Chullin 164
חד אין תרי לא
I might have thought that only one person [if he slaughtered both, is culpable], but not two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one slaughtered the dam and another its young the law has not been infringed. uyjah tk');"><sup>1</sup></span>
שחטה ואת בת בתה [וכו']:
To teach you two things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' First that the prohibition applies where the animals were slaughtered by two persons, and secondly that whichever was slaughtered first, with the slaughtering of the second the law is infringed.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
מאי טעמא דסומכוס
[Is it that] he holds that if a man during a spell of forgetfulness ate two olives' bulk of forbidden fat he is liable to two sin-offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly, had be been warned beforehand of the prohibition of forbidden fat, so that he acted deliberately, he would incur the penalty of stripes twice. Accordingly, Symmachos would hold that even in the first clause of our Mishnah where a man slaughtered two calves (a permitted act) and then its dam, he would incur the penalty of stripes twice. And even though a distinction might be drawn between the above cases cited and the last clause of our Mishnah where Symmachos' opinion is actually recorded, viz., in the latter case the one act of slaughtering involves the transgression of two distinct prohibitions, namely 'It and its young'. 'It and its dam', each entailing the penalty of stripes, whereas in the above cases cited the act that is repeated involves the transgression of one prohibition only, namely, the prohibition of forbidden fat or in the first clause of our Mishnah the prohibition of 'It and its dam' - this distinction Symmachos does not regard as vital.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
קא סבר סומכוס
And by right this view [of Symmachos] should have been recorded elsewhere,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In those cases where there is a transgression of one prohibition only, as in the case of the forbidden fat supra, or in the case of the first clause of our MISHNAH:');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ובדין הוא דלישמעינן בעלמא והאי דקא משמע לן בהא להודיעך כחן דרבנן דאע"ג דגופין מוחלקין פטרי רבנן
to show you to what length the Rabbis will go, for the Rabbis exempt him [from an additional penalty] even in a case of separate prohibitions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'separate bodies'. I.e., there are two separate animals and in respect of each a distinct prohibition is transgressed.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
או דלמא קסבר סומכוס
Or is it that he holds that if a man during a spell of forgetfulness ate two olives' bulk of forbidden fat he is only liable to one sin-offering, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in the final clause of the MISHNAH:');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אין קסבר אכל שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחד חייב שתי חטאות
Whence [do you gather this]? - From the following: It was taught: If a person sowed diverse kinds, diverse kinds, he incurs stripes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIX, 19. Apparently he sowed diverse kinds of seeds on two occasions.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אילימא לוקה אחת פשיטא
Should you say [he sowed diverse kinds twice] one after the other, and there were two warnings, but we have already learnt this elsewhere: If a nazir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who has taken a nazirite vow to abstain from wine, to avoid contact with a corpse and to allow the hair to grow long; v. Num. VI.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ועוד מאי כלאים כלאים
drinks wine the whole day long, he incurs only one penalty; if he is warned, 'Do not drink', 'Do not drink', and he drinks, he is liable for each [warning].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Naz. 420. We thus see there is a separate liability for the same act, however much repeated, provided there was a warning each time.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
אילימא בזה אחר זה ובשתי התראות תנינא
Should you say it is the Rabbis who differ with Symmachos, but surely, if in that case [in our Mishnah] where there are separate prohibitions the Rabbis exempt [the wrongdoer from an additional penalty], how much more so in this case.
נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת
Hence it is, no doubt, Symmachos!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We learn from this the view of Symmachos that if a person ate two olives' bulk of forbidden fat in one spell of forgetfulness he is liable to two sin-offerings.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת
They thus reject the view of R'Josiah, who said: [A man is not guilty] until he sows wheat, barley and grape kernels with one throw of the hand; for they teach us that if a man sowed wheat and grape kernels or barley and grape kernels he is also guilty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that wheat and grape kernels alone constitute 'diverse kinds' and so also barley and grape kernels, contra R. Josiah.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
אלא לאו סומכוס היא
Is not the warning [with regard to each] dubious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Judah is in doubt as to which thigh the prohibition applies; hence the warning with regard to the eating of each of them is dubious, for each one may be the one that is permitted, consequently he should be exempt entirely from stripes.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
דאמר רבי יאשיה
For it was taught: If he struck one and then struck the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a woman did not wait three months after separation from her husband by divorce, immediately married again, and after seven months gave birth to a son, there is always a doubt as to the paternity of the child. It may be a nine-months' child by the first husband or a seven-months' child by the second. This child, when grown up, struck one of his mother's husbands and then struck the other. The warning at the time of striking each one is a doubtful one, for when considering each one individually there is a doubt as to whether he is his father or not; it is nevertheless regarded as a proper warning and the son would be liable to the death penalty for striking or cursing his father (cf. Ex. XXI, 15, 17) .');"><sup>20</sup></span>
עד שיזרע חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד קמ"ל דכי זרע חטה וחרצן ושעורה וחרצן נמי מחייב
or if he cursed one and then cursed the other, or if he struck then, both simultaneously,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Striking one with his right hand and the other with his left.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אילימא בזה אחר זה ובשתי התראות מ"ט דרבי יהודה
if one after the other, he is not liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the warning at each striking is a dubious one and R. Judah is of the opinion that such is no warning.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
התראת ספק היא ושמעינן ליה לרבי יהודה דאמר
Obviously then the case is [that he ate them]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sciatic nerve of each thigh. In this case the warning is certain for one is the prohibited nerve.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
הכה את זה וחזר והכה את זה קלל את זה וחזר וקלל את זה או שהכה שניהם בבת אחת או שקלל שניהם בבת אחת חייב
Should you say that of the Rabbis who differ with Symmachos, but Surely if there [in our Mishnah] where there are separate prohibitions the Rabbis exempt [the wrongdoer from an additional penalty], how much more so in this case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he should not be liable to eighty stripes.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
אילימא רבנן דפליגי עליה דסומכוס
For it was taught: And he shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 10. This law refers to the Passover offering.');"><sup>27</sup></span>