Sanhedrin 80a (פ.) — the Talmud in English

If so

according to their explanation,

this is what is taught concerning it

what we taught in the beraita concerning this Mishna]

even Abba Ḥalafta

the righteous

among them

among those others—how can it be understood according to your explanation? !

Rather, Rava said:

Regarding what we taught: “A murderer who became intermingled with others—all of them are exempt,”

this is what it means:

If two people were standing, and an arrow emerged from between them and killed

and the court does not know which of them shot the arrow,

both are exempt.

And

concerning this

Rabbi Yosei

said in the beraita: The Mishna taught this דין, although it is obvious, in order to teach:

even Abba Ḥalafta

the righteous

among them

so that you should not say: He certainly did not throw the arrow, and if so, we should obligate the other one on the basis of this presumption. Therefore, it teaches us that the other one is not held liable. The Mishna is deficient, and Rabbi Yehuda disputed the following formulation of it:

And

if

an ox whose verdict had been finalized became intermingled with other superior oxen [

that had done nothing], we do not exempt them all. Rather, since all of them are forbidden to derive benefit from them, like an ox that was sentenced to stoning, because we do not know which one is the one forbidden to derive benefit from, it follows that the owners have already suffered their loss; therefore

they are stoned [

all of them], in order to fulfill the mitzva of stoning with regard to the one liable for it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They are gathered—

all the oxen—

into a chamber.

The Gemara supports the explanation of the dispute from a beraita, in accordance with what was explained regarding the nature of their disagreement

; and was it not taught

[as an uncontested statement]:

A cow that killed

a person, and is liable to be stoned,

and afterward gave birth:

If, before its verdict was finalized

it

gave birth—

and below it will be explained when she became pregnant—then

her offspring is permitted,

as the Gemara will explain below on this page.

However,

if after its verdict was finalized

it

gave birth, then

even

its offspring

is forbidden,

as will be explained in the Gemara below.

The beraita further teaches:

If

an ox whose verdict had been finalized for stoning

became intermingled

with other oxen that had done nothing,

and

even if the others became intermingled

with other others,

meaning that the first mixture again became intermingled with other oxen that had done nothing.

They are gathered

all of them

into a chamber,

which is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s position in the Mishna, as Rava explained it.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: They are brought to court, and they are stoned,

which is in accordance with the position of the Sages in our Mishna, as Rava explained it.

The Master said

in the beraita:

A cow that killed and afterward gave birth,

if before its verdict was finalized

it gave birth, then

then

its offspring is permitted:

And we challenge this:

And

is it so

even though when she gored she was pregnant

that this is the law, even though at the time of the goring she was pregnant with it? !

But Rava said:

The offspring of a goring animal,

meaning a pregnant cow that gored and gave birth, is

forbidden

to be offered on the altar, just as its mother, which is unfit for the altar, is forbidden to be offered there, and this is because we say: “

She and her offspring gored,”

so the fetus becomes unfit just like its mother. It follows that the fetus’s verdict must also be finalized, since it too was included in the goring. If so, why is the offspring permitted? Its דין should be like that of any goring animal, which must be judged and forbidden to derive benefit from! ? And similarly,

the offspring of an animal that was used for bestiality,

which was in its mother’s womb at the time of the act, is

forbidden

to be offered on the altar, because

she and her offspring were used for bestiality,

and the fetus becomes unfit for the altar like its mother, which is unfit for the altar. Rather,

say

that the beraita should be amended as follows:

If, before its verdict was finalized, it became pregnant and gave birth

before the verdict was finalized, then

its offspring is permitted,

for it was not with its mother at the time of the goring, such that it would become liable to be stoned and forbidden to derive benefit from; nor was it with its mother at the time of the finalization of the verdict, such that it too would become forbidden through the finalization of its mother’s verdict.

But

if, after its verdict was finalized, it became pregnant and gave birth, then

then

its offspring is forbidden,

and although it was with its mother neither at the time of the goring nor at the time the verdict was finalized, since this fetus emerged from one that is forbidden to derive benefit from, anything that emerges from the forbidden is likewise forbidden.

We challenge the statement: If, after its verdict was finalized, it became pregnant and gave birth, its offspring is forbidden, because the offspring emerged from the forbidden. But it was not formed solely through its forbidden mother; it was also formed through the permitted male. If so:

This works according to the one who says: “

When two גורמים produce an outcome—that is, something caused and produced jointly by a forbidden factor and a permitted factor—

that is, something produced through both a forbidden source and a permitted source—

is forbidden.”