Pesachim 25A

מה לערלה שכן לא היתה לה שעת הכושר ⁠— תאמר בבשר בחלב שהיתה לו שעת הכושר! חמץ בפסח יוכיח ⁠— שהיה לו שעת הכושר, ואסור בהנאה.

The Talmud rejects this inference: What comparison can be made to orla, which is more stringent than meat in milk, as it never had a time when it was fit? Can you say the same with regard to meat in milk, which had a time when it was fit? Unlike orla fruits, which were prohibited from the beginning of their existence, both meat and milk were permitted on their own before they were cooked together. Therefore, the Talmud brings other proofs: Let leavened bread on Passover prove that this issue is not a factor, as it had a time when it was fit, before Passover, and yet it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.

מה לחמץ בפסח ⁠— שכן ענוש כרת, תאמר בבשר בחלב שאינו ענוש כרת! כלאי הכרם יוכיחו, שאין ענוש כרת ⁠— ואסור בהנאה.

The Talmud rejects this: What comparison can be made to leavened bread on Passover, which is a stringent prohibition, as one who eats it is punished with karet? Can you say the same with regard to one who eats meat in milk, who is not punished with karet? The Talmud answers: Let the case of diverse kinds planted in the vineyard prove that this is not relevant, as one who violates that prohibition is not punished with karet, and yet it is prohibited to derive benefit from the resulting mixtures.

ואם איתא, ניפרוך: מה לכלאי הכרם ⁠— שכן לוקין עליהן אפילו שלא כדרך הנאתן.

The Talmud returns to the issue of Abaye’s statement with regard to the unique stringency of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard: And if it is so that one is flogged for deriving benefit from diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, even if one derives benefit from them in an unusual manner, we can challenge this last proof: How can one compare meat in milk to diverse kinds in a vineyard, as with regard to diverse kinds in a vineyard, one is flogged even if he derives benefit from them in an unusual manner?