in one of his remarks: “This is like the flesh of a dead pig, forbidden on two grounds.” There are other such examples.

We say: In such matters, neither party disputes that each cause independently establishes the ruling when present alone, or that one may say: “Two causes coincide in establishing this ruling, each of which independently establishes it when present alone.” This too is undisputed. It is what they mean when they say that a ruling may, without dispute, be attributed to either of two alternative causes.

Nor do reasonable people dispute that, when the two causes coincide, one cannot say that each independently establishes the same ruling while both are present. For a cause to establish a ruling independently means that the ruling is established by that cause to the exclusion of any other.

Thus, to say, “It is established by this cause to the exclusion of any other,” and, “It is established by the other cause to the exclusion of any other,” is to affirm two contradictory propositions. This amounts to saying: “It is established by this cause and is not established by it; and it is established by the other cause and is not established by it.” It therefore combines affirming that each is a cause of the ruling with denying that either is a cause of it. This is the meaning of the statement: “Attributing the ruling independently to each cause negates its being established by either of them; and whatever entails its own negation when affirmed is false.”

Here those who deny and those who affirm confront one another, but their dispute is verbal.

Those who deny say: “Establishing the ruling through this cause independently is incompatible with establishing it through the other independently.”

Those who affirm say: “By independence, we do not mean independence in the case of