Sanhedrin 159

אי הכי היינו דקתני עלה אמר ר' יוסי אפילו אבא חלפתא ביניהן

If so, how could R. Jose observe thereon: Even if Abba Halafta were amongst them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abba Halafta was a pious scholar. Raba objects to both explanations: whether 'others' mean murderers or goring oxen. R. Jose's remark is entirely irrelevant. ');">¹</span>

אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר שנים שהיו עומדין ויצא חץ מביניהם והרג שניהם פטורין וא"ר יוסי אפילו אבא חלפתא ביניהן

— But Raba explained it thus: If two were standing, and an arrow was shot by one of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'came forth from between them'. ');">²</span>

ושור שנגמר דינו שנתערב בשוורין אחרים מעלייא סוקלין אותן ר' יהודה אומר כונסין אותן לכיפה

[unknown] and killed, they are both exempt. Whereon R. Jose remarked: Even if Abba Halafta was one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though unthinkable that he should have shot the arrow, the other cannot be executed on this ground. ');">³</span>

והתניא פרה שהמיתה ואחר כך ילדה אם עד שלא נגמר דינה ילדה וולדה מותר אם משנגמר דינה ילדה וולדה אסור נתערב באחרים ואחרים באחרים כונסין אותן לכיפה ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון אומר מביאין אותן לב"ד וסוקלין אותן

But if an ox [a gorer] which had been sentenced was mixed up with innocent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'good'. ');">⁴</span>

אמר מר אם עד שלא נגמר דינה ילדה וולדה מותרת ואף על גב דכי נגחה הות מיעברה והאמר רבא ולד הנוגחת אסור היא וולדה נגחו ולד הנרבעת אסור היא וולדה נרבעו

oxen, they are all stoned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, in any case one could not benefit at all from them (v. Zeb. 70b), the owners suffer no loss. ');">⁵</span>

אימא אם עד שלא נגמר דינה עיברה וילדה וולדה מותר אם משנגמר דינה עיברה וילדה וולדה אסור

R. Judah said: They are placed in a cell.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On this interpretation the text of the Mishnah is assumed to be defective, since R. Judah's ruling cannot refer to the first case. ');">⁶</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר זה וזה גורם אסור

And thus has it been taught likewise: If a cow killed [a man] and then calved: if before sentence, the calf is permitted [for any use]; if after the sentence, the calf is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because whilst within its mother, it is regarded as a part thereof. Therefore, when its mother became forbidden for use, as is the case of an animal condemned to stoning (v. Ex. XXI, 28). the prohibition extended to the unborn calf, which remains in force even after its birth. ');">⁷</span> If the cow became mixed up with others, and these with others again, they are placed in a cell. R. Eleazar, son of R. Simeon, said: They are [all] brought to <i>Beth din</i> and stoned. The Master said: 'If [it calved] before sentence, the calf is permitted'; implying, even if it was with calf when it gored. But did not Raba say: The calf of a cow that gored is forbidden, because the mother and the calf gored; the calf of a cow subjected to bestiality is [likewise] forbidden because the mother and the calf were thus subjected!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to sacrifice; these animals are not fit to be sacrificed. The act of goring or bestiality was in this case attested by one witness only, so that the cow is not stoned, and is permitted for secular, but not for sacred use, otherwise both mother and calf would be stoned. Thus we see that if the cow was with calf when it gored, the calf is regarded as identical with its mother. ');">⁸</span> — Say thus: If the calf was conceived and born before its mother was condemned, it is permitted [for use]; but if conceived and born after sentence, it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first case, the mother itself was permitted at the time of calving, hence the calf too is likewise permitted; in the second, the cow having being condemned, the calf was the product of a forbidden animal, and hence itself forbidden too; but in both cases, the calf was not yet conceived at the time of goring, whereas Raba's statement applies only if it had already been conceived. ');">⁹</span> Now, this agrees with the view that the product of two things [one being forbidden] is itself forbidden;