Chullin 82a (פב.) — the Talmud in English

And

when did it have a time when it was fit for use

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

red

may be redeemed

even after it has been slaughtered in accordance with halakha and is already lying

upon its arrangement,

ready to be burned! For if one found another more beautiful than it, he could redeem it after slaughter. And therefore Rabbi Shimon regarded it as food, because anything that is destined to be redeemed is considered as though it has been redeemed. And even after it can no longer be redeemed, it still retains the status of food with regard to contracting ritual impurity, because only something that was never permitted as food to anyone is not considered “food ”.

And since according to Rabbi Shimon a red heifer is considered food, its slaughter is therefore valid slaughter. Why, then, did he exempt one who slaughtered it on account of the prohibition of “that one and its offspring”?

And we answer:

Rav Shaman bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: “The sin-offering heifer”

is not part of the Mishna!

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

The Gemara further discusses what we learned in the Mishna, that Rabbi Shimon exempts one who slaughters a beheaded heifer: Is the slaughter of

a beheaded heifer not valid slaughter!?

But didn’t we learn

[in Sotah 47a]:

If the murderer is found before the heifer is beheaded

it shall go out

the heifer

and graze in the flock!

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

It follows that a beheaded heifer is not prohibited before it is beheaded; if so, its slaughter should be considered valid slaughter? And we answer: Indeed, with regard to a beheaded heifer as well we find that

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: A beheaded heifer

is not part of the Mishna!

And we challenge this:

Did Rabbi Yannai say this

that “a beheaded heifer is not part of the Mishna”?

But Rabbi Yannai said: I heard a limit concerning it

with regard to a beheaded heifer—when does it become prohibited?

And I forgot! And the scholars

of the academy thought

to say: Its descent

of the heifer

to the rough ravine

is what

renders it prohibited!

From that point it becomes prohibited for benefit.

And if it is so,

that since Rabbi Yannai holds that it becomes prohibited from the moment of its descent, why did he say that a beheaded heifer is not part of the Mishna,

let him explain

the difficulty from the Mishna in Sotah by saying that there are two different laws: The Mishna stating “if the murderer is found” is speaking

before the descent

to the rough ravine, when it is still not prohibited for benefit. Whereas

here,

in our Mishna, which teaches that a beheaded heifer is considered invalid slaughter, it is speaking

after the descent,

when it has already become prohibited for benefit?

And we answer:

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

the teaching that

“a beheaded heifer is not part of the Mishna”

and it was not stated in the name of Rabbi Yannai. For only according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is a beheaded heifer never prohibited while alive, even after its descent; therefore he erased the law of the beheaded heifer from our Mishna.

Rav Ashi said: When I was at the academy of Rav Pappi, we had difficulty: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say this

that a beheaded heifer is not prohibited while alive?

But it was stated: The birds of a leper—

from when do they become prohibited

for benefit?

Rabbi Yohanan said: From the time of slaughter

of the slaughtered bird. Only that bird becomes prohibited, whereas the sent-away bird never becomes prohibited, because the Torah did not command that it be sent away in a manner that would cause those who find it to stumble through it.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

The two birds become prohibited

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 law of the birds of a leper by means of a gzera shava,

“taking”—

“taking” from a beheaded heifer,

as in both cases the expression “taking” is stated. Just as a beheaded heifer becomes prohibited while alive, so too the birds of a leper become prohibited while alive.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that a beheaded heifer is prohibited while alive. Why, then, did he say that a beheaded heifer is not part of the Mishna?

And we answer: It was not Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who said it,

but rather Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: A beheaded heifer is not part of the Mishna!

Mishna:

Two people who purchased

bought a cow and its offspring: One bought

the cow,

and the other bought

its offspring—

whichever

of them

purchased first

shall

slaughter first,

and the other shall wait until the following day.

And if the second preceded him

and slaughtered first,

he has prevailed!

And the first shall wait until the following day.

Gemara:

Rav Yosef said:

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

we taught it with regard to the law 83 ,

that if both came to court, each wanting to slaughter that day, the court tells them that the first purchaser has the right of precedence.

This is because if he alone had purchased and the second animal had remained with the seller, he would have precedence over the seller, since he purchased it in order to be able to slaughter it that day, and the seller relinquished his right to him. Therefore, even after the second person purchased the other animal, the right of precedence remains with the first purchaser. But if the first agrees to relinquish his right, the second may slaughter first.

A tanna taught: If the second preceded him

and slaughtered first,

he is diligent and rewarded!

And we explain:

“Diligent”—

because he did not commit a transgression

by preceding on his own initiative so that he would not come to violate the prohibition of “that one and its offspring,”

“and rewarded,”

because he has a benefit,

for he eats meat

that day.

Mishna:

If one slaughtered the cow and afterward

slaughtered

its two offspring—

he receives eighty lashes—

he is given two sets of lashes, because by slaughtering each of the offspring he violated the prohibition of “that one and its offspring.”

If he slaughtered

the

two offspring and afterward slaughtered it

the mother—

he receives forty lashes—

he receives only one set of lashes, because he violated the prohibition only once—when slaughtering the mother.

If he slaughtered

the mother first, and afterward slaughtered

her daughter and

then slaughtered

her granddaughter, he receives eighty lashes

because he violated “that one and its offspring” twice: once when slaughtering the daughter, which was on the same day as the slaughter of the mother, and a second time when slaughtering the granddaughter, which was on the same day as the slaughter of the daughter, her mother.

She slaughtered

the mother,

and

afterward he slaughtered

the daughter of her daughter [

and he still had not transgressed any prohibition, because only “that one and its offspring” is prohibited, but not that one and its grand-offspring],

and afterward he slaughtered

the

daughter,

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

receive lashes

except

forty,

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

Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He receives eighty lashes

since through this slaughter he transgressed twice the prohibition of “that one and its offspring" .

Gemara:

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

Why?

For

“that one and its offspring,” the Merciful One says, and not “its offspring and that one,”

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

We answer:

That cannot enter your mind, for it was taught:

Since it is stated,

“that one and its offspring,” I know only

that it is prohibited to slaughter

that one

and afterward

its offspring.

But to slaughter

that one

and afterward

its mother—from where

do we know that it is prohibited?

When it says, “You shall not slaughter”

in the plural

there are two here!

This indicates that the warning was stated to two people, that they must not slaughter “that one and its offspring” together.

How so?

We find that two people 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 is liable for “that one and its mother,” and the second for “that one and its offspring.” This proves that one who slaughters the mother after the offspring also receives lashes.