eating, they also combine,

for, in his view, the prohibition of a carcass takes effect upon the prohibition of an

impure animal. Therefore, both the pure and the impure are prohibited in eating on account of the prohibition of a carcass, and they all combine.

And Rav Asi said: the pure by themselves and the impure by themselves.

The Gemara explains Rav Asi’s statement:

There are those who say:

Rav Asi

disagrees with Rav,

he disagrees with Rav and holds that impure animals do not combine with pure animals, even with regard to impurity. And since they do not combine with regard to eating, they do not combine at all. And what the Mishna said, “all carcasses,” means the pure by themselves, such as a cow and a goat, with regard to the prohibition of eating a carcass and with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a pure animal; and the impure by themselves, such as a donkey and a camel, with regard to the prohibition of eating an impure animal and with regard only to the impurity of the carcass of an impure animal. And the pure do not combine with the impure even with regard to the impurity of carcasses.

And there are those who say: he does not disagree,

Rav Asi does not disagree with Rav, but holds like him. And what he said, “the pure by themselves and the impure by themselves,” refers only to eating, as Rav said.

It was objected:

the Gemara brings a beraita and infers from it against the words of Rav and Rav Asi according to the latter formulation.

The beraita speaks concerning the prohibition of eating a carcass, and this is what it says:

The death of a cow,

the carcass of a pure animal,

and the life of a camel,

and meat that separated from an impure animal during its lifetime,

do not combine,

and if one ate a half-olive-measure of this and a half-olive-measure of that, he is not liable to lashes, neither on account of the prohibition of eating a carcass nor on account of the prohibition of eating meat from a living creature [and its measure too is an olive-measure].

And the beraita is not speaking with regard to combining concerning the impurity of carcasses, because meat from a living creature does not convey the impurity of carcasses.

And one may infer from the beraita:

the death of both does combine,

with regard to eating, and a half-olive-measure from a dead cow and a half-olive-measure from a dead camel combine to form an olive-measure, so that one is liable to lashes for them on account of the prohibition of eating a carcass.

This is difficult for Rav and for Rav Asi according to the latter formulation.

And we answer: we should not infer from the beraita, “the death of both does combine,” but

say

that we should infer:

the life of both,

the pure cow and the impure camel,

combines,

so that one is liable to lashes for eating them on account of the prohibition of meat from a living creature.

And whose [view]

is it, and according to whose words was the beraita taught?

It is Rabbi Yehuda’s, who says: a limb from a living creature

and likewise meat from a living creature

applies

also

to

an

impure animal.

животного .

And we challenge:

but the death of both,

when both have died,

what

does the beraita hold? Does it indeed [according to Rav and Rav Asi according to the latter formulation] hold that they

do not combine

to be liable to lashes for the prohibition of eating a carcass?

If so,

it will be difficult:

why did it hurry and teach,

why did the beraita hasten to say, “

the death of a cow and the life of a camel

do not combine” for the prohibition of a carcass? There is no novelty in this, because the camel is alive and is not a carcass;

behold, even the death of both does not combine,

and there is a great novelty in this: although both are carcasses, they do not combine, because the prohibition of a carcass does not take effect upon the impure animal?

The questioner continues:

and it was further taught,

we learned in a beraita

a half-olive-measure of a cow during its lifetime and a half-olive-measure of a camel in its death

[it should say:

in its death],

do not combine,

because they are two different designations: the cow is prohibited on account of meat from a living creature, and the camel on account of an impure animal.

And the baraita continues:

But half an olive-bulk from a cow and half an olive-bulk from a camel, whether during their lifetimes or after their deaths ,

combine.

Now, what is the meaning of the conclusion, “whether during their lifetimes or after their deaths”? If you say: one is alive and the other is dead—for example, a live camel and a dead cow, or a dead camel and a live cow—

the beginning contradicts the conclusion,

for in the beginning we learned, “a cow during its lifetime and a camel after its death do not combine,” whereas in the conclusion we learned that they do combine?

Rather, is it not

that the meaning of the conclusion is: “whether during their lifetimes”—that both are alive, and they combine for the prohibition of meat from a living animal [according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that it applies to impure animals], “or whether after their deaths”—that both have died, and they combine for the prohibition of eating carrion—

learn from it: when both have died, they combine

for the prohibition of eating carrion !

And this is difficult for Rav and Rav Asi, according to the latter formulation, who hold: pure animals separately and impure animals separately?

And we answer:

Rav Asi can say to you [

and likewise Rav ]: Indeed, the baraita holds that the impure animals combine for the prohibition of eating carrion, because

this tanna holds “

prohibition takes effect upon prohibition,”

therefore the prohibition of carrion takes effect upon the prohibition of an impure animal,

whereas we [Rav Asi according to the latter formulation and Rav] said that they do not combine, because according to the one who says that “prohibition does not take effect upon prohibition,” the prohibition of carrion does not take effect upon an impure animal.