חולין 82 — Soncino English Talmud

¹And R. Simeon b. Lakish said: R. Simeon Used to say that the Red Cow may be redeemed even on its woodpile! — R. Shamman b. Abba therefore suggested in the name of R. Johanan. ‘The Red Cow’ is not [part] of our Mishnah. [Do you also say that the slaughtering of] the heifer whose neck was to be broken is a slaughtering which does not render it fit for food? Surely we have learnt: If the murderer was found before the heifer's neck was broken, it is set free to pasture among the herd! — R. Simeon b. Lakish therefore said in the name of R. Jannai. ‘The heifer whose neck was to be broken’ is not [part] of our Mishnah. But could R. Jannai have said so? Did not R. Jannai say. ‘I have heard a time limit for it, but have forgotten it; but our colleagues maintain: Its descent to the rugged valley renders it forbidden’? Now if this is so, it can be answered that there it was before it was taken down to the rugged valley and here after it was taken down! — R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi replied. We report the statement in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish. R. Ashi said. When we were at R. Papi's this difficulty was raised. Did R. Simeon b. Lakish really say so? But it has been reported: From what time are a leper's birds forbidden? R. Johanan said: From the moment of the slaughtering. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: From the moment they are taken. And we explained that the reason for the view of R. Simeon b. Lakish was that he derived it by analogy from the word ‘taking’, used here and also in connection with the heifer whose neck was to be broken! — Rather [say thus]: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan. ‘The heifer whose neck was to be broken’ is not [part] of our Mishnah. MISHNAH. IF TWO PERSONS BOUGHT A COW AND ITS YOUNG, HE WHO BOUGHT FIRST SHALL SLAUGHTER FIRST; BUT IF THE SECOND FORESTALLED HIM HE HOLDS HIS ADVANTAGE. GEMARA. R. Joseph said: What we have learnt [in our Mishnah] is with regard to the rights [of each]. A Tanna taught: If the second forestalled him he is sharp and gains an advantage; sharp in that he cannot now transgress the law, and gains an advantage in that he eats meat [to-day]. MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED A COW AND THEN TWO OF ITS CALVES, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES. IF HE Slaughtered ITS TWO CALVES AND THEN THE COW. HE INCURS FORTY STRIPES. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF AND THEN THE CALF'S OFFSPRING, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF'S OFFSPRING AND THEN THE CALF, HE INCURS FORTY STRIPES. SYMMACHOS, IN THE NAME OF R. MEIR, SAYS, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES. GEMARA. Why is this so? Does not the Divine Law say. ‘It and its young’, but not ‘its young and it’? — You cannot hold this, for it was taught: [It is written.] ‘It and its young’; from this I only know it and its young, whence would I know that [the slaughtering of] the young and [then] its dam [is also prohibited]? From the fact that the verse says: Ye shall not slaughter, two persons are indicated; thus, if one slaughtered the cow, another its dam, and a third its young, the last two are culpable.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:I.e., even after it had been slaughtered upon the specially erected woodpile and is ready for burning (cf. Num. XIX, 5), it may be redeemed if e.g. a finer animal can be obtained. It would then be permitted to be eaten; hence it is always deemed fit for food, for R. Simeon is of the opinion that whatsoever is capable of being redeemed is counted as if it were redeemed.
^ᵇnote:V. Tosef. Par. VI. The slaughtering of the Red Cow is therefore deemed a slaughtering which renders it fit for food.
^ᶜnote:And when slaughtered is permitted to be eaten. V. Sot. 470.
^ᵈnote:As to what time in its rites does it become forbidden.
^ᵉnote:V. Deut. XXI, 4. Before its descent, however, it is permitted.
^ᶠnote:The Mishnah in Sotah 47a where it is permitted to pasture among the herd.
^ᵍnote:Our Mishnah where it is held that the slaughtering thereof does not render it fit for food.
^ʰnote:That ‘the heifer whose neck was to be broken’ does not form part of our Mishnah.
^ⁱnote:But he did not say it in the name of R. Jannai; hence the difficulty is removed.
^ʲnote:That ‘the heifer’ was not to be included in our Mishnah since the slaughtering thereof renders it fit for food.
^ᵏnote:The birds prescribed for the purification rites of a leper, v. Lev. XIV, 4, one of which was to be slaughtered and the other to be set free. It is established that these birds are forbidden for every use; V. Kid. 56b.
^ˡnote:The slaughtered bird then becomes forbidden for all time. The other that is set free also becomes forbidden from that moment until the time that it is set free (cf. Lev. XIV. 7)’ so Tosaf. Kid. 57a, s.v. ,gan.
^ᵐnote:I.e., set aside for the purpose.
^ⁿnote:Lev. XIV, 4: jeku.
^ᵒnote:Deut. XXI, 3. ujeku. The analogy is, just as the heifer, as soon as it was taken for the purpose, is rendered forbidden for all uses, so it is, too, with the birds of the leper. It is clear therefore that R. Simeon b. Lakish is of the opinion that the slaughtering of the heifer will not render it permitted for food.
^ᵖnote:It was R. Johanan who made the statement originally and not R. Simeon b. Lakish.
^ᵠnote:But from the religious point of view it is immaterial who slaughters first or which animal is slaughtered first.
^ʳnote:Whereas the other may not slaughter his animal until the next day.
^ˢnote:For the prohibition of ‘It and its young’ has been infringed twice, for the slaughtering of each calf is an infringement of the law.
^ᵗnote:It is only by the slaughtering of the cow that the law is infringed, and that is only one forbidden act.
^ᵘnote:The prohibition has in this case been infringed twice.
^ᵛnote:With the slaughtering of the cow and its calf's offspring no law has as yet been infringed, but when the calf itself is slaughtered there is an infringement from two aspects, for it is the young of the cow and also the dam of its offspring. The Rabbis however maintain that for this one act, for which there was but one warning, he incurs the penalty of stripes once only. For the view of Symmachos v. Gemara.
^ʷnote:That the law is infringed even where the young was slaughtered first and then the dam.
^ˣnote:Lev. XXII, 28. The plural of the verb indicates that two persons are culpable, one for slaughtering the dam and the other for slaughtering the young. Now this is of significance only where three animals were slaughtered and where the young was slaughtered first (V. Rashi). The Torah thereupon rules that both he who slaughtered its dam and he who slaughtered its offspring have transgressed the prohibition.

²But is not this verse required for its own purpose? — For that, it might have said: ‘Thou shalt not slaughter’; why. ‘Ye shall not slaughter’? But this too is required for its own purpose, is it not? For if the Divine Law said: ‘Thou shalt not slaughter’. I might have thought that only one person [if he slaughtered both, is culpable], but not two. The Divine Law therefore says. Ye shall not slaughter, even two may not slaughter. — If so, the Law might have said: ‘They shall not be slaughtered’; why. Ye shall not slaughter? To teach you two things. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF'S OFFSPRING etc. Abaye enquired of R. Joseph: What is the reason of Symmachos? [Is it that] he holds that if a man during a spell of forgetfulness ate two olives’ bulk of forbidden fat he is liable to two sin-offerings? And by right this view [of Symmachos] should have been recorded elsewhere, but it is recorded here to show you to what length the Rabbis will go, for the Rabbis exempt him [from an additional penalty] even in a case of separate prohibitions? Or is it that he holds that if a man during a spell of forgetfulness ate two olives’ bulk of forbidden fat he is only liable to one sin-offering, but here the reason is that there are two separate prohibitions? — He replied: Yes. He holds that if a man ate two olives’ bulk of forbidden fat during a spell of forgetfulness he is liable to two sin-offerings. Whence [do you gather this]? — From the following: It was taught: If a person sowed diverse kinds, diverse kinds, he incurs stripes. Now what is meant by ‘he incurs stripes’? Should you say it means, he incurs the penalty of stripes once, but this is obvious; moreover, why does it repeat ‘diverse kinds, diverse kinds’? It must therefore mean, he incurs stripes twice. And what would be the circumstances of the case? Should you say [he sowed diverse kinds twice] one after the other, and there were two warnings, but we have already learnt this elsewhere: If a nazir drinks wine the whole day long, he incurs only one penalty; if he is warned, ‘Do not drink’, ‘Do not drink’, and he drinks, he is liable for each [warning]. Clearly, then, [he sowed diverse kinds twice but] simultaneously and there was only one warning. Now who is the author of this statement? Should you say it is the Rabbis who differ with Symmachos, but surely, if in that case [in our Mishnah] where there are separate prohibitions the Rabbis exempt [the wrongdoer from an additional penalty], how much more so in this case. Hence it is, no doubt, Symmachos! — No. I maintain it is the Rabbis, but they incidentally teach us something else, that there are two sorts of ‘diverse kinds’. They thus reject the view of R. Josiah, who said: [A man is not guilty] until he sows wheat, barley and grape kernels with one throw of the hand; for they teach us that if a man sowed wheat and grape kernels or barley and grape kernels he is also guilty. Come and hear: If a person ate an olive's bulk [of the sciatic nerve] of this [thigh] and another olive's bulk of the other [thigh]. he has incurred eighty stripes. R. Judah says: He has only incurred forty stripes. Now what are the circumstances of the case? If you say [that he ate them] one after the other and there were two warnings, then what is R. Judah's reason [for saying that he has incurred forty stripes]? Is not the warning [with regard to each] dubious? And we have learnt that according to R. Judah a dubious warning is no warning. For it was taught: If he struck one and then struck the other, or if he cursed one and then cursed the other, or if he struck then, both simultaneously, or if he cursed them both simultaneously, he is liable. R. Judah Says. If simultaneously, he is liable; if one after the other, he is not liable. Obviously then the case is [that he ate them] together and there was only one warning. Now whose view is expressed by the first Tanna? Should you say that of the Rabbis who differ with Symmachos, but Surely if there [in our Mishnah] where there are separate prohibitions the Rabbis exempt [the wrongdoer from an additional penalty], how much more so in this case. Hence it is, no doubt, that of Symmachos! — No. I maintain [that he ate them] one after the other [and that there were two warnings], and [that the view expressed by the first Tanna is that of] the Rabbis. [The statement however expressed above by] the Tanna [in the name of R. Judah] agrees with the view of another Tanna who declares, also in the name of R. Judah, that a dubious warning is a warning. For it was taught: And he shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.27^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ʸnote:I.e., if one slaughtered the dam and another its young the law has not been infringed.
^ᶻnote:uyjah tk; neither by one person nor two persons.
^ᵃᵃnote:First that the prohibition applies where the animals were slaughtered by two persons, and secondly that whichever was slaughtered first, with the slaughtering of the second the law is infringed.
^ᵃᵇnote:Similarly, had be been warned beforehand of the prohibition of forbidden fat, so that he acted deliberately, he would incur the penalty of stripes twice. Accordingly, Symmachos would hold that even in the first clause of our Mishnah where a man slaughtered two calves (a permitted act) and then its dam, he would incur the penalty of stripes twice. And even though a distinction might be drawn between the above cases cited and the last clause of our Mishnah where Symmachos’ opinion is actually recorded, viz., in the latter case the one act of slaughtering involves the transgression of two distinct prohibitions, namely ‘It and its young’. ‘It and its dam’, each entailing the penalty of stripes, whereas in the above cases cited the act that is repeated involves the transgression of one prohibition only, namely, the prohibition of forbidden fat or in the first clause of our Mishnah the prohibition of ‘It and its dam’ — this distinction Symmachos does not regard as vital.
^ᵃᶜnote:In those cases where there is a transgression of one prohibition only, as in the case of the forbidden fat supra, or in the case of the first clause of our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵈnote:Sc. in the final clause of the Mishnah.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘separate bodies’. I.e., there are two separate animals and in respect of each a distinct prohibition is transgressed.
^ᵃᶠnote:And therefore here he incurs the penalty of stripes twice.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. Lev. XIX, 19. Apparently he sowed diverse kinds of seeds on two occasions.
^ᵃʰnote:One who has taken a nazirite vow to abstain from wine, to avoid contact with a corpse and to allow the hair to grow long; v. Num. VI.
^ᵃⁱnote:Naz. 420. We thus see there is a separate liability for the same act, however much repeated, provided there was a warning each time.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., sowing diverse kinds with his right hand and also with his left hand.
^ᵃᵏnote:Or even successively if there was only one warning (Tosaf.).
^ᵃˡnote:We learn from this the view of Symmachos that if a person ate two olives’ bulk of forbidden fat in one spell of forgetfulness he is liable to two sin-offerings.
^ᵃᵐnote:And there were two warnings. Although the case is obvious it was stated for a special purpose.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., that wheat and grape kernels alone constitute ‘diverse kinds’ and so also barley and grape kernels, contra R. Josiah.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. infra 92a and 96a. Each olive's bulk of the sciatic nerve was taken from the same animal, but one from the right thigh and the other from the left.
^ᵃᵖnote:He is of the opinion that the prohibition applies only to one thigh.
^ᵃᵠnote:For R. Judah is in doubt as to which thigh the prohibition applies; hence the warning with regard to the eating of each of them is dubious, for each one may be the one that is permitted, consequently he should be exempt entirely from stripes.
^ᵃʳnote:If a woman did not wait three months after separation from her husband by divorce, immediately married again, and after seven months gave birth to a son, there is always a doubt as to the paternity of the child. It may be a nine-months’ child by the first husband or a seven-months’ child by the second. This child, when grown up, struck one of his mother's husbands and then struck the other. The warning at the time of striking each one is a doubtful one, for when considering each one individually there is a doubt as to whether he is his father or not; it is nevertheless regarded as a proper warning and the son would be liable to the death penalty for striking or cursing his father (cf. Ex. XXI, 15, 17).
^ᵃˢnote:Striking one with his right hand and the other with his left.
^ᵃᵗnote:Here the warning at the time of striking is a certain warning, for he is certainly striking one who is his father.
^ᵃᵘnote:For the warning at each striking is a dubious one and R. Judah is of the opinion that such is no warning.
^ᵃᵛnote:I.e., the sciatic nerve of each thigh. In this case the warning is certain for one is the prohibited nerve.
^ᵃʷnote:That he should not be liable to eighty stripes.
^ᵃˣnote:Thus establishing the opinion of Symmachos as interpreted by R. Joseph.
^ᵃʸnote:Ex. XII, 10. This law refers to the Passover offering.