Chullin 165

בא הכתוב ליתן עשה אחר לא תעשה לומר שאין לוקין עליו דברי ר' יהודה

Scripture here came and provided a positive precept as a remedy for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after'.');">¹</span>

רבי יעקב אומר

the [disregarded] prohibition to indicate that the prohibition is not punishable by stripes: so R'Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But were it not for the remedial act provided for by Scripture the infringement of this prohibition would entail stripes, even though the warning in this case is a dubious one, for whenever warned the offender could reply. 'It is still night and I have yet time to eat it'.');">²</span>

לא מן השם הוא זה אלא משום דה"ל לאו שאין בו מעשה וכל לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו

R'Jacob says.

ת"ש

This is not the reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not of the same denomination'. That is not the reason why the transgression of this prohibition is not punishable by stripes.');">³</span>

אכל שני גידין משתי ירכות משתי בהמות סופג שמונים רבי יהודה אומר

but because it is a prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof], and any prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof] is not punishable by stripes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mak. 4b, 16a, and elsewhere.');">⁴</span>

אינו סופג אלא מ'

Come and hear: If a person ate two sciatic nerves from the two [right] thighs of two animals, he has incurred eighty stripes.

היכי דמי

R'Judah says: He has only incurred forty stripes.

אילימא בזה אחר זה ובשתי התראות מ"ט דרבי יהודה דאמר

Now what are the circumstances of the case?

ארבעים ותו לא

If you say [that he ate them] one after the other and that there were two warnings, then what is the reason of R'Judah who says that he has incurred forty stripes and no more?

אלא פשיטא בבת אחת ובחדא התראה

Obviously then [he ate them] together and there was only one warning.

מאן ת"ק

Now whose view is expressed by the first Tanna?

אילימא רבנן דפליגי עליה דסומכוס

If 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.

ומה התם דגופין מוחלקין פטרי רבנן הכא לא כל שכן

Hence it is, no doubt, that of Symmachos! - No.

אלא לאו סומכוס היא

I maintain [that he ate them] one after the other; but when you ask, 'Then what is R'Judah's reason? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he only incurs forty stripes.');">⁵</span>

לעולם בזה אחר זה

[I reply that] in this case one was not as much as an olive's bulk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sciatic nerve of one animal was as much as an olive's bulk but not that of the other. (See Rashi.) According to R. Judah, therefore, he only incurs forty stripes. According to the Rabbis, however, if a man ate the entire sciatic nerve, even though in all it was not as much as an olive's bulk, being a distinct entity, he is liable. The Rabbis therefore hold that in the above case he incurs eighty stripes.');">⁶</span>

ודקאמרת

For it has been taught: If a person ate [the whole of] it but it was not as much as an olive's bulk, he is liabl R'Judah says, [He is not liable] unless it was as much as an olive's bulk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Hul. VII; Tosef. Mak. III.');">⁷</span>

מ"ט דרבי יהודה כגון דלית ביה כזית דתניא

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>AT FOUR PERIODS IN THE YEAR HE WHO SELLS A BEAST TO ANOTHER MUST INFORM HIM, I SOLD TO-DAY ITS DAM TO BE SLAUGHTERED', OR''I SOLD TO-DAY ITS YOUNG TO BE SLAUGHTERED',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is presumed that on these special days animals would be slaughtered on the day that they are bought, so as to have meat prepared for the Festival that is on the following day. This information is necessary in order to avoid the slaughtering of the dam and its young on the same day');">⁸</span>

אכלו ואין בו כזית חייב ר' יהודה אומר

NAMELY, ON THE EVE OF THE LAST DAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last day of the Feast of Tabernacles was regarded as a festival by itself and was observed with special celebrations and feasting. On the eve of the commencement of the Feast of Tabernacles, Israelites are usually preoccupied with the erection of 'booths' and would not find time for purchasing and slaughtering animals.');">⁹</span>

עד שיהא בו כזית:

OF THE FEAST [OF TABERNACLES], ON THE EVE OF THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER, ON THE EVE OF PENTECOST, AND ON THE EVE OF THE NEW YEAR; ACCORDING TO R'JOSE THE GALILEAN, ALSO ON THE EVE OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, IN GALILEE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it was the custom to indulge in much feasting, including meat dishes, before the Fast.');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בארבעה פרקים בשנה המוכר בהמה לחבירו צריך להודיעו

R'JUDAH SAYS, THIS IS SO, ONLY WHEN THERE WAS NO INTERVAL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a day between the sale of one animal and the other; i.e., both were sold on the same day.');">¹¹</span>

אמה מכרתי לשחוט בתה מכרתי לשחוט ואלו הן

BUT IF THERE WAS AN INTERVAL.

ערב יום טוב האחרון של חג וערב יום טוב הראשון של פסח וערב עצרת וערב ראש השנה

HE NEED NOT INFORM HIM.

וכדברי רבי יוסי הגלילי אף ערב יום הכפורים בגליל

YET R'JUDAH AGREES THAT IF HE SOLD THE DAM TO THE BRIDEGROOM AND THE YOUNG TO THE BRIDE, HE MUST INFORM THEM OF IT, FOR IT IS CERTAIN THAT THEY WILL EACH SLAUGHTER [THEIR BEAST] ON THE SAME DAY.

אמר רבי יהודה

AT THESE FOUR PERIODS A BUTCHER CAN BE COMPELLED TO SLAUGHTER A BEAST AGAINST HIS WILL; EVEN IF THE OX WAS WORTH A THOUSAND DENARS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A coin. V. Glos.');">¹²</span>

אימתי

AND THE PURCHASER HAS ONLY [PAID] A DENAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The purchaser had already paid a denar to buy a denar's worth of meat.');">¹³</span>

בזמן שאין לו ריוח אבל יש לו ריוח אין צריך להודיעו

THE BUTCHER IS COMPELLED TO SLAUGHTER IT.

ומודה רבי יהודה במוכר את האם לחתן ואת הבת לכלה שצריך להודיעו בידוע ששניהם שוחטין ביום אחד

THEREFORE IF THE ANIMAL DIED, THE LOSS FALLS UPON THE PURCHASER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it has died to the purchaser'. He cannot demand the return of his denar or claim meat to that value.');">¹⁴</span>

בארבעה פרקים אלו משחיטין את הטבח בעל כרחו

AT OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR IT IS NOT SO,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the mere payment of money does not, according to Rabbinic enactment, effect an irrevocable sale.');">¹⁵</span>

אפילו שור שוה אלף דינרים ואין לו ללוקח אלא דינר כופין אותו לשחוט

THEREFORE IF THE ANIMAL DIED, THE LOSS FALLS UPON THE SELLER'<big><b>GEMARA:</b></big>

לפיכך אם מת מת ללוקח

A Tanna taught: If he did not inform him, he [the Purchaser] may go and slaughter it without any hesitation whatsoever.

אבל בשאר ימות השנה אינו כן

R'JUDAH SAYS, THIS IS SO.

לפיכך אם מת מת למוכר:

[IF HE SOLD THE DAM TO THE BRIDEGROOM], etc. Why does he particularly state THE DAM TO THE BRIDEGROOM and THE YOUNG TO THE BRIDE? - He incidentally tells us that it is the proper thing for the bridegroom's family to make<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to trouble'. Accordingly the larger animal, the dam, is sold to the bridegroom's family.');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנא

[greater festivities] than the bride' family.

אם לא הודיעו הולך ושוחט ואינו נמנע:

AT THESE FOUR PERIODS, etc. But he [the purchaser] has not drawn it into his possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should the purchaser bear any of the loss since he has not become the legal owner of his portion? V. n. 7.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבי יהודה אימתי [וכו']:

- R'Huna answered: We must assume that he had done so.

למה לי למיתני

If so, why [does it say] in the last clause, AT OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR IT IS NOT SO; THEREFORE IF THE ANIMAL DIED THE LOSS FALLS UPON THE SELLER?

את האם לחתן ואת הבת לכלה

But he has already drawn [the animal] into his possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the purchaser has acquired legal ownership of his portion; consequently he must bear any loss.');">¹⁸</span>

מלתא אגב אורחיה קמשמע לן

- R'Samuel son of R'Isaac answered: In fact he had not drawn it into his possession, but here the case was that the seller had transferred [a portion to the purchaser] through a third party.

דאורח ארעא למטרח בי חתנא טפי מבי כלתא:

Now at these four periods it is an advantage for him [to have meat],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In honour of the Festival.');">¹⁹</span>

בארבעה פרקים אלו [וכו']:

and it is an established rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. ');">²⁰</span>

והא לא משך

that one may act to another's advantage in his absence; whereas at other times of the year it is a disadvantage for him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To spend money on meat. vfhan');">²¹</span>

אמר רב הונא אמר רב

and one may not act to another's disadvantage save in his presence.

כשמשך

R'Eliezer answered in the name of R'Johanan that at these four periods the Rabbis adopted the Biblical law.

אי הכי אימא סיפא

For R'Johanan has said: By Biblical law, [the payment of] money confers title.

אבל בשאר ימות השנה אינו כן לפיכך אם מת מת למוכר

Why then was it decreed that only meshikah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , lit., 'drawing' into one's possession, thereby obtaining ownership.');">²²</span>

והא משך

confers title?

אמר ר' שמואל בר רב יצחק

As a precautionary measure, lest he [the vendor] say to him [the purchaser].'

לעולם שלא משך וכגון שזיכה לו על ידי אחר

Your wheat was burnt in the loft'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were the purchaser to be regarded as the owner of the goods upon the payment of the purchase money even though the goods had not left the vendor's possession, the latter would not trouble to save them if they caught fire. The Rabbis therefore decreed that the ownership should not pass until there had been a meshikah by the purchaser, for then the purchaser would usually carry away the goods with him.');">²³</span>

בארבעה פרקים אלו דזכות הוא לו זכין לאדם שלא בפניו

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE 'ONE DAY'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 28.');">²⁴</span>

בשאר ימות השנה דחוב הוא לו אין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו

MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW OF 'IT AND ITS YOUNG' MEANS THE DAY AND THE NIGHT PRECEDING IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If therefore a man slaughtered the dam at night, he may not slaughter its young the whole of the following day. On the other hand, if he slaughtered the dam during the day, he may as soon as the night sets in slaughter the young.');">²⁵</span>

רבי אלעזר אומר אמר רבי יוחנן

THIS WAS EXPOUNDED BY R'SIMEON B. ZOMA: THE EXPRESSION 'ONE DAY' IS MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 5; where it reads: And there was evening and there was morning, one day.');">²⁶</span>

בארבעה פרקים אלו העמידו חכמים דבריהם על דין תורה

AND ALSO IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW OF 'IT AND ITS YOUNG'.

דאמר רבי יוחנן

AS THE 'ONE DAY' MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION MEANS THE DAY AND THE NIGHT PRECEDING IT, SO TOO THE 'ONE DAY' MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW OF 'IT AND ITS YOUNG' MEANS THE DAY AND THE NIGHT PRECEDING IT.

דבר תורה מעות קונות ומה טעם אמרו משיכה קונה גזירה שמא יאמר לו

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: This was expounded by R'Simeon B'Zoma: Since the whole passage deals only with the laws concerning consecrated animals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the preceding verse (Lev. XXII, 27) it reads: And thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord.');">²⁷</span>

נשרפו חטיך בעליה:

and with regard to consecrated matters [a day means] the day and the night following it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in connection with the eating of sacrificial meat it is written (ibid. VII, 15) . It shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. Thus it may be eaten the whole of the night following the day.');">²⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> (ויקרא כב, כח) יום אחד האמור באותו ואת בנו היום הולך אחר הלילה

I might have thought that here also it is the same, it is therefore writte here 'one day' and also 'one day' in connection with the Creation, as the 'one day' mentioned in connection with the Creation means the day and the night preceding it, so, too, the 'one day' mentioned in connection with the law of 'It and its young' means the day and the night preceding it.

את זו דרש רבי שמעון בן זומא נאמר במעשה בראשית

(בראשית א, ה) יום אחד ונאמר באותו ואת בנו

יום אחד מה יום אחד האמור במעשה בראשית היום הולך אחר הלילה אף יום אחד האמור באותו ואת בנו היום הולך אחר הלילה:

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר את זו דרש ר"ש בן זומא

לפי שכל הענין כולו אינו מדבר אלא בקדשים ובקדשים לילה הולך אחר היום יכול אף זה כן

נאמר כאן

יום אחד ונאמר במעשה בראשית

יום אחד מה יום אחד האמור במעשה בראשית היום הולך אחר הלילה אף יום [אחד] האמור באותו ואת בנו היום הולך אחר הלילה