Bava Kamma 154

ואמר ריש לקיש אומר היה רבי שמעון פרה נפדית ע"ג מערכתה אלמא כל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי

and Resh Lakish observed that R. Simeon used to say that the red heifer could be redeemed even after [it was slaughtered and] placed upon the wood for burning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this is the ritual fitness as food. ');">¹</span>

בשלמא רבי יוחנן לא אמר כרבי שמעון בן לקיש דקא בעי לאוקמה למתניתין אפילו בתמימין אלא ריש לקיש מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבי יוחנן

thus proving that whatever has the possibility of being redeemed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it was in fact never redeemed. ');">²</span>

אמר לך (שמות כא, לז) וטבחו ומכרו כל היכא דאיתיה במכירה איתיה בטביחה וכל היכא דליתיה במכירה ליתיה בטביחה והני קדשים הואיל דכי מזבין קדשים לא הויא מכירה ליתנהו בטביחה

is considered as if it had already been redeemed.

ואזדו לטעמייהו דאתמר המוכר טריפה לדברי ר' שמעון רבי יוחנן אמר חייב וריש לקיש אמר פטור

We can understand why R. Johanan did not give the same answer [to the difficulty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to how could the slaughter in the case of a sacrifice render the stolen animal ritually fit for food and thus make the thief liable for the fine. ');">³</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר חייב אע"ג דליתיה בטביחה איתיה במכירה וריש לקיש אמר פטור כיון דליתיה בטביחה ליתיה במכירה

propounded] as Resh Lakish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated that the animal was blemished and slaughtered outside the precincts of the Temple. ');">⁴</span>

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לר"ש בן לקיש גנב כלאים וטבחה טריפה ומכרה משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה מאי לאו ר"ש היא אלמא אע"ג דליתיה בטביחה איתיה במכירה

as he was anxious to explain the ruling [of our Mishnah] even in the case of unblemished sacrifices. But why did Resh Lakish not give the same answer as R. Johanan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an unblemished animal was slaughtered in the precincts of the Temple but not in the name of the owner. ');">⁵</span>

אמר ליה לא רבנן

— He could say: [Scripture says.] <i>'And he slaughtered it or sold it'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">⁶</span>

אי רבנן טריפה במכירה איתא בזביחה ליתא

implying that it was only an animal [subject to this law] in the case of a sale that could be [subject to it] in the case of slaughter, whereas an animal which would not be [subject to this law] in the case of sale could similarly not be [subject to it] in the case of slaughter either. Now, in the case of these unblemished sacrifices, since if the thief had sold the sacrifices it would not have been a sale [to all intents and purposes],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pes. 89b. ');">⁷</span>

ואלא מאי ר"ש כלאים בטביחה איתא במכירה ליתא

they could not be [subject to this law even] when they were slaughtered.

אלא תנא טביחה והוא הדין למכירה אימא לרבנן נמי תנא מכירה והוא הדין לטביחה

R. Johanan and Resh Lakish indeed followed their own lines of reasoning [elsewhere]. For it was stated: If a thief sells a stolen ox which is <i>trefa</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר לך האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא ר"ש איידי דתנא טריפה בחדא תנא כלאים בחדא

according to R. Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in the case of slaughtering such an animal maintains exemption; v. supra p. 403. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אי אמרת רבנן נערבינהו וניתנינהו גנב כלאים וטריפה טבחן ומכרן משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה קשיא

R. Johanan said that he would be liable, whereas Resh Lakish said that he would be exempt. R. Johanan. who said that he would be liable, held that though this ox could not be subject to the law of slaughter it could yet be subject to the law of sale, whereas Resh Lakish who said that he would be exempt maintained that since this ox could not be subject to the law of slaughter, it could similarly not be subject to the law of sale either.

כלאים שה כתיב ואמר רבא זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר שה אינו אלא להוציא את הכלאים

R. Johanan objected to [the view of] Resh Lakish [from the following]: If he stole a hybrid animal and slaughtered it, or a <i>trefa</i> animal and sold it, he would have to make double payment. Now, does not this ruling follow the view of R. Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if otherwise, why not state slaughter also in the case of trefa. ');">¹⁰</span>

שאני הכא דאמר קרא או לרבות את הכלאים

thus proving that though this ox would not be subject to the law of slaughter it could nevertheless be subject to the law of sale? — He replied: No; this is the view of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whom even for slaughter in the case of trefa there is liability for the fine (supra p. 403). ');">¹¹</span>

וכל או לרבות הוא והתניא (ויקרא כב, כז) שור או כשב פרט לכלאים או עז פרט לנדמה

But if this is the view of the Rabbis, why should a <i>trefa</i> ox be subject only to the law of sale and not to the law of slaughter? — You say then that it is the view of R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in the case of slaughtering such an animal maintains exemption; v. supra p. 403. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבא הכא מענייניה דקרא והכא מענייניה דקרא הכא גבי גניבה דכתיב שור או שה שאי אתה יכול להוציא כלאים מביניהם או לרבות כלאים גבי קדשים דכתיב כשב ועז שאתה יכול להוציא כלאים מביניהם או למעט הוא

Why then should a hybrid animal be subject only to the law of slaughter and not to that of sale? We must say therefore that though slaughter is mentioned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a hybrid animal. ');">¹²</span> the same law was meant to apply also to sale; so also according to the Rabbis, though sale is stated in the text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with trefa. ');">¹³</span> the same law was meant to apply to slaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [But according to R. Simeon a trefa is not subject even to the law of sale. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Johanan, however, might say that this does not follow. It is true that if you say that the ruling follows R. Simeon, there is no difficulty: since it was necessary to state liability regarding <i>trefa</i> in the one case [of sale] only, it states liability regarding a hybrid animal also in the one case [of slaughter] only. But if you say that this ruling follows the Rabbis, why not join them together, and state thus: 'If the thief misappropriated a hybrid animal and a <i>trefa</i> [sheep or ox] and slaughtered them or sold them, he would have to make four-fold or five-fold payment'! This indeed is a difficulty. [But why should there be liability for four-fold or five-fold payment in the case of] a hybrid animal since Scripture says <i>'sheep'</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XXI, 37. ');">¹⁵</span> and Raba [elsewhere] said that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'sheep' in Lev. XXII, 28; v. Hul. 78b. ');">¹⁶</span> is a locus classicus for the rule that wherever it says 'sheep', the purpose is to exclude a hybrid animal? — This case here is different, as Scripture says 'or',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37. ');">¹⁷</span> implying the inclusion of a hybrid animal. [Does this mean to say that] the term 'or' everywhere implies an amplification? Was it not taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 38b. ');">¹⁸</span> <i>'When a bullock or a sheep</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27. ');">¹⁹</span> this excepts a hybrid;<i> or a goat</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27. ');">¹⁹</span> this excepts an animal looking like a hybrid'? — Said Raba: The term <i>'or'</i> in the one case is expounded in accordance with the subject matter of the verse, and the term <i>'or'</i> in the other case is similarly expounded in accordance with the subject matter of that verse. Here in connection with theft where it is written <i>'an ox or a sheep'</i>, since it is impossible to produce a hybrid from the union of these two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an ox could not possibly be the father of the offspring of a sheep. ');">²⁰</span> the term <i>'or'</i> should be expounded to include<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if to exclude there was no need for this 'or'. ');">²¹</span> a hybrid [of a different kind], whereas in connection with sacrifices where it is written <i>'a sheep or a goat'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27. ');">¹⁹</span> where it is possible for you to produce a hybrid from their union,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a sheep could be the father of the young of a goat. ');">²²</span> the term <i>'or'</i> should rightly be taken to exclude<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if to include there was no need for this 'or' to be inserted. ');">²³</span> [the hybrid].