Sanhedrin 80a — the Talmud in English

If so,

according to their interpretation,

this is what is taught concerning it [

what we taught in the baraita concerning this Mishna]

even Abba Halafta

the righteous

among them

of those others, how will it be interpreted according to your words?!

Rather, Rava said:

This is what we taught: A murderer who became mixed with others—all of them are exempt,

this is what it says:

When two people were standing, and an arrow went out from between them and killed,

and the court does not know which one it was who shot the arrow,

both of them are exempt.

And

concerning this

Rabbi Yosei

said in the baraita: The Mishna taught this law, which is obvious, in order to teach:

even Abba Halafta

the righteous

among them,

lest you say: He certainly did not throw the arrow, and if so, let us obligate the second one on the basis of this presumption; it teaches us that the second one is not obligated. And our Mishna is deficient, and Rabbi Yehuda disputed it:

And

if

an ox whose judgment was completed became mixed with other, sound oxen [

which had done nothing], we do not exempt them all; rather, since they are all forbidden to derive benefit from, like the ox that was stoned, because we do not know which one is the one that was forbidden to derive benefit from, it is found that those owners have already suffered their loss, and therefore

they stone them [

all of them], in order to fulfill the mitzva of stoning upon the one liable.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They gather them—

all the oxen

into an enclosure.

And the Gemara supports [the explanation of the dispute] from a baraita, in accordance with what was explained concerning the manner of their dispute

; and was it not taught

[agreeably]:

A cow that killed

a person, and is liable for stoning,

and afterward gave birth:

If, before her judgment was completed, she

that is, if she

gave birth—

and below it will be explained when she became pregnant—

her offspring is permitted,

and the Gemara explains it below on this page.

But

if, after

her judgment was completed, she

gave birth,

then even

her offspring

is forbidden,

and it will be explained in the Gemara below.

And the baraita further teaches:

An ox became mixed

that had been sentenced to stoning

with others

that had done nothing,

and

even if others became mixed

with other others,

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

They gather them

all of them

into an enclosure,

and this is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna, as Rava interpreted it.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: They bring them to the court, and they stone them,

and this is in accordance with the view of the Sages in our Mishna, as Rava interpreted it.

The Master said

in the baraita:

A cow that killed and afterward gave birth,

if, before her judgment was completed, she

gave birth,

then

her offspring is permitted:

And we challenge this:

And

even

although when she gored she was pregnant,

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

But Rava said:

The offspring of a goring animal,

that is, a pregnant cow that gored, and gave birth, is

forbidden

to be offered upon the altar, just as its mother, who is unfit for the altar, and this is because we say: “

She and her offspring gored,”

and the fetus became unfit like its mother—and it follows that the judgment of the fetus must also be completed, for it too is included in the goring; and if so, why is the offspring permitted? Is its law not like that of every goring animal, which must be judged and forbidden to derive benefit from?! And likewise,

the offspring of an animal that was violated,

which was in her womb at the time of the violation, is

forbidden

to be offered upon the altar, because “

she and her offspring were violated,”

and the fetus became unfit for the altar like its mother, who is unfit for the altar. Rather,

say

that this is how the baraita should be taught:

If, before her judgment was completed, she became pregnant and gave birth

before the completion of the judgment, then

her offspring is permitted,

for it was not with her at the time of the goring, so that it would become liable for stoning and forbidden to derive benefit from; nor was it with her at the time of the completion of the judgment, so that it too would become forbidden through the completion of its mother’s judgment.

But

if, after her judgment was completed, she became pregnant and gave birth,

then

her offspring is forbidden,

and although it was with her neither at the time of the goring nor at the time of the completion of the judgment, since this fetus emerged from one that is forbidden to derive benefit from, and everything that emerges from what is forbidden is forbidden.

And we challenge what we said: If, after her judgment was completed, she became pregnant and gave birth, her offspring is forbidden, because the offspring emerges from what is forbidden; but it was not formed solely through its forbidden mother, for it was also formed through the permitted male, and if so:

This works well according to the one who says “

this one and this one cause”—

that is, something caused and emerging from an entity that is forbidden and an entity that is permitted together—

is forbidden.”