Chullin 82b — the Talmud in English

And we object: Is

this “

you shall not slaughter”

needed for its own matter, to prohibit slaughtering “that one and its offspring,” and is it not superfluous for a derivation? And we answer:

to prohibit slaughtering “that animal and its offspring,” so how can it be superfluous for an exegetical derivation? And they answer:

If so, if only “for its own matter” were intended, it would have been appropriate

to write

“you shall not slaughter” in the singular

language.

What is the reason for “you shall not slaughter”

in the plural language? Infer from it that it was written for a derivation, to prohibit this even when two people slaughter.

And we object:

It is still needed

to write “you shall not slaughter.”

For had the Merciful One written “you shall not slaughter,” we would have said:

If one

person slaughtered, yes,

for the prohibition was stated only in a situation in which one person slaughtered that one and its offspring; but if

two

people slaughtered, one slaughtering that one and the other its offspring,

not

did the Torah prohibit it. And for this purpose

the Merciful One wrote “you shall not slaughter,”

to say to you:

Even two

who slaughtered: it is prohibited for the second to slaughter the second animal. And if so, the verse is not superfluous to teach that it is prohibited for two people to slaughter the offspring and the offspring’s offspring.

And we explain:

If so,

if the verse came only to prohibit the second person,

let the verse write

“

they shall not slaughter,”

whose meaning would be that “that one and its offspring” shall not be slaughtered on one day, whether by one person or by two people.

What is the reason for “you shall not slaughter”? Infer from it two things!

For included in its meaning is also that if two slaughter, both of them transgress “that one and its offspring.”

We learned in the Mishna:

If he slaughtered it and its daughter’s daughter

and afterward slaughtered its daughter, Sumakhos says: he receives eighty lashes!

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the reason of Sumakhos

who obligates two sets of lashes for one slaughtering, through which he transgressed twice on “that one and its offspring”?

Is it that

Sumakhos holds

that one who

ate two olive-bulk portions of forbidden fat

unwittingly

during one lapse of awareness 93 ,

without becoming aware between eating one olive-bulk and eating the other olive-bulk that he had sinned,

is liable for two sin-offerings?

For just as he obligates two sets of lashes for one warning and one prohibition, so he obligates two sin-offerings for one lapse of awareness .

And it would be proper that he [the tanna] should inform us

of Sumakhos’s view

in general,

in the case of one who ate two olive-bulk portions of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable for two sin-offerings, even though they are not distinct bodies.

And this that he informs us

the tanna in our Mishna of the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis specifically

in this case,

in the prohibition of “that one and its offspring,” even though in this prohibition there are distinct bodies—this is only in order

to make known to you the strength of the Rabbis, for even though

the two sets of lashes for slaughtering the middle cow are liable because of

distinct bodies,

namely, two cows, one set of lashes becoming due by virtue of slaughtering the mother of the middle cow, and the second by virtue of slaughtering the daughter of the middle cow, nevertheless

the Rabbis exempt

from two sets of lashes, and he is liable only for one set of lashes.

For according to the Rabbis, distinct bodies cause liability for lashes for each body only when the prohibition is performed in two bodies. But here, he performed both prohibitions in the body of the middle one, and their entire separation is because of the mother and the daughter that caused the prohibition; in such a case there is no separation of bodies for lashes.

Or perhaps, Sumakhos holds

that one who

ate two olive-bulk portions of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness is liable only

for one sin-offering.

And here

in “that one and its offspring,”

this is the reason of Sumakhos

that he obligates two sets of lashes:

since

they come

through distinct bodies

of two animals . This is not so with two olive-bulk portions of forbidden fat, which are considered one body . And the Rabbis hold that an act performed in one body contains no separation of bodies, as above.

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Yes! He holds

Sumakhos even with regard to

one who ate two olive-bulk portions of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness,

that he

is liable for two sin-offerings!

And we explain:

From where

is the source that Sumakhos holds this way?

For it was taught

in a beraita:

One who sows mixed species,

and then sows

mixed species, receives lashes.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the meaning of “receives lashes”?

That he

receives lashes

of lashes

once

only? But

it is obvious

that he receives at least one set of lashes!

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

what is the meaning of the wording “mixed species

mixed species” that the tanna used? After all, even for one sowing of mixed species he is liable for one set of lashes!

which the tanna used? Even for sowing diverse kinds once, one is liable to one set of lashes.

Rather, it is obvious

that

two sets of lashes

he receives.

And

with what are we dealing? It is obvious

that he sowed mixed species twice,

one after the other and with two warnings,

having been warned before each sowing. If so, what did the beraita teach with this law? After all, we already

learned

in the Mishna that one receives lashes for each warning .

For we learned [Mishna in Nazir 42a]:

A nazirite who was drinking wine all day,

and they did not warn him between the acts of drinking,

is liable only once.

But if

they said to him, “Do not drink”

from the wine,

and he drinks,

and afterward they warned him again,

“Do not drink,”

and he drinks, he is liable for each one and one!

Rather, it is obvious

that the beraita is dealing with a case in which he sowed

at one time,

with one hand sowing wheat and a grape seed, and with his other hand barley and a grape seed ,

with one warning

99 , and for this he receives two sets of lashes.

And

who

is the tanna who taught the beraita?

Is it perhaps the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos?

That is impossible, for

now, and if there,

in the case of one who slaughters the daughter after the mother and its daughter’s daughter,

where there are distinct bodies, the Rabbis exempt him, here,

where the two sowings are considered one body [for only living creatures are considered distinct bodies],

is it not all the more so

that he is liable only once!?

Rather, it is not Sumakhos!

And it is proved from the beraita concerning mixed species that Sumakhos disagrees even with regard to bodies that are not distinct, and obligates him for two sets of lashes; and the same is true of one who ate two olive-bulk portions of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness, that according to Sumakhos he is liable for two sin-offerings.

And we reject this:

No! Actually

the beraita of “one who sows mixed species” is according to

the Rabbis

and is dealing with one who sowed mixed species one after the other and with two warnings. Nevertheless, this law is not known from what we learned in Nazir, where he is liable for two sets of lashes with two warnings. For one can say that the beraita is speaking of a case in which one sowing was wheat and a grape seed, and the other was barley and a grape seed.

And a matter incidentally it informs us

the beraita,

that there are two forms of mixed species!

For both wheat and a grape seed, and barley and a grape seed, each one by itself is mixed species .

And to exclude the view of Rabbi Yashya.

For Rabbi Yashya said:

one is not liable on account of mixed species

until he sows wheat, barley, and a grape seed

when all three of them are

in one handful!

That is, he sows all three at one time; but one species together with a grape seed is not mixed species.

It informs us

the beraita

that when he sows wheat and a grape seed, or barley and a grape seed—

he is also liable

on account of mixed species!

Come and hear

to resolve the issue of what Sumakhos’s view is:

For we learned:

One who ate

two olive-bulk portions from the two sciatic nerves, for example, he ate

from this

from the nerve in the animal’s right thigh

an olive-bulk, and from this

from the nerve in the left thigh

an olive-bulk,

he

receives eighty lashes!

Because he transgressed twice the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve.

Rabbi Yehuda says: he receives only forty lashes!

For Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only in one of the animal’s thighs.

And the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances?

If it is perhaps

that he ate both of them

one after the other and with two warnings,

raise a difficulty:

what is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

who obligates him for one set of lashes? After all, he should not have had to receive lashes at all, for Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain [according to one side of the Gemara below] in which thigh the sciatic nerve applies, whether in the right or in the left. If so, when they warn him before eating each of the two sciatic nerves,

it is a warning of uncertainty,

for perhaps this is not the forbidden nerve.

And have we heard Rabbi Yehuda say: a warning of uncertainty is not considered a warning?

And consequently it is impossible to obligate him for lashes for either of the two nerves. [See Rashi’s words carefully.]

For it was taught [that Rabbi Yehuda holds that a warning of uncertainty is not considered a warning]: A person concerning whom it is uncertain to us which of two men is his father—whether this man or that man—

and

and

the son struck

this one, and then struck that one,

that is, he struck the two men concerning whom we are uncertain which of them is his father; or he

cursed this one and then cursed that one. Or he struck

both

both of them at one time

this one with one hand and that one with his other hand ;

or he cursed

both

both of them at one time—

he is liable

for death, because he struck or cursed his father, for one of them is certainly his father.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If he struck or cursed both of them

at one time—

he is liable!

For there is here one warning, which is a definite warning. But if he struck or cursed

one after the other—

he is exempt!

Because each of the blows has a separate warning, which is a warning of uncertainty, for perhaps this is not his father; and in this act there is no liability for death. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that a warning of uncertainty is not considered a warning.

Rather, it is obvious

that the Mishna concerning the sciatic nerve is dealing with a case in which he ate both nerves

at one time and with one warning,

and in this manner it is considered a definite warning; therefore Rabbi Yehuda obligates him for only one set of lashes .

And who

is the

first tanna

who holds that he receives two sets of lashes for eating the two sciatic nerves at one time and with one warning?

Is it perhaps the Rabbis who disagree with him, with Sumakhos

in the matter of “that one and its offspring”? For it will be difficult:

now, and if there,

in the case of one who slaughters the middle one after its mother and daughter

where there are distinct bodies,

of two separate animals, and nevertheless

the Rabbis exempt

him from two sets of lashes,

here,

in the case of the sciatic nerve, where the two nerves are not considered “distinct bodies,” for the significance of “body” applies only to a living creature ,

is it not all the more so

that he is liable only for one set of lashes?

Rather, no; it is Sumakhos

and infer from it that Sumakhos obligates [one] to two lashes even in a case where the bodies are not divided.

And we reject this:

No! Always

it is speaking of one who ate the two sciatic sinews

one after the other, and

the Mishna is according to the opinion of

the Rabbis

it is, and nevertheless one cannot object: Why does Rabbi Judah obligate [him] to lashes, when it is a warning of doubt? For

this tanna

who brought Rabbi Judah’s opinion concerning the sciatic sinew

held like the other tanna of Rabbi Judah, who said: A warning of doubt is called a warning!

And we find that the tannaim disputed regarding Rabbi Judah’s opinion whether, according to his view, a warning of doubt is called a warning or not:

For it was taught: “You shall not leave any of it until morning, and what is left over from it until morning

you shall burn in fire!”