The Gemara challenges: That verse is necessary for the prohibition itself, and it cannot be used to teach this additional halakha. The Gemara explains: If so, that the verse teaches only the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring in one day, let the Torah write: You shall not slaughter [tishḥot], in the singular. For what reason did the Torah write: “You shall not slaughter [tishḥatu]” (Leviticus 22:28), in the plural? It is to teach that two different people are prohibited from slaughtering, as explained earlier.

The Gemara challenges: But, nevertheless, the plural is necessary, as had the Merciful One written in the Torah: You shall not slaughter [tishḥot] in the singular, I would say: With regard to one person, yes, it is prohibited to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, but with regard to two, it is not prohibited for one of them to slaughter the mother and the other to then slaughter the offspring on the same day.

Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: “You shall not slaughter [tishḥatu],” in the plural, indicating that even two individuals may not slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day. The Gemara answers: If so, that only this is derived from the verse, let the Torah write: They shall not be slaughtered, indicating that whether by one individual or two, the slaughter of an animal and its offspring in a single day is prohibited, but only the one who slaughters the offspring has violated the prohibition.

What is meant by: “You shall not slaughter,” which indicates that two different people are prohibited from slaughtering? Conclude two conclusions from it: Conclude that the prohibition applies even if two people perform the two acts of slaughter, and that two cases are prohibited: Slaughtering the offspring after the mother, and slaughtering the mother after the offspring.

§ The mishna teaches: If one slaughtered the mother and its daughter’s daughter and thereafter slaughtered its daughter, he incurs the forty lashes. Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He incurs eighty lashes, because by slaughtering the daughter, he transgresses twice the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Sumakhos that the transgressor incurs eighty lashes?

Does Sumakhos hold, in general, that if one unwittingly ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring two sin offerings, since he transgressed the prohibition twice? If so, then in a case where one is forewarned that if he transgresses intentionally he will receive lashes and he then violates the same prohibition twice, as is the case in the mishna, he receives two sets of lashes.

And by right the mishna should have informed us of Sumakhos’s opinion in a general case, such as that of eating two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during a single lapse of awareness, but the reason that it teaches us this dispute in this situation, where one slaughters an animal and its daughter’s offspring and, later that day, slaughters its daughter, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, that even though the two animals that caused the daughter to be forbidden are separate entities, the Rabbis still exempt the transgressor from a second set of lashes.

Or perhaps, Sumakhos holds in general that if one ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin offering. If so, one who transgresses intentionally after being forewarned receives only one set of lashes even if he transgresses the same prohibition twice. But here, in the mishna, this is the reason that the transgressor receives two sets of lashes: It is that the two animals that caused the daughter to be prohibited are separate entities. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Yes, Sumakhos holds in general that if one ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring two sin offerings.

The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Yosef derive this? He derives it from that which we learn in a baraita: One who sows diverse kinds, diverse kinds, i.e., he twice sows grain together with grape seeds, is flogged for violating the prohibition of diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Is flogged? If we say it means that he is flogged one set of lashes, this is obvious. And additionally, if he receives only one set of lashes, what is the reason that the case of: Sowing diverse kinds twice, is mentioned, where he transgressed twice? Even if he transgressed only once, he receives lashes. Rather, it is obvious that he receives two sets of lashes.

The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that we are dealing with a case where one violates the prohibition twice, one time after the other and with two separate forewarnings, it is unnecessary for the baraita to teach this, as we already learn it in a mishna (Nazir 42a): A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If onlookers said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, forewarning him several times, and he drinks after each forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every drink. Rather, it is obvious that he violated the prohibition twice at the same time and with a single forewarning, i.e., after he was forewarned he sowed wheat together with a grape seed with one hand, and barley together with a grape seed with the other hand, and he receives two sets of lashes.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos in the mishna, who hold that one who slaughters an animal and its daughter’s offspring and, later that day, slaughters its daughter receives only one set of lashes, that would not be reasonable: Now, if there, in the mishna, where there are animals that are separate entities, the Rabbis exempt him from a second set of lashes, since he violated a single prohibition with a single forewarning; here, in the baraita with regard to diverse kinds, where, unlike animals, seeds are not considered separate entities (see 83a), if one sows diverse kinds twice at the same time, should they not all the more so exempt him from a second set of lashes?

Rather, is it not that the ruling of the baraita with regard to diverse kinds is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos and teaches that, even with a single entity, one who violates the same prohibition twice receives two sets of lashes? The Gemara responds: No, actually the baraita with regard to diverse kinds is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and he was forewarned before each act of sowing, which is why he receives two sets of lashes. And although this statement is redundant, by repeating the phrase: Diverse kinds, it teaches us a matter in passing: That there are two categories of the prohibition of diverse kinds: Sowing wheat together with grape seed and sowing barley together with grape seed.

And the baraita serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, as Rabbi Yoshiya says: One who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat, and barley, and grape seed with a single hand motion, i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously. Therefore, it teaches us that when one sows only wheat and grape seed, or only barley and grape seed, he is liable as well. Consequently, a source clarifying Sumakhos’s opinion in a case where one violates the same prohibition twice during a single lapse of awareness, or with only a single forewarning when one violated the prohibition intentionally, has not been found.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna with regard to the prohibition against eating from the sciatic nerve (96a): If one ate an olive-bulk from this sciatic nerve in the right leg of an animal, and an olive-bulk from that sciatic nerve in the left leg of the same animal, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What are the circumstances? If we say that he ate them one after the other and with two separate forewarnings, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is an uncertain forewarning, as Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain whether the prohibition against eating from the sciatic nerve applies to the sciatic nerve of the right thigh or that of the left thigh (see 90b). And we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda says: An uncertain forewarning is not considered a forewarning.

As it is taught in a baraita: If one is uncertain which of two men is his father, and he struck this man and then struck that man, or cursed this man and then cursed that man, or struck both of them simultaneously, or cursed both of them simultaneously, in all these cases he is liable for violating the prohibition of: “And he that strikes his father, or his mother, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:15), or that of: “And he that curses his father, or his mother, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:17), as one of them is certainly his father.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Although if he struck or cursed both of them simultaneously he is liable, if he struck or cursed them one after the other, he is exempt, as each time he strikes or curses one of them he receives an uncertain forewarning, as perhaps this man is not his father, and one is liable only after receiving a definite forewarning. Consequently, if one was forewarned before eating from the sciatic nerve from the right leg, and afterward he was forewarned before eating from the sciatic nerve from the left leg, he would similarly be exempt as each of the forewarnings was uncertain. Rather, it is obvious that the case in the mishna is one where he partook of the two sciatic nerves simultaneously and with a single forewarning, and therefore, he incurs only forty lashes according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And who is the first tanna who holds that in such a case one receives eighty lashes? If we say that it is the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos in the mishna about the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, that would conflict with their opinion: Now, if there, in the case of the mishna that discusses various animals that are separate entities, the Rabbis deem him exempt from a second set of lashes, here, in the mishna that discusses the sciatic nerve, where there are no separate animals, should they not all the more so exempt him from a second set of lashes? Rather, is the mishna not in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos? Consequently, in his opinion one who eats the same prohibited item, such as an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, twice after a single forewarning receives two sets of lashes.

The Gemara responds: No, actually the case is one where he ate from the two sciatic nerves one after the other and received separate forewarnings, and the first opinion in that mishna is that of the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos with regard to: Itself and its offspring. And as for the difficulty that Rabbi Yehuda does not render one liable if the forewarning is an uncertain one, this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of another tanna with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

As that other tanna says that Rabbi Yehuda holds: An uncertain forewarning is considered a forewarning, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10).