Chullin

But 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.1 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’;2 why. Ye shall not slaughter? To teach you two things.3 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?4 And by right this view [of Symmachos] should have been recorded elsewhere,5 but it is recorded here6 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?7 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 here6 the reason is that there are two separate prohibitions?8 — 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.9 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 nazir10 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].11 Clearly, then, [he sowed diverse kinds twice but] simultaneously12 and there was only one warning.13 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!14 — No. I maintain it is the Rabbis,15 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.16 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].17 he has incurred eighty stripes. R. Judah says: He has only incurred forty stripes.18 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?19 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,20 or if he cursed one and then cursed the other, or if he struck then, both simultaneously,21 or if he cursed them both simultaneously, he is liable. R. Judah Says. If simultaneously, he is liable;22 if one after the other, he is not liable.23 Obviously then the case is [that he ate them]24 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.25 Hence it is, no doubt, that of Symmachos!26 — 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 was slaughtered first, with the slaughtering of the second the law is infringed. 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. the case of the first clause of our Mishnah. long; v. Num. VI. warning each time. forgetfulness he is liable to two sin-offerings. Josiah. thigh and the other from the left. each of them is dubious, for each one may be the one that is permitted, consequently he should be exempt entirely from stripes. 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).