1 its [productive] strength be weakened, but why may it be painted with red paint? — The purpose is that people will observe it and pray for its recovery. As it was taught: [It is written:] And he shall cry: Unclean, unclean, that is to say, he shall make known [his affliction] to his fellow men that they may pray for him. Likewise, he upon whom a calamity has befallen should make known [his trouble] to his fellow men that they may pray for him. Rabina said: According to whom is it that we suspend a cluster [of dates] on a tree [which casts its fruit]? — It is in accordance with the above Tanna. MISHNAH. [THE LAW OF] IT AND ITS YOUNG IS IN FORCE BOTH WITHIN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND OUTSIDE IT, BOTH DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEMPLE AND AFTER IT, IN RESPECT OF BOTH UNCONSECRATED AND CONSECRATED ANIMALS. THUS, IF ONE PERSON SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL AND [ANOTHER] ITS YOUNG, BOTH ANIMALS BEING UNCONSECRATED, [AND THEY SLAUGHTERED THEM] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY, THEY ARE BOTH VALID, BUT [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES. IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE CONSECRATED [AND THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY, [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE FIRST INCURS THE PENALTY OF KARETH, BOTH ANIMALS ARE INVALID, AND EACH INCURS FORTY STRIPES. IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE UNCONSECRATED [AND THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, BOTH ANIMALS ARE INVALID, AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES. IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE CONSECRATED [AND THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, THE FIRST IS VALID AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED IT IS] NOT CULPABLE, BUT [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES, AND IT IS INVALID. IF [THE FIRST ANIMAL WAS] UNCONSECRATED AND [THE SECOND] CONSECRATED [AND THEY WERE BOTH SLAUGHTERED] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY, THE FIRST IS VALID AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED IT IS] NOT CULPABLE, BUT [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES AND IT IS INVALID. IF [THE FIRST WAS] CONSECRATED AND [THE SECOND] UNCONSECRATED [AND THEY WERE BOTH SLAUGHTERED] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY, [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE FIRST INCURS THE PENALTY OF KARETH AND IT IS INVALID, AND THE SECOND [ANIMAL] IS VALID, AND EACH INCURS FORTY STRIPES. IF [THE FIRST WAS] UNCONSECRATED AND [THE SECOND] CONSECRATED [AND THEY WERE BOTH SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, THEY ARE BOTH INVALID, AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES. IF [THE FIRST WAS] CONSECRATED AND [THE SECOND] UNCONSECRATED [AND THEY WERE BOTH SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, THE FIRST ANIMAL IS VALID AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED IT IS] NOT CULPABLE, BUT [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES AND IT IS INVALID. IF [THE FIRST WAS SLAUGHTERED] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY AND [THE SECOND] INSIDE, BOTH BEING UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS, THE FIRST IS VALID AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED IT IS] NOT CULPABLE, BUT [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES AND IT IS INVALID. IF [THE FIRST WAS SLAUGHTERED] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY AND [THE SECOND] INSIDE, BOTH BEING CONSECRATED ANIMALS, [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE FIRST INCURS THE PENALTY OF KARETH, EACH INCURS FORTY STRIPES, AND BOTH ANIMALS ARE INVALID. IF [THE FIRST WAS SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY AND [THE SECOND] OUTSIDE, BOTH BEING UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS, THE FIRST IS INVALID AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED IT IS] NOT CULPABLE, BUT [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES AND IT IS VALID. IF [THE FIRST WAS SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY AND [THE SECOND] OUTSIDE, BOTH BEING CONSECRATED ANIMALS, THE FIRST IS VALID AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED IT IS] NOT CULPABLE, BUT [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES AND IT IS INVALID. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that the law of ‘It and its young’ applies to consecrated animals? Because the verse states: When a bullock or a sheep or a goat is brought forth . . . [thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering], and there immediately follows the verse: And whether it be an ox or a sheep, ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day, thus indicating that the law of ‘It and its young’ applies to consecrated animals. Perhaps then it applies only to consecrated animals and not to unconsecrated animals! — [This cannot be, for] the word ‘ox’ interrupts the subject matter. Perhaps then it applies to unconsecrated animals only and not to consecrated animals! — Since it is written: ‘And . . . an ox’, the conjunction ‘and’ connects it with the previous subject. It should then follow, should it not, that as a hybrid cannot be a consecrated animal, so the law of ‘It and its young’ should not apply to a hybrid? Wherefore has it been taught: The law of ‘It and its young’ applies to a hybrid and to a koy? And [there is] also [this difficulty] for it is written here, sheep, and Raba has declared,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘ
2 This verse establishes the rule that wherever ‘sheep’ is stated the hybrid is excluded! — Since the verse states ‘or’, it includes the hybrid. But is not ‘or’ necessary to indicate disjunction? For I might have thought that one is not culpable unless one kills an ox and its young and also a sheep and its young, it therefore teaches us [that it is not so]! — Disjunction is indicated in the expression ‘its young’. But it is still necessary for the following [teaching]. It was taught: Had Scripture stated: ‘An ox and a sheep and its young [ye shall not kill]’. I would have said that one is not culpable unless one kills an ox and a sheep and the young of any one of them; the text therefore says. And whether it be an ox or a sheep, ye shall not kill it and its young. Now presumably [this teaching] is derived from the expression ‘or’! — No, it is derived from the expression ‘it’ [and its young’]. This is well according to the Rabbis — who regard ‘it’ as superfluous; but according to Hananiah who does not regard ‘it’ as superfluous, whence would he derive the principle of disjunction? — No verse is necessary to indicate disjunction for he concurs with the view of R. Jonathan. For it was taught: For any man that curseth his father and his mother [shall surely be put to death]: from this I know only [that he is liable for cursing] his father and his mother; [if he curses] his father and not his mother, or his mother and not his father, whence do I know [that he is liable]? Because it also says. His father and his mother he hath cursed; that is, he has cursed his father, he has cursed his mother: so R. Josiah. R. Jonathan says. It may imply both together or each separately, unless the verse expressly states ‘together’. What is this dispute between Hananiah and the Rabbis? — It was taught: The law of ‘It and its young’ applies to the female parent only and not to the male. Hananiah says: It applies both to the male and female parent. What is the reason of the Rabbis? — It was taught: I might have said that the law of ‘It and its young’ applies to both male and female parents; there is, however, an argument against this, viz., there is a prohibition here and there is also a prohibition with regard to ‘The dam with the young’; just as the prohibition of ‘The dam with the young’ applies only to the female parent and not to the male, so the prohibition here applies only to the female parent and not to the male. But [it will be retorted] it is not so; for you may say this of ‘The dam and its young’, since [it has this distinctiveness, in that] the law does not place upon the same footing birds that are at one's disposal and birds that are not at one's disposal; can you then say this of ‘It and its young’, seeing that [it has not this distinctiveness, for] the law places upon the same footing beasts that are at one's disposal and beasts that are not at one's disposal? The verse therefore states ‘it’, that is, it refers to one [parent] and not to both. Since therefore Scripture discriminates [between the parents]. I am justified in applying the above argument, viz., there is a prohibition here and there is also a prohibition with regard to ‘The dam with the young’, just as the prohibition of ‘The dam with the young’ applies only to the female parent and not to the male, so the prohibition here applies only to the female parent and not to the male! And if you desire to say [anything against this, I submit the following]: [The expression] ‘its young’ relates to that parent to whom the young clings; thus excluding the male parent to whom the young does not cling! (What is meant by. ‘But if you desire to say anything against this’? — If you say that ‘it’ indicates the male parent. I therefore submit another argument: The expression ‘its young’ relates to that parent to whom the young clings; thus excluding the male parent to whom the young does not cling.)ᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿ