Commentary for Chullin 162:23

פרה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין הואיל והיתה לה שעת הכושר

They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish.');">¹⁴</span> are indeed consistent in their views. For when R'Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported as follows:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth. 34b.');">¹⁵</span> He who committed inadvertently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he had not been warned beforehand of the wrongful act he was about to commit.');">¹⁶</span> an act which, if he had committed it wilfully, would have been punishable with death or with stripes, and [the act committed is punishable also with] something else,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the payment of money.');">¹⁷</span> R'Johanan says, he is liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make the money payment.');">¹⁸</span> but R'Simeon B'Lakish says, he is not liable. R'Johanan says, he is liable', for he had not been warned [of the major penalty];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so there is no death penalty, and therefore he pays.');">¹⁹</span> R'Simeon B'Lakish says, he is not liable', for since if he had been warned [of the major penalty] he would not be liable, so, too, if he had not been warned of it he is also not liable. Now both [disputes] are required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the dispute here which involves the consideration of the death penalty (by virtue of slaughtering to idols) and stripes (by virtue of the law of 'It and its young') , and the dispute in Keth. l.c., where the death penalty or stripes and a money payment are considered.');">²⁰</span> For if only this [dispute] were reported I might have said that only here does R'Simeon B'Lakish assert his view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That stripes are not inflicted. For since there arises out of the act of slaughtering a consideration of the death penalty, the penalty of stripes, being a minor penalty and of the same character as the major penalty in that they are both corporal punishments, is set aside absolutely, even though in the circumstances for want of the requisite warning the death penalty cannot be inflicted. In the other case however where the penalties involved are of two distinct characters, the one being corporal, i.e., death or stripes, and the other a monetary payment, even R. Simeon b. Lakish would agree that if the major penalty of death or stripes did not apply for want of the necessary warning, the minor penalty of payment would apply.');">²¹</span> but there I should have said that he is in agreement with R'Johanan. And if the other dispute only were reported I might have said that only there does R'Johanan assert his view, but here I should have said that he is in agreement with R'Simeon B'Lakish. Both disputes therefore had to be reported. [Do you say that according to R'Simeon the slaughtering of] the Red Cow is a slaughtering which does not render it fit [for food]? Surely it has been taught: R'Simeon says. The Red Cow contracts food uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., its flesh will become unclean by contact with a carcass, for it is regarded as a permissible foodstuff. Rashi raises the interesting question. Why is there any consideration here about the flesh of the Red Cow contracting uncleanness? Surely it conveys uncleanness without having first come into contact with a carcass, cf. Num. XIX, 7, 8, 10. He suggests therefore the following circumstances: A morsel of the flesh of the Red Cow was covered over on all sides by less than an egg's bulk of dough, but together the flesh and the dough make up an egg's bulk, vrp which is the minimum quantity for a foodstuff to contract or to convey uncleanness (v. however Tosaf. B.K. 77a, s.v.) . If then it is held tha the flesh of the Red Cow is deemed a foodstuff, then the entire bulk will be rendered unclean by contact, say, with a carcass, and will convey uncleanness to other foodstuffs. If, on the other hand, it is not deemed a foodstuff this built cannot suffer uncleanness, and whatever foodstuffs come into contact with it will likewise not be rendered unclean, since they did not make any direct contact with the flesh of the Red Cow which is vrp covered up on all sides with dough; v. Ker. 21b. V. however, Tosaf. supra 81b, s.v. .');">²²</span> since it had a period of fitness [to be used for food].

Explore commentary for Chullin 162:23. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.