Chullin

And R. Simeon b. Lakish said: R. Simeon Used to say that the Red Cow may be redeemed1 even on its woodpile!2 — 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!3 — 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,4 but have forgotten it; but our colleagues maintain: Its descent to the rugged valley renders it forbidden’?5 Now if this is so, it can be answered that there6 it was before it was taken down to the rugged valley and here7 after it was taken down! — R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi replied. We report the statement8 in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish.9 R. Ashi said. When we were at R. Papi's this difficulty was raised. Did R. Simeon b. Lakish really say so?10 But it has been reported: From what time are a leper's birds forbidden?11 R. Johanan said: From the moment of the slaughtering.12 R. Simeon b. Lakish said: From the moment they are taken.13 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 here14 and also in connection with the heifer whose neck was to be broken!15 — 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.16 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].17 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].18 MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED A COW AND THEN TWO OF ITS CALVES, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES.19 IF HE Slaughtered ITS TWO CALVES AND THEN THE COW. HE INCURS FORTY STRIPES.20 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF AND THEN THE CALF'S OFFSPRING, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES.21 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF'S OFFSPRING AND THEN THE CALF, HE INCURS FORTY STRIPES.22 SYMMACHOS, IN THE NAME OF R. MEIR, SAYS, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES. GEMARA. Why is this so?23 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,24 two persons are indicated; thus, if one slaughtered the cow, another its dam, and a third its young, the last two are culpable. 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. other to be set free. It is established that these birds are forbidden for every use; V. Kid. 56b. that moment until the time that it is set free (cf. Lev. XIV. 7)’ so Tosaf. Kid. 57a, s.v. ,gan. 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. infringement of the law. 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. 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.