Chullin 163

ואמר ר"ש בן לקיש אומר היה ר"ש

And R'Simeon B'Lakish said: R'Simeon Used to say that the Red Cow may be redeemed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even after it had been slaughtered upon the specially erected woodpile and is ready for burning (cf. Num. XIX, 5) , it may be redeemed if e.g. a finer animal can be obtained. It would then be permitted to be eaten; hence it is always deemed fit for food, for R. Simeon is of the opinion that whatsoever is capable of being redeemed is counted as if it were redeemed.');">¹</span>

פרה נפדית על גבי מערכתה

even on its woodpile!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tosef. Par. VI. The slaughtering of the Red Cow is therefore deemed a slaughtering which renders it fit for food.');">²</span>

אמר רב שמן בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן

- R'Shamman B'Abba therefore suggested in the name of R'Johanan.'

פרת חטאת אינה משנה

The Red Cow' is not [part] of our<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big>

ועגלה ערופה לאו שחיטה ראויה היא

[Do you also say that the slaughtering of] the heifer whose neck was to be broken is a slaughtering which does not render it fit for food?

והתנן

Surely we have learnt: If the murderer was found before the heifer's neck was broken, it is set free to pasture among the herd!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And when slaughtered is permitted to be eaten. V. Sot. 470.');">³</span>

נמצא ההורג עד שלא תערף העגלה תצא ותרעה בעדר

- R'Simeon B'Lakish therefore said in the name of R'Jannai.'

אמר ר"ש בן לקיש משום רבי ינאי

The heifer whose neck was to be broken' is not [part] of our<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big>

עגלה ערופה אינה משנה

But could R'Jannai have said so?

ומי אמר רבי ינאי הכי

Did not R'Jannai say.'

והאמר רבי ינאי

I have heard a time limit for it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to what time in its rites does it become forbidden.');">⁴</span>

גבול שמעתי בה ושכחתי

but have forgotten it; but our colleagues maintain: Its descent to the rugged valley renders it forbidden'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXI, 4. Before its descent, however, it is permitted.');">⁵</span>

ונסבין חבריא לומר

Now if this is so, it can be answered that there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah in Sotah ');">⁶</span>

ירידתה לנחל איתן אוסרתה

it was before it was taken down to the rugged valley and here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah where it is held that the slaughtering thereof does not render it fit for food.');">⁷</span>

ואם איתא לישני

after it was taken down! - R'Phinehas the son of R'Ammi replied.

כאן קודם ירידה כאן לאחר ירידה

We report the statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'the heifer whose neck was to be broken' does not form part of our MISHNAH:');">⁸</span>

א"ר פנחס בריה דרב אמי אנן משמיה דרשב"ל מתנינן לה

in the name of R'Simeon B'Lakish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But he did not say it in the name of R. Jannai; hence the difficulty is removed.');">⁹</span>

עגלה ערופה אינה משנה

R'Ashi said.

א"ר אשי

When we were at R'Papi's this difficulty was raised.

כי הוינן בי רב פפי קשיא לן

Did R'Simeon B'Lakish really say so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'the heifer' was not to be included in our Mishnah since the slaughtering thereof renders it fit for food.');">¹⁰</span>

מי אמר רשב"ל הכי

But it has been reported: From what time are a leper's birds forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The birds prescribed for the purification rites of a leper, v. Lev. XIV, 4, one of which was to be slaughtered and the other to be set free. It is established that these birds are forbidden for every use; V. Kid. 56b.');">¹¹</span>

והא איתמר

R'Johanan said: From the moment of the slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slaughtered bird then becomes forbidden for all time. The other that is set free also becomes forbidden from that moment until the time ,gan that it is set free (cf. Lev. XIV. 7) ' so Tosaf. Kid. 57a, s.v. .');">¹²</span>

צפורי מצורע מאימתי נאסרין

R'Simeon B'Lakish said: From the moment they are taken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., set aside for the purpose. jeku');">¹³</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר

And we explained that the reason for the view of R'Simeon B'Lakish was that he derived it by analogy from the word 'taking', used here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 4: . ujeku');">¹⁴</span>

משעת שחיטה ורשב"ל אמר

and also in connection with the heifer whose neck was to be broken!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 3. The analogy is, just as the heifer, as soon as it was taken for the purpose, is rendered forbidden for all uses, so it is, too, with the birds of the leper. It is clear therefore that R. Simeon b. Lakish is of the opinion that the slaughtering of the heifer will not render it permitted for food.');">¹⁵</span>

משעת לקיחה

- Rather [say thus]: R'Hiyya B'Abba said in the name of R'Johanan.'

ואמרינן

The heifer whose neck was to be broken' is not [part] of our<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big>

מ"ט דרבי שמעון בן לקיש גמר קיחה קיחה מעגלה ערופה

<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was R. Johanan who made the statement originally and not R. Simeon b. Lakish.');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF TWO PERSONS BOUGHT A COW AND ITS YOUNG, HE WHO BOUGHT FIRST SHALL SLAUGHTER FIRST; BUT IF THE SECOND FORESTALLED HIM HE HOLDS HIS ADVANTAGE.

עגלה ערופה אינה משנה:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Joseph said: What we have learnt [in our Mishnah] is with regard to the rights [of each].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But from the religious point of view it is immaterial who slaughters first or which animal is slaughtered first.');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שנים שלקחו פרה ובנה איזה שלקח ראשון ישחוט ראשון ואם קדם השני זכה:

A Tanna taught: If the second forestalled him he is sharp and gains an advantage; sharp in that he cannot now transgress the law, and gains an advantage in that he eats meat [to-day].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the other may not slaughter his animal until the next day.');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יוסף

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED A COW AND THEN TWO OF ITS CALVES, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the prohibition of 'It and its young' has been infringed twice, for the slaughtering of each calf is an infringement of the law.');">¹⁹</span>

לענין דינא תנן

IF HE Slaughtered ITS TWO CALVES AND THEN THE COW.

תנא

HE INCURS FORTY STRIPES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only by the slaughtering of the cow that the law is infringed, and that is only one forbidden act.');">²⁰</span>

אם קדם השני הרי זה זריז ונשכר

IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF AND THEN THE CALF'S OFFSPRING, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition has in this case been infringed twice.');">²¹</span>

זריז דלא עבד איסורא ונשכר דקאכיל בשרא:

IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF'S OFFSPRING AND THEN THE CALF, HE INCURS FORTY STRIPES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the slaughtering of the cow and its calf's offspring no law has as yet been infringed, but when the calf itself is slaughtered there is an infringement from two aspects, for it is the young of the cow and also the dam of its offspring. The Rabbis however maintain that for this one act, for which there was but one warning, he incurs the penalty of stripes once only. For the view of Symmachos v. GEMARA:');">²²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שחט פרה ואח"כ שני בניה סופג שמונים

SYMMACHOS, IN THE NAME OF R'MEIR, SAYS, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES.

שחט שני בניה ואחר כך שחטה סופג את הארבעים

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why is this so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the law is infringed even where the young was slaughtered first and then the dam.');">²³</span>

שחטה ואת בתה ואת בת בתה סופג שמונים

Does not the Divine Law say.'

שחטה ואת בת בתה ואחר כך שחט בתה סופג את הארבעים

It and its young', but not 'its young and it'? - You cannot hold this, for it was taught: [It is written.] 'It and its young'; from this I only know it and its young, whence would I know that [the slaughtering of] the young and [then] its dam [is also prohibited]?

סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר

From the fact that the verse says: Ye shall not slaughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 28. The plural of the verb indicates that two persons are culpable, one for slaughtering the dam and the other for slaughtering the young. Now this is of significance only where three animals were slaughtered and where the young was slaughtered first (V. Rashi) . The Torah thereupon rules that both he who slaughtered its dam and he who slaughtered its offspring have transgressed the prohibition.');">²⁴</span>

סופג שמונים:

two persons are indicated; thus, if one slaughtered the cow, another its dam, and a third its young, the last two are culpable.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמאי

(ויקרא כב, כח) אותו ואת בנו אמר רחמנא ולא בנו ואותו

לא ס"ד דתניא

אותו ואת בנו אין לי אלא אותו ואת בנו אותו ואת אמו מנין

כשהוא אומר לא תשחטו הרי כאן שנים הא כיצד

אחד השוחט את הפרה ואחד השוחט את אמה ואחד השוחט את בנה שנים האחרונים חייבין