Chullin 164

Chapter 164

א האי מיבעי ליה לגופיה
1 But is not this verse required for its own purpose? - For that, it might have said: 'Thou shalt not slaughter'; why.'
ב א"כ ליכתוב
2 Ye shall not slaughter'?
ג לא תשחוט מאי לא תשחטו
3 But this too is required for its own purpose, is it not?
ד ואכתי מיבעי ליה דאי כתב רחמנא לא תשחוט ה"א
4 For if the Divine Law said: 'Thou shalt not slaughter'.
ה חד אין תרי לא
5 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>
ו כתב רחמנא
6 The Divine Law therefore says.
ז לא תשחטו ואפילו תרי
7 Ye shall not slaughter, even two may not slaughter.
ח אם כן לכתוב
8 - If so, the Law might have said: 'They shall not be slaughtered';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ; neither by one person nor two persons.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ט לא ישחטו מאי לא תשחטו
9 why.
י שמע מינה תרתי:
10 Ye shall not slaughter?
יא שחטה ואת בת בתה [וכו']:
11 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>
יב א"ל אביי לרב יוסף
12 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF'S OFFSPRING etc. Abaye enquired of R'Joseph: What is the reason of Symmachos?
יג מאי טעמא דסומכוס
13 [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>
יד קא סבר סומכוס
14 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>
טו אכל שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחד חייב שתי חטאות
15 but it is recorded here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in the final clause of the MISHNAH:');"><sup>6</sup></span>
טז ובדין הוא דלישמעינן בעלמא והאי דקא משמע לן בהא להודיעך כחן דרבנן דאע"ג דגופין מוחלקין פטרי רבנן
16 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>
יז או דלמא קסבר סומכוס
17 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>
יח אכל שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחד אינו חייב אלא אחת והכא היינו טעמא
18 the reason is that there are two separate prohibitions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore here he incurs the penalty of stripes twice.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יט הואיל וגופין מוחלקין
19 - He replied: Yes.
כ א"ל
20 He holds that if a man ate two olives' bulk of forbidden fat during a spell of forgetfulness he is liable to two sin-offerings.
כא אין קסבר אכל שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחד חייב שתי חטאות
21 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>
כב ממאי
22 Now what is meant by 'he incurs stripes'?
כג מדתנן
23 Should you say it means, he incurs the penalty of stripes once, but this is obvious; moreover, why does it repeat 'diverse kinds, diverse kinds'?
כד הזורע כלאים כלאים לוקה
24 It must therefore mean, he incurs stripes twice.
כה מאי לוקה
25 And what would be the circumstances of the case?
כו אילימא לוקה אחת פשיטא
26 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>
כז ועוד מאי כלאים כלאים
27 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>
כח אלא פשיטא
28 Clearly, then, [he sowed diverse kinds twice but] simultaneously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sowing diverse kinds with his right hand and also with his left hand.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
כט ב' מלקיות
29 and there was only one warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or even successively if there was only one warning (Tosaf.) .');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ל במאי עסקינן
30 Now who is the author of this statement?
לא אילימא בזה אחר זה ובשתי התראות תנינא
31 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.
לב נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת
32 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>
לג אמרו לו
33 - No.
לד אל תשתה
34 I maintain it is the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there were two warnings. Although the case is obvious it was stated for a special purpose.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לה והוא שותה אל תשתה
35 but they incidentally teach us something else, that there are two sorts of 'diverse kinds'.
לו והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת
36 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>
לז אלא פשיטא
37 Come and hear: If a person ate an olive's bulk [of the sciatic nerve] of this [thigh] and another olive's bu of the other [thigh].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
לח בבת אחת ובהתראה אחת
38 he has incurred eighty stripes.
לט מני
39 R'Judah says: He has only incurred forty stripes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is of the opinion that the prohibition applies only to one thigh.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
מ אילימא רבנן דפליגי עליה דסומכוס
40 Now what are the circumstances of the case?
מא השתא ומה התם דגופין מוחלקין פטרי רבנן הכא לכ"ש
41 If you say [that he ate them] one after the other and there were two warnings, then what is R'Judah's reason [for saying that he has incurred forty stripes]?
מב אלא לאו סומכוס היא
42 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>
מג לא לעולם רבנן ומילתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דאיכא תרי גווני כלאים ולאפוקי מדרבי יאשיה
43 And we have learnt that according to R'Judah a dubious warning is no warning.
מד דאמר רבי יאשיה
44 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>
מה עד שיזרע חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד קמ"ל דכי זרע חטה וחרצן ושעורה וחרצן נמי מחייב
45 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>
מו ת"ש
46 or if he cursed them both simultaneously, he is liable.
מז אכל מזה כזית ומזה כזית סופג שמונים רבי יהודה אומר
47 R'Judah Says.
מח אינו סופג אלא מ' היכי דמי
48 If simultaneously, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here the warning at the time of striking is a certain warning, for he is certainly striking one who is his father.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
מט אילימא בזה אחר זה ובשתי התראות מ"ט דרבי יהודה
49 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>
נ התראת ספק היא ושמעינן ליה לרבי יהודה דאמר
50 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>
נא התראת ספק לא שמה התראה
51 together and there was only one warning.
נב דתניא
52 Now whose view is expressed by the first Tanna?
נג 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
53 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>
נד ר' יהודה אומר
54 Hence it is, no doubt, that of Symmachos!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus establishing the opinion of Symmachos as interpreted by R. Joseph.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
נה בבת אחת חייב בזה אחר זה פטור
55 - No.
נו אלא פשיטא בבת אחת ובהתראה אחת
56 I maintain [that he ate them] one after the other [and that there were two warnings], and [that the view expressed by the first Tanna is that of] the Rabbis.
נז ומאן תנא קמא
57 [The statement however expressed above by] the Tanna [in the name of R'Judah] agrees with the view of another Tanna who declares, also in the name of R'Judah, that a dubious warning is a warning.
נח אילימא רבנן דפליגי עליה דסומכוס
58 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>
נט השתא ומה התם דגופין מוחלקין פטרי רבנן הכא לא כל שכן
59 
ס אלא לאו סומכוס היא
60 
סא לא לעולם בזה אחר זה ורבנן
61 
סב והאי תנא סבר לה כאידך תנא דרבי יהודה דאמר
62 
סג התראת ספק שמה התראה
63 
סד דתניא
64 
סה (שמות יב, י) לא תותירו ממנו עד בקר והנותר ממנו עד בקר באש תשרופו
65