Keritot 15A

שחטה ואת בת בתה, ואחר כך שחט את בתה ⁠– סופג את הארבעים. סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר: סופג שמונים.

If one slaughtered an animal and its daughter’s daughter and afterward slaughtered the original animal’s daughter, he incurs the 40 lashes for transgressing the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day (see Leviticus 22:28). Sumakhos says in the name of R' Meir: He incurs 80 lashes for slaughtering the third animal, as its mother and its daughter had already been slaughtered on that day. This indicates that Sumakhos also maintains that when a person commits a single act and thereby commits two transgressions that are derived from a single verse, he is liable to receive punishment for both violations.

אמר רבא: דלמא לא היא, עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוחנן בן נורי הכא אלא משום שמות מוחלקין, דמיקריא חמותו, ומיקריא אם חמותו, ומיקריא אם חמיו.

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, as R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri would not agree with the ruling of Sumakhos. It is possible that R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri says that one is liable to bring multiple sin offerings only here, in the case of one who had sex with his mother-in-law, only due to the differentiated names of the prohibitions, as she is called his mother-in-law, and she is called his mother-in-law’s mother, and she is called his father-in-law’s mother, and the Torah prohibits each of these relationships separately.

אבל גבי אותו ואת בנו, דכולהו ״אותו ואת בנו״ מיקריין, דאין שמות מוחלקין ⁠– לא.

But with regard to the case of slaughtering a mother and its offspring in a single day, where all of the permutations are called: A mother and its offspring, as there are no differentiated names given in the Torah for slaughtering a mother animal and then its offspring or for slaughtering the offspring and subsequently its mother, R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri might maintain that one is not liable to receive multiple sets of lashes.