חולין 82:1 — Soncino English Talmud

And 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.