Meilah 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

They taught this:

The Mishna’s statement, “all carcasses,” implies that impure animals join together with pure animals

only

for purposes of joining

with regard to ritual impurity.

But with regard to

the prohibition of

eating,

“all carcasses” do not join together.

Rather, pure animals

join together

by themselves

so that one is flogged for violating the prohibition against eating an animal carcass,

and impure animals by themselves,

so that one is flogged for violating the prohibition against eating an impure animal. It is not because of the prohibition against eating a carcass, since the prohibition against eating a carcass does not take effect upon the prohibition against eating an impure animal.

And Levi said: They join even with regard to eating,

because in his view the prohibition against a carcass takes effect upon the prohibition against an

impure animal. Therefore, both the pure animals and the impure animals are prohibited as carcasses, and all of them join together.

And Rav Asi said: The pure animals join by themselves, and the impure animals join by themselves.

The Gemara explains Rav Asi’s statement:

Some say:

Rav Asi

disagrees with Rav,

meaning that he disagrees with Rav and holds that impure animals do not join with pure animals, even with regard to ritual impurity. Since they do not join with regard to eating, they do not join at all. The Mishna’s statement, “all carcasses,” refers to pure animals joining by themselves—for example, a cow and a goat—with regard to the prohibition of eating a carcass and the ritual impurity of the carcass of a pure animal; and to impure animals joining by themselves—for example, a donkey and a camel—with regard only to the prohibition of eating an impure animal and the ritual impurity of the carcass of an impure animal. Pure animals do not join with impure animals even with regard to the ritual impurity of carcasses.

And some say: He does not disagree,

Rav Asi does not disagree with Rav, but agrees with him. When he said, “the pure by themselves and the impure by themselves,” he was referring only to eating, as Rav stated.

The objection is raised:

The Gemara cites a beraita and infers from it against the statements of Rav and Rav Asi according to the latter formulation.

The beraita discusses the prohibition of eating a carcass, and states as follows:

The death of a cow,

the carcass of a pure animal,

and the life of a camel,

flesh that separated from an impure animal while it was alive,

do not join together.

If one ate half an olive-bulk of this and half an olive-bulk of that, he is not flogged, neither for the prohibition of eating a carcass nor for the prohibition of eating flesh from a living animal [which likewise has an olive-bulk as its measure].

The beraita is not discussing joining with regard to the ritual impurity of carcasses, because flesh from a living animal does not convey the ritual impurity of carcasses.

The following inference may be drawn from the beraita:

Apparently, the deaths of both do join together,

with regard to eating; half an olive-bulk from a dead cow and half an olive-bulk from a dead camel join to form an olive-bulk, so that one is flogged for eating them as a carcass.

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

The Gemara answers: We should not infer from the beraita, “Apparently, the deaths of both join together.” Rather,

say

that we should infer:

Apparently, the lives of both,

the pure cow and the impure camel,

join together

so that one is flogged for eating them because of the prohibition against eating flesh from a living animal.

And whose opinion is this,

and according to whose view was the beraita taught?

It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The prohibition against a limb from a living animal—

and likewise flesh from a living animal—

applies

also

to

an

impure animal.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But as for the deaths of both,

when both have died,

what

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

do not join

so that one would be flogged for the prohibition against eating a carcass?

If so,

this is difficult:

why did it specifically hurry to state

“

the death of a cow and the life of a camel,”

do not join with regard to the prohibition of a carcass”? This contains no novelty, since the camel is alive and is not a carcass.

Apparently, even the deaths of both do not join,

which would contain a great novelty: although both are carcasses, they do not join, because the prohibition against a carcass does not take effect upon an impure animal.

The objector continues:

And it was further taught—

we learned in a beraita

Half an olive-bulk of a cow while it is alive and half an olive-bulk of a camel in its death [

it should read:

in its death],

do not join,

because they are two different names of prohibitions: the cow is prohibited as flesh from a living animal, and the camel as an impure animal.

And the beraita continues:

but half an olive-bulk from a cow and half an olive-bulk from a camel, whether while they are alive or after their deaths ,

join.

And now, what is the meaning of the conclusion, “whether while they are alive or after their deaths”? If you say that 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 while alive and a camel after its death do not join,” whereas in the conclusion we learned that they do join?

Rather, is it not

that the meaning of the conclusion is “whether while they are alive,” meaning that both are alive, and they join with regard to the prohibition of meat from a living animal [according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that this prohibition applies to impure animals], “or whether after their deaths,” meaning that both have died, and they join with regard to the prohibition against eating an animal carcass—

this proves that when both have died, they join

with regard to the prohibition against eating an animal carcass!

But this is difficult for Rav and Rav Asi according to the latter formulation, as they hold that pure animals are considered separately and impure animals are considered separately?

And we answer:

Rav Asi could say to you

(and likewise Rav ): Indeed, the beraita holds that the impure animals join with regard to the prohibition against eating an animal carcass, because

this tanna holds that

one prohibition can take effect upon another prohibition;

therefore, the prohibition of an animal carcass 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 join, because according to the one who holds that “one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition,” the prohibition of an animal carcass does not take effect upon an impure animal.