Chullin 82a — the Talmud in English

When did it have a time of fitness? -

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon would say: A red

cow

may be redeemed

even after it has been slaughtered in accordance with the law, and it is already lying

upon its pyre,

prepared to be burned! For if he found another more beautiful than it, he may redeem it after slaughter. Therefore Rabbi Shimon considered it as food, because anything destined to be redeemed is considered as redeemed. And even after it can no longer be redeemed, the status of food for purposes of receiving impurity still remains upon it, because only something that never had permission to be eaten by any person is not considered “food ”. And since according to Rabbi Shimon a red cow is considered food, if so its slaughter is a fit slaughter; and why did he exempt one who slaughtered it on account of “that which is his and its offspring

”?

And we answer:

Rav Shemen bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: “The sin-offering cow”

is not part of the Mishna!

This law was not taught in our Mishna, that one is exempt on account of “that which is his and its offspring”; rather, its slaughter is a fit slaughter!

The Gemara further discusses what we learned in the Mishna, that Rabbi Shimon exempts in the case of the heifer whose neck is broken: Is the slaughter of

the heifer whose neck is broken not a fit slaughter!?

But we learned

[in Sota 47a]:

If the murderer was found before the heifer’s neck was broken -

it shall go out

the heifer,

and it shall graze in the herd!

That is, it is permitted for benefit like any animal.

It follows that the heifer whose neck is broken does not become forbidden before the breaking of its neck, and if so, its slaughter should be considered a fit slaughter? And we answer: Indeed, also with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken we find that

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The heifer whose neck is broken -

is not part of the Mishna!

And we challenge:

Did Rabbi Yannai say this

that “the heifer whose neck is broken is not part of the Mishna”?

But Rabbi Yannai said: I heard a limit concerning it

with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken: from when is it forbidden?

And I forgot! And the members of the academy

thought

to say: Its descent

of the heifer

to the rugged valley -

it

forbids it!

For from then it becomes forbidden for benefit.

And if it is so,

that is, since Rabbi Yannai holds that it becomes forbidden from the time of its descent, then why did he say that the heifer whose neck is broken is not part of the Mishna,

let him explain

the difficulty from the Mishna in Sota by saying that there are two laws: for the Mishna of “if the murderer was found” is speaking

before the descent

to the rugged valley, when it is still not forbidden for benefit. Whereas

here,

in our Mishna, we learned that the heifer whose neck is broken is considered an unfit slaughter, because it is speaking

after the descent,

when it has already become forbidden for benefit?

And we answer:

Rabbi Pinchas, son of Rav Ami, said: We teach it in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

the novelty that

“the heifer whose neck is broken is not part of the Mishna,”

and it was not said in the name of Rabbi Yannai. For only according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is the heifer whose neck is broken not forbidden at all while alive, even after its descent, and therefore he erased the law of the heifer whose neck is broken from our Mishna.

Rav Ashi said: When I was at the academy of Rav Pappi, it was difficult for us: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say this

that the heifer whose neck is broken is not forbidden while alive?

But it was stated: The birds of the leper -

from when are they forbidden

for benefit?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the time of slaughter

of the slaughtered bird; only it becomes forbidden, but the sent-away bird does not become forbidden at all, because the Torah did not say that it should be sent away and that those who find it should stumble through it.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

The two birds become forbidden

from the time of taking

them for the purification of the leper.

And we say: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish?

Because he

derives

the birds of the leper by a gzera shava,

“taking” -

“taking” from the heifer whose neck is broken,

since in both of them the expression “taking” is stated: just as the heifer whose neck is broken becomes forbidden while alive, so too the birds of the leper are forbidden while alive.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that the heifer whose neck is broken is forbidden while alive, so why did he say that the heifer whose neck is broken is not part of the Mishna?

And we answer: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish did not say it;

rather, Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The heifer whose neck is broken is not part of the Mishna!

Mishna:

Two people who purchased

a cow and its offspring: one purchased

the cow,

and the other purchased

its offspring -

whichever

of them

purchased first

shall

slaughter first,

and the second shall wait until tomorrow.

And if the second preceded

and slaughtered first -

he has gained!

And the first shall wait until tomorrow.

Gemara:

Rav Yosef said:

What we learned, that the first purchaser shall slaughter first, is not a matter of prohibition and permission, but rather

we taught it with regard to the law 83 ,

that if both of them came to court and each one wants to slaughter today, the court tells them that the first purchaser has the right of precedence.

And this is because if he alone had purchased, and the second animal had remained with the seller, he would have preceded the seller, because he purchases on the condition that he be able to slaughter today, and the seller waives his right for him. Therefore, even after the second person purchased, the right of precedence remains in the hands of the first purchaser. But if the first agrees to waive his right, the second is permitted to slaughter first.

A tanna taught: If the second preceded

and slaughtered first -

he is diligent, and gains!

And we explain:

“Diligent” -

for he did not commit a prohibition,

as he preceded on his own so that he would not come to the prohibition of “that which is his and its offspring ,”

“and gains,”

for he has a profit,

for he eats meat

today.

Mishna:

If he slaughtered the cow and afterward

slaughtered

its two offspring -

he receives eighty lashes -

he is lashed with two sets of lashes. For through the slaughter of each one of the offspring he violated the negative commandment of “that which is his and its offspring .”

He slaughtered

the

two offspring and afterward slaughtered

the mother -

he receives forty lashes -

he receives only one set of lashes, because he violated the prohibition only once - through the slaughter of the mother.

He slaughtered

the mother first, and afterward slaughtered

her daughter and

afterward slaughtered

her daughter’s daughter; he receives eighty lashes

because he violated “that which is his and its offspring” twice: once through the slaughter of the daughter, which was on the same day as the slaughter of the mother, and a second time through the slaughter of the daughter’s daughter, which was on the same day as the slaughter of the daughter, her mother.

She slaughtered

the mother

and

afterward slaughtered

her daughter's daughter [

and she had still not transgressed any prohibition, because only “the one and its offspring” is forbidden, but not the one and its grand-offspring],

and afterward slaughtered

the

daughter,

and in this slaughter of the daughter there are two transgressions of slaughtering “the one and its offspring”: one, that she is the daughter of the mother that had already been slaughtered, and the second, that she is the mother of the daughter's daughter that had already been slaughtered. Nevertheless, he does not

receive

anything but

the forty,

because the prohibition was enacted only through one act of slaughter, and here there is only one prohibition, one warning, and one act.

Somkhus says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He receives eighty

since through this slaughter he transgressed twice over “the one and its offspring" The H atam Sofer raised the difficulty: Why should he be liable twice? Is it not the case that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition? His entire difficulty applies only if the prohibition takes effect upon the second slaughtered animal, and since it had already become forbidden once through the slaughter of its mother, the slaughter of its daughter does not forbid it again. But if the prohibition is through the slaughter of both of them together, then the prohibition does not take effect upon the second at all; rather, it is a means through which one can transgress the prohibition, and he can transgress two prohibitions through his slaughter if the first slaughtered animals cause a division between the prohibitions, as below. See the Novellae of Rabbi Shlomo [ Writings, section 31]. Or Sameah [ Forbidden Foods 4:17] and Achiezer wrote that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition only with two prohibitions, but not with one prohibition, for we find in Kiddushin [71] that for the widow of Reuven and of Shimon, the High Priest receives only one [set of lashes], because they are one name, and it follows that if they were two names he would receive two, because one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition in a single prohibition; and so one can say regarding “the one and its offspring” [at least with regard to its two offspring and itself].

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the reason that if he first slaughtered her two offspring and afterward slaughtered the mother, he receives lashes:

Why?

For

“the one and its offspring,” said the Merciful One, and not “its offspring and the one,”

for the Torah forbade only slaughtering the offspring after the mother, and not the mother after the offspring?

And we answer:

Lo salka da'atach!

For once it is stated,

“the one and its offspring, I have only”

that it is forbidden to slaughter

the one

and afterward

its offspring.

But to slaughter

the one

and afterward

its mother—from where

is it forbidden?

When it says, “You shall not slaughter”

in the plural

there are two here!

And it follows that the warning was stated to two people, that they should not slaughter together “the one and its offspring.”

How so?

We find that two become liable in a case where

one slaughters the cow and one slaughters

after it

its mother, and one slaughters

after it

its offspring

of the first cow; the verse teaches that

the last two are liable.

The first, for “the one and its mother,” and the second, for “the one and its offspring.” And it is proven that one who slaughters the mother after the offspring receives lashes.