Chullin 78a (עח.) — the Talmud in English

Rather

the words of the beraita

“are marked with red,”

which seemingly constitutes a matter of an omen,

why

do they do this, rather than prohibit it on the grounds of the ways of the Amorites? Rather, it is proven that an act that resembles an omen is permitted.

The Gemara rejects this:

“So that people will see it,”

so that people will see and notice this sign, and understand that it was placed there because of the illness of the tree, which is shedding its fruit,

“and they will pray for it,”

they will request mercy on its behalf!

And this matter is

as it was taught:

with regard to the leper, it is stated [Leviticus 13:45]: “And the leper in whom the plague is found, his garments shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall grow long, and he shall cover his upper lip

and he shall call out: ‘Impure, impure.’”

That is, he cries out and announces that he is impure. And this is because he

must inform the public

of his leprosy,

and the public will pray for him.

Likewise, one to whom something has occurred must inform the public, and the public will pray for him!

Ravina said: In accordance with whom

do we act when

we hang

we hang

a cluster of dates on a palm tree,

a cluster of dates on a palm tree, as a sign that the palm tree is shedding its fruit?

In accordance with whom? In accordance with this tanna,

whose words we have just recited: “One to whom something has occurred must inform the public, and the public will pray for him”!

We have completed the chapter “An Animal That Is Difficult in Childbirth.”

Mishna:

The prohibition against slaughtering

the mother and its offspring

its mother and its offspring] on the same day

applies both in the Land

and

both outside the Land. 2 .

Both

when the Temple was standing,

during the time that the Temple existed,

and

both

when the Temple was not standing.

Both

with non-sacred animals

and

with consecrated animals,

with offerings.

How so?

A.

One who slaughters the mother and its offspring,

and both are

non-sacred,

if he slaughters them

outside

the Temple courtyard,

both are fit!

And

the one who slaughters

the second,

who slaughtered the second animal [whether the mother was slaughtered first or the offspring was slaughtered first],

receives the forty

lashes, because he violated the prohibition: “You shall not slaughter the mother and its offspring on the same day.”

B. If the two animals that are “the mother and its offspring” were

consecrated animals

and he slaughtered them

outside

the Temple courtyard, the one who slaughtered

the first is liable for karet

because of slaughtering offerings outside [and the second is exempt from karet for slaughtering outside, since the second animal is unfit on that day for sacrifice and is considered “not yet due,” because it is prohibited to slaughter it on account of “the mother and its offspring” . One is liable for slaughtering offerings outside only for slaughtering an offering that is fit to be sacrificed inside at that time].

And both,

the two offerings slaughtered outside,

are unfit,

since they were slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard.

And both,

the two slaughterers,

receive the forty!

The first, who slaughtered the first animal, receives lashes for the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside [in addition to the punishment of karet incumbent upon him] . The second receives lashes for the prohibition of “the mother and its offspring” [but does not receive lashes for slaughtering offerings outside, as explained above regarding karet].

c. And if the two animals were

C. If the two animals were

non-sacred,

and he slaughtered them

inside

the Temple courtyard,

both are unfit, since they are forbidden for benefit, in accordance with the law of non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

And

the one who slaughtered

the second—

receives the forty,

because he violated the prohibition of “the mother and its offspring.” [But the first is exempt from lashes, because slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard is prohibited not by a negative commandment but by a positive commandment] .

If the two animals were

consecrated

and he slaughtered them

inside—

The first,

the first offering, is

fit

as an offering,

and

the slaughterer is

exempt!

For he violated no prohibition.

But if the slaughterer slaughtered

if the slaughterer slaughtered

the second—he

receives the forty!

Because of “the mother and its offspring,”

and it is unfit,

the offering slaughtered by the second slaughterer, since it is “not yet due,” and is not fit for sacrifice that day because of the prohibition of “the mother and its offspring.”

E. One who slaughters the mother and its offspring, where the first was

non-sacred, and

the second was

consecrated,

and both were slaughtered

outside—

The first—it is

fit, and

its slaughterer is

exempt.

But

the one who slaughters

the second—he

receives the forty

because of “the mother and its offspring” [but he is not liable for slaughtering offerings outside, since it is not fit for sacrifice inside on that day because of the prohibition of “the mother and its offspring”],

and the offering is unfit

because the second offering was slaughtered outside [and it is also “not yet due” because of the prohibition against slaughtering “the mother and its offspring”].

F. If the first was

consecrated and

the second was

non-sacred,

and he slaughtered them

outside—

For slaughtering

the first he is liable for karet

because of slaughtering offerings outside,

and

the offering is

unfit

because it was slaughtered outside.

And the second,

which is non-sacred, is

fit. And both receive the forty!

The first because of slaughtering offerings outside, and the second because of “the mother and its offspring.”

G. If the first was

non-sacred

and the second was

consecrated,

and he slaughtered them

inside—

both are unfit!

The first is called “unfit” because it is forbidden for benefit, in accordance with the law of non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. The second, which is an offering, is unfit because of the status of “not yet due” resulting from “the mother and its offspring.”

And the second receives the forty

because of “the mother and its offspring.”

H. If the first was

consecrated and

the second was

non-sacred,

and he slaughtered them

inside—

The first is fit, and

its slaughterer is

exempt.

And the second receives the forty

because of “the mother and its offspring,”

and is unfit!

For the second animal is forbidden for benefit, in accordance with the law of non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

I. If the two animals were

non-sacred,

and he slaughtered the first

outside and

the second

inside—

The first is fit, and

its slaughterer is

exempt. And the second receives the forty

because of “the mother and its offspring,”

and is unfit!

For it is forbidden for benefit, in accordance with the law of non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

J. If the two animals were

consecrated,

and he slaughtered the first

outside and

the second

inside—

The first is liable for karet

because of slaughtering offerings outside.

And both receive the forty—the first because of slaughtering offerings outside, and the second because of “the mother and its offspring.”

the first because of slaughtering an offering outside, and the second because of “the mother and its young.”

And both

are offerings and

are unfit!

The first because it was slaughtered outside, and the second because it is “not yet due” owing to the prohibition against slaughtering “the mother and its offspring.”

XI. If both were

non-sacred,

and he slaughtered the first

inside and

the second

outside—

The first—it is

unfit!

For it is forbidden for benefit, in accordance with the law of non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,

and

its slaughterer is

exempt. And the second—he

receives the forty

because of “the mother and its offspring,”

and it is fit.

XII. If both were

consecrated,

and he slaughtered the first

inside and

the second

outside—

The first—it is

fit and its slaughterer is exempt.

And the second—he

receives the forty

because of “the mother and its offspring,”

and the offering is unfit

because it was slaughtered outside [and because of the status of “not yet due” resulting from “the mother and its offspring”].

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where

is the prohibition of

“the mother and its offspring,” which applies also to consecrated animals?

The verse states: “An ox or a sheep or a goat that is born,

it shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day onward it will be accepted as an offering by fire to the Lord”—and this refers to “consecrated animals.”

And it is written afterward—

“And whether it is an ox or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day.”

The verse taught

through the juxtaposition of the passages

that “the mother and its offspring” applies to consecrated animals!

And we raised an objection:

Perhaps

the verse comes to teach that only

with consecrated animals there is no

indeed a prohibition against slaughtering the mother and its offspring, whereas

with non-sacred animals there is no

prohibition!?

We explain: Since the verse repeated and stated

“an ox

or a sheep” in the passage concerning the mother and its offspring, after it had already written “an ox” earlier in the passage concerning consecrated animals, it teaches that

the passage has been interrupted!

That is, it is impossible to say that the prohibition applies only to consecrated animals. For if the intention of the verse were to say that the passage concerning the mother and its offspring continues the preceding passage concerning consecrated animals and applies only to consecrated animals, it should not have repeated and written, “And whether it is an ox or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day.” Rather, it should have said, as a continuation of the passage concerning consecrated animals, “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day,” since the verse had already spoken of an ox and a sheep in the preceding passage concerning consecrated animals.

We ask: Since we do not derive from consecrated animals because the passage has been interrupted,

perhaps

“the mother and its offspring”

does not apply to non-sacred animals,

and applies only to them, but

not to consecrated animals!?

We answer:

It is written

in the passage concerning the mother and its offspring

“and an ox”—

the vav adds it to the preceding matter,

to teach that its law is identical to that of the preceding verse. Since, on the one hand, the verse juxtaposed the two passages, and on the other hand, it interrupted between them, they are alike in some respects: “the mother and its offspring” applies both to consecrated and to non-sacred animals.

We raise an objection: Since “the mother and its offspring” is written adjacent to the passage concerning consecrated animals, let us derive its law from consecrated animals—

if, as with consecrated animals, a hybrid is not

fit, since an animal born from the mating of two different species is unfit as an offering,

then also with regard to “the mother and its offspring,”

a hybrid is not

subject to the prohibition! Is it permitted to slaughter on the same day the mother and its offspring born to it from an animal of another species?

It emerges that it was taught in a baraita: “it and its offspring” applies to kilayim and to a koy,

which is of uncertain status, whether a wild animal or a domesticated animal,

and furthermore

it is difficult concerning what we learned in the baraita, that the prohibition applies to kilayim. For

“she” is written

in “it and its offspring,”