Chullin 83a — the Talmud in English

The verse came to assign a positive commandment

of burning the leftover by morning

after

he transgressed the

negative commandment

of “You shall not leave over

to say that he is not flogged for it

for this negative commandment, since it is severed by a positive commandment. And for every negative commandment that is severed by a positive commandment, one is not flogged for it

—the words of Rabbi Judah.

And this tanna holds according to Rabbi Judah that an uncertain warning is called a warning. Therefore, were it not for the reason that the negative commandment is severed by a positive commandment, Rabbi Judah would obligate one to receive lashes for notar, even though there is here an uncertain warning, for at the time that they warn him, “Do not leave it over,” it is not certain that he is transgressing the prohibition, since perhaps at the end of the night he will eat the offering . [And he disagrees with the tanna who taught Rabbi Judah’s words: if he struck and cursed one after the other, he is exempt because of an uncertain warning.]

Rabbi Jacob says: This is not the reason!

He is exempt for notar not because of the reason “severed by a positive commandment” ,

but because it is a negative commandment that does not involve an action,

for the person who leaves the offering over does not perform any action; rather, it becomes notar by itself

and for every negative commandment that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for it!

Ta shma

to resolve the issue concerning the view of Sumakhos, whether he obligates two sets of lashes specifically for separate bodies, or even for any two olives’ bulk.

If he ate two sinews

of the sciatic nerve

from two thighs of two animals,

and both thighs are right thighs ,

he receives eighty lashes!

Two sets of lashes for the two sinews that he ate.

Rabbi Judah says: He receives only forty.

And the Gemara discusses this:

What are the circumstances? If you say

that he ate them

one after the other and with two warnings,

then it is difficult:

What is the reason for Rabbi Judah, who says

that he receives

forty and no more?

But he ate two sinews, both of which are forbidden, since they are from the right thigh, which is the forbidden thigh.

Rather, it is obvious

that the case is one in which he ate them

at one time and with a single warning,

and therefore Rabbi Judah holds that he is liable for only one set of lashes.

And

who

is the

first tanna

who obligates two sets of lashes for eating the two sinews at one time and with one warning?

If you say that it is the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos,

then it is difficult:

And there,

in the case of one who slaughters the middle animal after its mother and its offspring,

where the bodies are separate, the Rabbis exempt him; here

in the case of one who eats two sinews, is it not all the more so that they should exempt him from an additional set of lashes? For the significance of a separate “body” exists only with a living creature, and not with a sinew, which has no life.

Rather, is it not Sumakhos!

And derive from it that Sumakhos obligates two even in a case where the bodies are not separate.

And we reject this:

Actually,

the case is one in which he ate the sinews

one after the other.

Therefore the first tanna obligates two sets of lashes.

And as for what you said,

if so,

what is the reason for Rabbi Judah

that he obligates only one? It is possible to explain that the case is

for example, where one of them does not contain an olive’s bulk,

of the two sinews: one of them contains an olive’s bulk and the other does not. Therefore he is liable only for the sinew that contains an olive’s bulk. But the first tanna holds that one who eats an entire sciatic nerve is liable even if it does not contain an olive’s bulk, since it is a “creature,” and a “creature” does not require a measure .

For it was taught: If he ate it

the sciatic nerve

and it does not contain an olive’s bulk—

he is liable

for lashes, because it is a “creature.”

Rabbi Judah says: He is not liable

until it contains an olive’s bulk,

for the sciatic nerve is not considered a “creature.”

Mishna:

On four periods

times

during the year

108, one who sells an animal to his fellow must inform him: The mother

of this animal

I sold

today

to slaughter!

Or,

I sold the daughter

today

to slaughter!

For during these four days Israel customarily prepares large feasts for the following day, and one who purchases an animal intends to slaughter it immediately, and it stands to reason that the first purchaser already slaughtered today. Therefore the seller must inform the second purchaser not to slaughter it today as well, and thereby transgress “that one and its offspring” .

And these are

the four periods:

The eve of the last festival day of the Festival

of Sukkot .

And the eve of the first festival day of Passover.

And the eve of Atzeret—

Shavuot.

And the eve of Rosh Hashanah.

And according to the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean,

also on the eve of Yom Kippur in the Galilee

he must inform him. For in the Galilee they were accustomed to eat the meat of an animal on the eve of Yom Kippur, whereas in the other places they ate only the meat of birds and fish .

Rabbi Judah said: When

he must inform him—

when he has no interval,

when there was no interval of time between the purchase of the first and the second. That is, he also sold the mother or the daughter to the first purchaser on the eve of the festival.

But

if

he has an interval,

having sold to the first purchaser yesterday and to the second purchaser today, on the eve of the festival—

he need not inform him

the second purchaser, since presumably the first purchaser already slaughtered it yesterday .

And Rabbi Judah concedes: when one sells the mother to the groom and the daughter to the bride, he must inform him

the second purchaser even if they did not both purchase on the same day, for

it is known that both of them slaughter on one day,

for the wedding feast .

During these four periods they compel the slaughterer against his will!

For they compel the seller to slaughter the animal,

even

if it was a

bull worth one thousand dinars, and the purchaser has

in that bull

only one dinar

alone, which he paid the slaughterer so that he would give him meat worth one dinar, and the slaughterer has no purchasers for the remainder of the meat; nevertheless,

they compel him to slaughter

it and to give the purchaser meat worth one dinar. This law applies only during these four periods, because at these times the purchaser acquires a share in the body of the bull merely by giving money, even if he did not perform the act of acquisition called “lifting”; as will be explained in the Gemara, this is the reason. And since he is a partner in the bull, he can compel the seller to slaughter it.

Therefore, if it dies,

the bull—

it dies for the purchaser!

For he loses the dinar that he paid, since his portion also died.

But during the rest of the days of the year, this is not so.

For they do not compel the slaughterer to slaughter, since the purchaser did not perform the act of acquisition called “lifting,” and the slaughterer can retract from the sale.

Therefore, if it dies,

the bull,

it dies

only

for the seller.

For the entire bull belongs to him, and the purchaser receives his money back. [This explanation of the Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Yohanan in the Gemara.]

Gemara:

The tanna taught: If he did not inform him

the seller did not inform the purchaser of anything during the four aforementioned periods—

he goes

the purchaser

and slaughters

today,

and does not refrain,

for he need not be concerned that he may be transgressing “that one and its offspring” .

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah said: When ...

and Rabbi Judah concedes when one sells the mother to the groom and the daughter to the bride.

And we raise a question about it:

Why do I need it to teach, “the mother to the groom and the daughter to the bride”

specifically in this order? The same law applies if he sold the mother to the groom and the daughter to the bride, and it would have been preferable to say: “He sold one to the groom and one to the bride”?

And we answer:

The Mishna teaches us a matter incidentally in the course of its wording,

that

it is proper conduct for the groom’s household to exert themselves more than the bride’s household.

For the groom makes a larger feast than the bride; therefore, he purchases the mother, the larger one, while the bride purchases the daughter, the smaller one.

We learned in the Mishna:

During these four periods

they compel the slaughterer against his will.

And we raise a question about it:

But he did not lift

the purchaser did not lift the animal, and it was not acquired by him; why, then, do they compel the slaughterer to slaughter it?

And we answer:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

the Mishna is dealing

with a case where he lifted

the animal.

And we object:

If so, say the latter clause

of the Mishna:

“But during the rest of the days of the year, this is not so. Therefore, if it dies,

it dies for the seller.”

And if it is as you say, this is difficult:

But he lifted

the purchaser lifted it, and if so, he acquired it even during the rest of the days of the year; why, then, do they not compel the slaughterer to slaughter it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said: Actually,

the Mishna is dealing with a case

where he did not lift

it, the purchaser.

And for example, the seller conferred acquisition upon him

the purchaser

through

another

person.

For the seller gave the bull to one person without the purchaser’s presence and without his knowledge, so that this person would perform an act of acquisition with the bull and acquire for the purchaser meat worth one dinar from the bull.

And therefore,

during these four periods, since it is a benefit for him

the purchaser that he should have meat for the festival feast, we say:

one may acquire an object for a person in his absence.

And the purchaser acquired the meat that a certain person acquired on his behalf.

But during the rest of the days of the year, since the purchase of the meat is a liability for him

the purchaser, because of the expense involved, we say:

one may impose a liability upon a person only in his presence!

And since the acquisition was performed in the purchaser’s absence, therefore he acquired nothing .

Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Yohanan said:

The Mishna is dealing with a case in which the purchaser did not perform meshikha, but merely gave money. Nevertheless,

in these four chapters

he acquires through the money, because

the Sages established their words according to Torah law!

For according to Torah law, the giving of money in fact serves as an act of acquisition; rather, the Sages nullified acquisition through “money,” as will be explained below, and for the sake of the Festival they left the Torah law in place, so that the money acquires in these four chapters.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: By Torah law,

according to Torah law,

money acquires!

For one who gives money for a particular object acquires the object, so that neither the seller nor the purchaser can retract.

And for what reason did they say

the Sages

that meshikha

alone

acquires

and not money!?

A decree lest he say to him

the seller to the purchaser:

“Your wheat has burned in the upper room.”

For if money acquired, then if a fire broke out in the seller’s domain and burned the wheat for which the purchaser had paid, the seller would not trouble himself to save it, since the loss would be the purchaser’s, and the seller could say to him: The wheat that burned was yours. Therefore, the Sages nullified acquisition through money, so that as long as the wheat is in the seller’s domain it remains his; and they instituted that one acquires only through meshikha. Through this, the purchaser will not come to loss, since ordinarily after meshikha he brings the object to his home. But in these chapters they nullified the need for meshikha in order that the acquisition take effect and the slaughterer be obligated to slaughter for the sake of the Festival .

Mishna:

The “one day” stated

in the Torah

concerning “that one and its offspring,”

as it is written, “You shall not slaughter on one day”

the day follows

it

after the preceding night.

For the day and the night preceding it are one day: if he slaughtered the mother at the beginning of the night, it is forbidden to slaughter its offspring throughout the entire night and the entire following day, until nightfall. But if he slaughtered the mother at the end of the day, he may slaughter its offspring immediately at the beginning of the night that follows, since it is already another day .

This is what Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma expounded: It is stated in the account of Creation,

“And there was evening and there was morning,

one day,”

and concerning “that one and its offspring” it is stated, “one day.”

From now we derive:

Just as “one day” stated in the account of Creation

the day follows the preceding night

—for it is written, “And there was evening and there was morning,” evening first and then morning—

so too “one day” stated concerning “that one and its offspring

the day follows the preceding night

before it!

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

This is what Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma expounded: Since the entire matter

of “that one and its offspring”

in its entirety speaks only of sacrificial offerings,

for the passage concerning that one and its offspring is adjacent to the passage that speaks about matters of sacrificial offerings, and with sacrificial offerings the law is that

the night follows the preceding day

, for offerings that are eaten for one day may also be eaten on the night following the day of their offering, since it is considered one day together with the day of the offering.

If so,

one might even say that this,

the passage of “that one and its offspring,”

is likewise so;

therefore I derive as follows:

It is stated here, “one day,” and it is stated in the account of Creation, “one day.” Just as “one day” stated in the account of Creation

the day follows the night, so too “one day” stated concerning “that one and its offspring”

the day follows the night!