## Chullin Daf 113b

###### Chullin 113b:1
[Chullin 113b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:1)

כָּאן גְּדִי עִזִּים, הָא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר גְּדִי סְתָם – אֲפִילּוּ פָּרָה וְרָחֵל בַּמַּשְׁמָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One may infer that **here,** since this verse specifies that it is referring to **a kid of the goats, consequently, anywhere** the word **“kid” is stated without specification, it means even a cow or a ewe.** Accordingly, the prohibition of meat cooked in milk applies to all kosher domesticated animals.


###### Chullin 113b:2
[Chullin 113b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:2)

וְלֵילַף מִינֵּיהּ? כְּתִיב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״וְאֵת עֹרֹת גְּדָיֵי הָעִזִּים״ – כָּאן ״גְּדָיֵי הָעִזִּים״, הָא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״גְּדִי״ סְתָם – אֲפִילּוּ פָּרָה וְרָחֵל בַּמַּשְׁמָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **derive from** that verse that in general, every instance of the word “kid” is referring to a goat, including the prohibition of meat cooked in milk? The Gemara answers: This cannot be, as **another verse is written: “And the skins of the kids of the goats”** (Genesis 27:16). This indicates that only **here** they are **kids of the goats, but anywhere** the word **“kid” is stated without specification, it means even a cow or a ewe.**


###### Chullin 113b:3
[Chullin 113b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:3)

וְלֵילַף מִינֵּיהּ? הָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד – אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But let us derive from** this verse as well that on the contrary, the word “kid” is always referring to a goat. The Gemara explains: These two examples **are two verses that come as one,** i.e., to teach the same matter, **and** as a rule, **any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common element to other cases.


###### Chullin 113b:4
[Chullin 113b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:4)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? תְּרֵי מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״עִזִּים״, ״הָעִזִּים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** this principle that two verses that come as one **do not teach** their common element to other cases, **but according to the one who says** that two verses that come as one do **teach** their common element to other cases, **what is there to say?** The Gemara answers: **Two exclusions are written,** as both of the verses cited use the term “the goats.” The verses could have stated simply: **Goats,** but state **“the goats,”** with the definite article, teaching that it is only in these cases that the reference is specifically to a goat.


###### Chullin 113b:5
[Chullin 113b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:5)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״גְּדִי״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַחֵלֶב, ״גְּדִי״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמֵּתָה, ״גְּדִי״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁלִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel says:** Each of the Torah’s three mentions of the prohibition of not cooking a kid in its mother’s milk serves to include a different case. The first mention of the word **“kid”** serves **to include** liability for cooking in milk and eating forbidden **fats,** beyond the liability for eating forbidden fat per se. The second mention of the word **“kid”** likewise serves **to include** additional liability for cooking in milk and eating the meat of **a dead** animal carcass. Finally, the third mention of the word **“kid”** serves **to include** liability for cooking in milk and eating an animal **fetus.**


###### Chullin 113b:6
[Chullin 113b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:6)

״גְּדִי״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַדָּם, ״גְּדִי״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא, ״גְּדִי״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַטְּמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Each mention excludes a case as well: The first mention of the word **“kid”** serves **to exclude** liability for cooking in milk and consuming **blood.** The second mention of the word **“kid”** serves **to exclude** liability for cooking in milk and eating **the placenta** of an animal. The third mention of the word **“kid”** serves **to exclude** liability for cooking in milk and eating the meat of **a non-kosher** animal.


###### Chullin 113b:7
[Chullin 113b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:7)

״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ – וְלֹא בַּחֲלֵב זָכָר, ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ – וְלֹא בַּחֲלֵב שְׁחוּטָה, ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ – וְלֹא בַּחֲלֵב טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, the first instance of the phrase **“in its mother’s milk”** indicates that one is **not** liable for cooking meat **in the milk of a male** animal, in the rare case that a male might produce milk. The second instance of the phrase **“in its mother’s milk”** indicates that one is **not** liable for cooking meat **in the milk of** an already **slaughtered** animal, since it is considered milk only if given while the animal is alive. The third instance of the phrase **“in its mother’s milk”** indicates that one is **not** liable for cooking meat **in the milk of a non-kosher** animal.


###### Chullin 113b:8
[Chullin 113b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:8)

הָא תְּלָתָא ״גְּדִי״ כְּתִיבִי, וַאֲנַן שִׁיתָּא דָּרְשִׁינַן! קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, וְאִיסּוּר חֵלֶב וּמֵתָה מֵחַד קְרָא נָפְקִי. דָּם נָמֵי לָאו ״גְּדִי״ הוּא, וְשִׁלְיָא נָמֵי פִּירְשָׁא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא. פָּשׁוּ לְהוּ תְּרֵי: חַד לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁלִיל, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: The word **“kid” is written** only **three** times, **and** yet **we expound** it to teach **six** different *halakhot*. The Gemara responds: **Shmuel maintains** that **a prohibition takes effect** even where another **prohibition** already exists, **and** therefore the **prohibition of** forbidden **fat** in milk **and** the prohibition of **a dead** animal carcass in milk **are both derived from one verse,** as both are applications of the prohibition to an already prohibited item. The exclusion of **blood** from the prohibition **also** does not require its own verse, as blood **is not** considered **a kid** at all, **and likewise** there is no need for a verse to exclude **a placenta** from the prohibition, as it **is merely a secretion** of the animal, rather than a kind of meat. Therefore, **two** mentions of “kid” **are left; one** serves **to include a fetus, and one** serves **to exclude a non-kosher animal.**


###### Chullin 113b:9
[Chullin 113b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:9)

וְסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לְכֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּמִיתָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלֻהוּ״ – פְּרַט לָזוֹ שֶׁמְּחוּלֶּלֶת וְעוֹמֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Shmuel** really **maintain** that **a prohibition takes effect** where another **prohibition** already exists? **But didn’t Shmuel say in the name of Rabbi Elazar: From where** is it derived that **an impure priest who partakes of impure *teruma*,** i.e., the portion of produce designated for the priest, **is not** punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven as he would had the *teruma* been ritually pure? It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated,** with regard to the prohibition of an impure priest partaking of *teruma*: **“And die therein if they desecrate it”** (Leviticus 22:9), **to the exclusion of this** case of *teruma* that is impure, **which was already desecrated** before the priest ate it. Here, it seems, since impure *teruma* is already prohibited for consumption, the added prohibition of an impure priest partaking of *teruma* does not take effect.


###### Chullin 113b:10
[Chullin 113b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:10)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּעָלְמָא אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּמִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ״. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּעָלְמָא קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״גְּדִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that **in general** Shmuel maintains that **a prohibition takes effect** where another **prohibition** already exists, and it **is different there,** with regard to *teruma*, **as the Merciful One** expressly **excludes** impure *teruma* by the phrase **“and die therein** if they desecrate it,” and in this case the *teruma* is already desecrated. And **if you wish, say** that **in general Shmuel maintains** that **a prohibition does not take effect** where another **prohibition** already exists, **and here,** the case of meat cooked in milk, **is different, as the Merciful One** expressly **includes** the meat of an animal carcass and forbidden fat by the repetition of the word **“kid.”**


###### Chullin 113b:11
[Chullin 113b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:11)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא דִידֵיהּ, הָא דְרַבֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that **this** statement of Shmuel with regard to meat cooked in milk is **his** own opinion, as he maintains that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and **that** statement with regard to *teruma* **is his teacher’s,** i.e., Rabbi Elazar’s, opinion, as he holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.


###### Chullin 113b:12
[Chullin 113b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:12)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי מֵרַב: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בַּחֲלֵב גְּדִי שֶׁלֹּא הֵנִיקָה, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיכָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל לְמֵימַר ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ – וְלֹא בַּחֲלֵב זָכָר, זָכָר הוּא דְּלָא אָתֵי לִכְלַל אֵם, אֲבָל הַאי, כֵּיוָן דְּבָא לִכְלַל אֵם – אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raised a dilemma to Rav:** If **one cooks** meat **in milk of a goat that has not** yet **nursed,** but that is about to give birth and already has milk, **what is** the *halakha*? Rav **said to him: From** the fact that **it was necessary for Shmuel to say** that the phrase **“in its mother’s milk”** teaches: **And not in the milk of a male** animal, one can infer that **it is** only the milk of **a male** that is excluded, as the male **cannot attain the status of a mother. But** in **this** case, **since** the goat **will attain the status of a mother,** it is **prohibited** to cook meat in its milk.


###### Chullin 113b:13
[Chullin 113b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:13)

אִתְּמַר: הַמְבַשֵּׁל חֵלֶב בְּחָלָב, רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי – חַד אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה קָסָבַר: אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה קָסָבַר: אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was stated:** With regard to **one who cooks** forbidden **fat in milk, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi** disagree as to the *halakha*. **One says** that he **is flogged** for violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk, **and one says** that he **is not flogged.** The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that **they disagree about this: That the one who says** he **is flogged maintains** that **a prohibition takes effect** where another **prohibition** already exists, **and the one who says** he **is not flogged maintains** that **a prohibition does not take effect** where another **prohibition** already exists.


###### Chullin 113b:14
[Chullin 113b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/113b:14)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, אַאֲכִילָה דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא לָקֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַבִּשּׁוּל. מַאן דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה – חַד אִיסּוּרָא הוּא, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה – לְהָכִי אַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲכִילָה בִּלְשׁוֹן בִּישּׁוּל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No; everyone** agrees that **a prohibition does not take effect** where another **prohibition** already exists, and therefore **everyone agrees that** one **is not flogged for eating** the mixture. **When they disagree,** it is **with regard to cooking. The one who says** he **is flogged** holds that one who cooks violates only **one prohibition,** that of cooking meat in milk, since it is permitted to cook forbidden fat without eating it. Consequently, this is not a case of a prohibition taking effect where another prohibition already exists. **And the one who says** he **is not flogged** holds that it was **for this** reason that **the Merciful One expressed** the prohibition of **eating** meat cooked in milk in the Torah using **the language of cooking:** “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”