Chullin 78a — the Talmud in English

Rather,

the words of the baraita

were marked with red paint,

for this seemingly is a matter of a segula,

why

do they do so and not prohibit it because of the ways of the Amorites? Rather, it is proven that a matter resembling a segula is permitted.

And the Gemara rejects this:

so that people will see it,

so that people will see and recognize this sign, and understand that they placed this sign on account of the illness of the tree that is shedding its fruits,

and request mercy for it,

they will request mercy for it!

And this matter is

as it was taught in a baraita:

It is stated concerning the leper [Leviticus 13:45]: “And the leper in whom the plague is, his garments shall be torn, and his head shall be unshorn, and he shall cover his upper lip

and he shall call out: Impure, impure.”

That is, they call out and proclaim that he is impure. And this is because

he must make it known to the public

about his leprosy,

and the public requests mercy for him.

And likewise, one to whom something has happened must make it known to the public, and the public requests mercy for him!

Ravina said: In accordance with whom,

in accordance with whose view 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 fruits?

In accordance with whom? In accordance with this tanna,

whose words we have just recited: “One to whom something has happened must make it known to the public, and the public requests mercy for him”!

We have completed you, chapter “The Animal That Is in Difficulty Giving Birth.”

Mishna:

The prohibition of slaughtering

that one and its offspring

its mother and its offspring] on one day

applies both in the Land

and

both outside the Land. 2 .

Both

before the Temple

when the Temple was in existence

and

both

not before the Temple.

Both

with unconsecrated animals and

both

with consecrated animals,

with sacrifices.

How so?

a.

One who slaughters that one and its offspring

and both are

unconsecrated,

if he slaughters them

outside

the Temple courtyard —

both are valid!

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 transgressed, “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring on one day.”

b. And if the two animals that are “that one and its offspring” were

consecrated

and he slaughtered them

outside

the courtyard, then the one who slaughtered

the first is liable for extirpation

because of slaughtering outside, [while the second is exempt from extirpation for slaughtering outside, since the second animal is invalid on that day for sacrifice and is considered “lacking time,” because it is forbidden to slaughter it because of “that one and its offspring” , and one is liable for slaughtering outside only for slaughtering a sacrifice fit to be offered inside at that time].

And both,

the two sacrifices slaughtered outside,

are invalid,

for they were slaughtered outside the courtyard.

And both,

the two slaughterers,

receive the forty!

The first, who slaughtered the first animal, receives lashes for the prohibition of slaughtering outside [in addition to the punishment of extirpation imposed upon him] . And the second receives lashes for the prohibition of “that one and its offspring” [but does not receive lashes for slaughtering outside, as explained above concerning extirpation].

c. And if the two animals were

unconsecrated,

and he slaughtered them

inside

the courtyard, then

both are invalid,

for they are forbidden for benefit, according to the law of unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the courtyard.

And

the one who slaughters

the second —

receives the forty, because he transgressed the prohibition of “that one and its offspring.” [But the first is exempt from lashes, because slaughtering unconsecrated animals in the courtyard is not prohibited by a prohibition, but by a positive commandment] .

because he violated the prohibition of “the mother and its young.” [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.]

And if the two animals were

consecrated

and he slaughtered them

inside —

The first,

the first sacrifice, is

valid

as a sacrifice,

and

the slaughterer is

exempt!

For he did not transgress any prohibition.

But if the slaughterer slaughtered

if the slaughterer slaughtered

the second — he

receives the forty!

Because of “that one and its offspring,”

and it is invalid,

the sacrifice slaughtered by the second slaughterer, for it is “lacking time,” not being fit for offering today because of the prohibition of “that one and its offspring.”

e. One who slaughters that one and its offspring, and the first was

unconsecrated, and

the second

consecrated,

and the slaughter of both was

outside —

The first — it is

valid, and

the one who slaughtered it is

exempt.

And

the one who slaughters

the second — he

receives the forty

because of “that one and its offspring” [but because of slaughtering outside he is not liable, since it is not fit to be offered inside on that day because of the prohibition of “that one and its offspring”],

and the sacrifice is invalid,

because it was slaughtered outside [and it too is lacking time because of the prohibition against slaughtering “that one and its offspring”].

f. And if the first was

consecrated and

the second

unconsecrated,

and he slaughtered them

outside —

For the slaughtering of

the first he is liable for extirpation

because of slaughtering outside,

and

the sacrifice is

invalid

because it was slaughtered outside.

And the second,

which is unconsecrated, is

valid. And both receive the forty!

The first because of slaughtering outside, and the second because of “that one and its offspring.”

g. And if the first was

unconsecrated

and the second

consecrated

and he slaughtered them

inside —

both are invalid!

The first is called “invalid” because it is forbidden for benefit, according to the law of unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the courtyard. And the second, which is a sacrifice, is invalid because it is lacking time on account of “that one and its offspring”;

and the second receives the forty

because of “that one and its offspring.”

h. And if the first was

consecrated and

the second

unconsecrated

and he slaughtered them

inside —

The first is valid and

the one who slaughtered it is

exempt.

And the second receives the forty

because of “that one and its offspring,”

and is invalid!

For the second animal is forbidden for benefit, according to the law of unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the courtyard.

i. If the two animals were

unconsecrated,

and he slaughtered the first

outside and

the second

inside —

The first is valid and

the one who slaughtered it is

exempt. And the second receives the forty

because of “that one and its offspring,”

and is invalid!

For it is forbidden for benefit, according to the law of unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the courtyard.

j. And if the two animals were

consecrated,

and he slaughtered the first

outside and

the second

inside —

The first is liable for extirpation

because of slaughtering outside.

And both receive the forty —

the first because of slaughtering outside, and the second because of “that one and its offspring.”

And both

sacrifices are

invalid!

The first because it was slaughtered outside, and the second because it is lacking time on account of the prohibition against slaughtering “that one and its offspring.”

xi. If both were

unconsecrated,

and he slaughtered the first

inside and

the second

outside —

The first — it is

invalid!

For it is forbidden for benefit, according to the law of unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the courtyard,

and

the one who slaughtered it is

exempt. And the second — it

receives the forty

because of “that one and its offspring,”

and is valid.

xii. If both were

consecrated,

and he slaughtered the first

inside and

the second

outside —

The first — it is

valid and he is exempt.

And the second — it

receives the forty

because of “that one and its offspring,”

and the sacrifice is invalid

because it was slaughtered outside [and because it is lacking time on account of “that one and its offspring”].

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where

is the prohibition of

“that one and its offspring,” which applies also to consecrated animals?

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

and it shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day onward it shall be acceptable as an offering, a fire-offering to the Lord,” and this refers to “consecrated animals.”

And it is written afterward —

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

The verse taught,

from the juxtaposition of the passages,

concerning “that one and its offspring,” that it applies to consecrated animals!

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

Perhaps

the verse came to teach that only

with consecrated animals there is —

indeed the prohibition of slaughtering that one and its offspring, whereas

with unconsecrated animals there is not

the prohibition!?

And we explain: Since the verse repeated and said

“an ox

or a sheep” in the passage of that one and its offspring, after it had already written “an ox” above in the passage concerning consecrated animals, it came to teach you that

the subject was interrupted!

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

And we object: Since we do not learn from consecrated animals because the subject was interrupted,

perhaps

“that one and its offspring”

does not apply to unconsecrated animals,

but applies only to them, whereas

it does not apply to consecrated animals!?

And we answer:

It is written

in the passage of that one and its offspring

“and an ox” —

the vav adds to the first subject,

to say that its law should be equal to the preceding verse! Since, on the one hand, the verse juxtaposed them, and on the other hand it interrupted between them, they are equal in part: “that one and its offspring” applies both to consecrated animals and to unconsecrated animals.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this: Since “that one and its offspring” is written adjacent to the subject of consecrated animals, let us learn from consecrated animals:

Just as with consecrated animals, hybrids are not,

for an animal born from the mating of two different kinds of animals is invalid as a sacrifice,

so too “that one and its offspring” —

hybrids are not!

And it should be permitted to slaughter on one day the mother and her offspring born to her 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,”