Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 17, 2019 | 讬状讘 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 82

The gemara聽continues with various details regarding slaughtering an animal and its offspring.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讛 谞驻讚讬转 注诇 讙讘讬 诪注专讻转讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻专转 讞讟讗转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in explanation of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement: Rabbi Shimon would say that the red heifer can be redeemed with money even once it has been slaughtered and placed upon its pyre in preparation for being burned. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon states that there could be a time when the heifer was fit for consumption, i.e., if it was redeemed. Why, then, does he deem one who slaughters it exempt from liability for transgressing the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring? Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The statement with regard to the red heifer of purification is not considered part of the mishna, and Rabbi Shimon agrees that its slaughterer is liable for transgressing the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring.

讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诇讗讜 砖讞讬讟讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 谞诪爪讗 讛讛讜专讙 注讚 砖诇讗 转注专祝 讛注讙诇讛 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: And is the slaughter of the heifer whose neck was to have been broken not considered an act of slaughter that is fit? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sota 47a): If a heifer was set aside to have its neck broken to atone for the murder of an individual whose murderer was not known, and then the murderer was found before the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, the heifer shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. Evidently, before its neck is broken, deriving benefit from it is not prohibited, and its slaughter would be one that is fit. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The statement with regard to the heifer whose neck was to have been broken is not considered part of the mishna, and Rabbi Shimon agrees that its slaughterer is liable for violating the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讙讘讜诇 砖诪注转讬 讘讛 讜砖讻讞转讬 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讗 诇讜诪专 讬专讬讚转讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讗讜住专转讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yannai actually say so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yannai say: I heard the boundary, i.e., stage, beyond which the heifer is forbidden, but I have forgotten what it is; but the group of scholars were inclined to say that the heifer鈥檚 descent to a hard valley, where its neck is broken, is the action that renders it forbidden?

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬砖谞讬 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讬专讬讚讛 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讬专讬讚讛

And if it is so, let him resolve the contradiction by saying: Here, where deriving benefit from the heifer is permitted, and its slaughterer is liable for transgressing the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, it is referring to an act of slaughtering that is fit and is performed before the heifer鈥檚 descent, while there, in the mishna, where Rabbi Shimon holds that there is no liability for transgressing: Itself and its offspring, it is referring to slaughtering performed after its descent. At that time, deriving benefit from the heifer is already prohibited, and the slaughter is therefore not considered fit.

讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 讗谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 拽砖讬讗 诇谉 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讬

Rav Pine岣s, son of Rav Ami, said: We taught the statement in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish himself, not as a quote from Rabbi Yannai: The statement with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken is not considered part of the mishna. Rav Ashi said: When we were studying in the study hall of Rav Pappi, that statement was difficult for us: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish actually say that it is not considered part of the mishna?

讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 爪驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 诪讗讬诪转讬 谞讗住专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖

But it was stated that amora鈥檌m engaged in a dispute concerning the following issue: From when is one prohibited from deriving benefit from the leper鈥檚 birds? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One is prohibited from the moment of their slaughter; and Reish Lakish says: One is prohibited from the moment they are taken and designated to be a leper鈥檚 birds. And we say: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish?

讙诪专 拽讬讞讛 拽讬讞讛 诪注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛

His reasoning is that he derives it via verbal analogy from the terms: 鈥淭aking [ki岣]鈥 (Leviticus 14:4), with regard to the birds, and: 鈥淭aking [ki岣]鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3), with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken. Consequently, just as deriving benefit from the heifer whose neck is broken is prohibited from the time of its selection, so too must deriving benefit from these birds be prohibited from the time of their selection. Clearly, then, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that deriving benefit from the heifer whose neck is broken is prohibited while it is still alive. Therefore, its slaughter is one that does not render the animal fit for consumption. Accordingly, Rabbi Shimon would exempt its slaughterer from the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, as is taught in the mishna.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

Rather, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The statement with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken is not considered part of the mishna, and this resolution of the difficulty was articulated by Rabbi Yo岣nan rather than Reish Lakish.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬诐 砖诇拽讞讜 驻专讛 讜讘谞讛 讗讬讝讛 砖诇拽讞 专讗砖讜谉 讬砖讞讜讟 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗诐 拽讚诐 讛砖谞讬 讝讻讛

MISHNA: With regard to two people who purchased a cow and its offspring, where each purchased one of the animals, whoever purchased his animal first shall slaughter it first, and the second one must wait until the next day to slaughter his animal, so as not to violate the prohibition of: It and its offspring. But if the second one preceded him and slaughtered his animal first, he benefitted, and the one who purchased the animal first may not slaughter it until the next day.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇注谞讬谉 讚讬谞讗 转谞谉 转谞讗 讗诐 拽讚诐 讛砖谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讝专讬讝 讜谞砖讻专 讝专讬讝 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讜谞砖讻专 讚拽讗讻讬诇 讘砖专讗

GEMARA: Rav Yosef said: We learn in the mishna that the first purchaser is granted precedence only with regard to the matter of a court judgment, in case the two purchasers go to court each demanding to slaughter his animal first. But there is no prohibition against the second one slaughtering his animal first if no claim is brought to court. Likewise, a Sage taught in a baraita: If the second one preceded him and slaughtered his animal first, he is diligent and rewarded; he is diligent because he did not violate a prohibition, and he is rewarded because he eats meat already that day.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟 驻专讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖谞讬 讘谞讬讛 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讘谞讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讛 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 砖讞讟讛 讜讗转 讘转讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐

MISHNA: If one slaughtered a cow and thereafter slaughtered its two offspring on the same day, he incurs eighty lashes for two separate actions violating the prohibition against slaughtering the mother and the offspring on the same day. If one slaughtered its two offspring and thereafter slaughtered the mother cow, he incurs the forty lashes, as he performed a single prohibited act. If one slaughtered the mother and its daughter, and, later that day, slaughtered its daughter鈥檚 daughter, he incurs eighty lashes, as he has performed the act of slaughtering a mother and its offspring twice.

砖讞讟讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讘转讛 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐

But if one slaughtered the mother and its daughter鈥檚 daughter and thereafter slaughtered its daughter, he incurs the forty lashes, as he performed a single prohibited act. Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He incurs eighty lashes for slaughtering the daughter on the same day as its calf and its mother, as that act comprises two separate violations of the prohibition.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讘谞讜 讜讗讜转讜 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讗诪讜 诪谞讬谉

GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna that if one slaughters two calves and thereafter slaughters their mother he incurs the forty lashes, the Gemara asks: Why does he receive lashes? After all, the phrase: 鈥淚t and its offspring鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), is what the Merciful One states in the Torah, and not: Its offspring and it. The Gemara answers: That thought should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita: From the phrase 鈥渋t and its offspring鈥 I have derived only that the prohibition includes slaughtering the animal itself first and its offspring afterward. From where do I derive that the prohibition also includes the case of slaughtering the offspring itself first and its mother afterward?

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讗诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讘谞讛 砖谞讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉

It is derived in the following manner: When the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter [tish岣tu] both in one day鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), this is referring to two people who are prohibited from slaughtering on the same day, as the word 鈥渟laughter鈥 is phrased in the plural. How so? If, during the course of a single day, there is one person who slaughters the cow and then another who slaughters that cow鈥檚 mother, and then there is another person who slaughters that cow鈥檚 offspring, the two latter people are liable, the first of them for slaughtering the mother after its offspring was slaughtered, and the second person for slaughtering the offspring after its mother was slaughtered.

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 诇讗 转砖讞讜讟 诪讗讬 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜

The Gemara challenges: That verse is necessary for the prohibition itself, and it cannot be used to teach this additional halakha. The Gemara explains: If so, that the verse teaches only the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring in one day, let the Torah write: You shall not slaughter [tish岣t], in the singular. For what reason did the Torah write: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter [tish岣tu]鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), in the plural? It is to teach that two different people are prohibited from slaughtering, as explained earlier.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖讞讜讟 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讚 讗讬谉 转专讬 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But, nevertheless, the plural is necessary, as had the Merciful One written in the Torah: You shall not slaughter [tish岣t] in the singular, I would say: With regard to one person, yes, it is prohibited to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, but with regard to two, it is not prohibited for one of them to slaughter the mother and the other to then slaughter the offspring on the same day.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 诇讗 讬砖讞讟讜

Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter [tish岣tu],鈥 in the plural, indicating that even two individuals may not slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day. The Gemara answers: If so, that only this is derived from the verse, let the Torah write: They shall not be slaughtered, indicating that whether by one individual or two, the slaughter of an animal and its offspring in a single day is prohibited, but only the one who slaughters the offspring has violated the prohibition.

诪讗讬 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

What is meant by: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter,鈥 which indicates that two different people are prohibited from slaughtering? Conclude two conclusions from it: Conclude that the prohibition applies even if two people perform the two acts of slaughter, and that two cases are prohibited: Slaughtering the offspring after the mother, and slaughtering the mother after the offspring.

砖讞讟讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住

搂 The mishna teaches: If one slaughtered the mother and its daughter鈥檚 daughter and thereafter slaughtered its daughter, he incurs the forty lashes. Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He incurs eighty lashes, because by slaughtering the daughter, he transgresses twice the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Sumakhos that the transgressor incurs eighty lashes?

拽讗 住讘专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

Does Sumakhos hold, in general, that if one unwittingly ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring two sin offerings, since he transgressed the prohibition twice? If so, then in a case where one is forewarned that if he transgresses intentionally he will receive lashes and he then violates the same prohibition twice, as is the case in the mishna, he receives two sets of lashes.

讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讘注诇诪讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讛讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉

And by right the mishna should have informed us of Sumakhos鈥檚 opinion in a general case, such as that of eating two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during a single lapse of awareness, but the reason that it teaches us this dispute in this situation, where one slaughters an animal and its daughter鈥檚 offspring and, later that day, slaughters its daughter, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, that even though the two animals that caused the daughter to be forbidden are separate entities, the Rabbis still exempt the transgressor from a second set of lashes.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽住讘专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 拽住讘专 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

Or perhaps, Sumakhos holds in general that if one ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin offering. If so, one who transgresses intentionally after being forewarned receives only one set of lashes even if he transgresses the same prohibition twice. But here, in the mishna, this is the reason that the transgressor receives two sets of lashes: It is that the two animals that caused the daughter to be prohibited are separate entities. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Yes, Sumakhos holds in general that if one ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring two sin offerings.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚转谞谉 讛讝讜专注 讻诇讗讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讜拽讛 诪讗讬 诇讜拽讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讜拽讛 讗讞转 驻砖讬讟讗 讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讻诇讗讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 砖转讬 诪诇拽讬讜转

The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Yosef derive this? He derives it from that which we learn in a baraita: One who sows diverse kinds, diverse kinds, i.e., he twice sows grain together with grape seeds, is flogged for violating the prohibition of diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Is flogged? If we say it means that he is flogged one set of lashes, this is obvious. And additionally, if he receives only one set of lashes, what is the reason that the case of: Sowing diverse kinds twice, is mentioned, where he transgressed twice? Even if he transgressed only once, he receives lashes. Rather, it is obvious that he receives two sets of lashes.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讘砖转讬 讛转专讗讜转 转谞讬谞讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转砖转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讗诇 转砖转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讘讛转专讗讛 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that we are dealing with a case where one violates the prohibition twice, one time after the other and with two separate forewarnings, it is unnecessary for the baraita to teach this, as we already learn it in a mishna (Nazir 42a): A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If onlookers said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, forewarning him several times, and he drinks after each forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every drink. Rather, it is obvious that he violated the prohibition twice at the same time and with a single forewarning, i.e., after he was forewarned he sowed wheat together with a grape seed with one hand, and barley together with a grape seed with the other hand, and he receives two sets of lashes.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos in the mishna, who hold that one who slaughters an animal and its daughter鈥檚 offspring and, later that day, slaughters its daughter receives only one set of lashes, that would not be reasonable: Now, if there, in the mishna, where there are animals that are separate entities, the Rabbis exempt him from a second set of lashes, since he violated a single prohibition with a single forewarning; here, in the baraita with regard to diverse kinds, where, unlike animals, seeds are not considered separate entities (see 83a), if one sows diverse kinds twice at the same time, should they not all the more so exempt him from a second set of lashes?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讻诇讗讬诐

Rather, is it not that the ruling of the baraita with regard to diverse kinds is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos and teaches that, even with a single entity, one who violates the same prohibition twice receives two sets of lashes? The Gemara responds: No, actually the baraita with regard to diverse kinds is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and he was forewarned before each act of sowing, which is why he receives two sets of lashes. And although this statement is redundant, by repeating the phrase: Diverse kinds, it teaches us a matter in passing: That there are two categories of the prohibition of diverse kinds: Sowing wheat together with grape seed and sowing barley together with grape seed.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 注讚 砖讬讝专注 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讝专注 讞讟讛 讜讞专爪谉 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 谞诪讬 诪讞讬讬讘

And the baraita serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, as Rabbi Yoshiya says: One who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat, and barley, and grape seed with a single hand motion, i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously. Therefore, it teaches us that when one sows only wheat and grape seed, or only barley and grape seed, he is liable as well. Consequently, a source clarifying Sumakhos鈥檚 opinion in a case where one violates the same prohibition twice during a single lapse of awareness, or with only a single forewarning when one violated the prohibition intentionally, has not been found.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讻诇 诪讝讛 讻讝讬转 讜诪讝讛 讻讝讬转 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜驻讙 讗诇讗 讗专讘注讬诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讘砖转讬 讛转专讗讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 讛讬讗 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna with regard to the prohibition against eating from the sciatic nerve (96a): If one ate an olive-bulk from this sciatic nerve in the right leg of an animal, and an olive-bulk from that sciatic nerve in the left leg of the same animal, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What are the circumstances? If we say that he ate them one after the other and with two separate forewarnings, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is an uncertain forewarning, as Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain whether the prohibition against eating from the sciatic nerve applies to the sciatic nerve of the right thigh or that of the left thigh (see 90b). And we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda says: An uncertain forewarning is not considered a forewarning.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讞讝专 讜讛讻讛 讗转 讝讛 拽诇诇 讗转 讝讛 讜讞讝专 讜拽诇诇 讗转 讝讛 讗讜 砖讛讻讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讜 砖拽诇诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘

As it is taught in a baraita: If one is uncertain which of two men is his father, and he struck this man and then struck that man, or cursed this man and then cursed that man, or struck both of them simultaneously, or cursed both of them simultaneously, in all these cases he is liable for violating the prohibition of: 鈥淎nd he that strikes his father, or his mother, shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:15), or that of: 鈥淎nd he that curses his father, or his mother, shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:17), as one of them is certainly his father.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讘讛转专讗讛 讗讞转

Rabbi Yehuda says: Although if he struck or cursed both of them simultaneously he is liable, if he struck or cursed them one after the other, he is exempt, as each time he strikes or curses one of them he receives an uncertain forewarning, as perhaps this man is not his father, and one is liable only after receiving a definite forewarning. Consequently, if one was forewarned before eating from the sciatic nerve from the right leg, and afterward he was forewarned before eating from the sciatic nerve from the left leg, he would similarly be exempt as each of the forewarnings was uncertain. Rather, it is obvious that the case in the mishna is one where he partook of the two sciatic nerves simultaneously and with a single forewarning, and therefore, he incurs only forty lashes according to Rabbi Yehuda.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗

And who is the first tanna who holds that in such a case one receives eighty lashes? If we say that it is the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos in the mishna about the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, that would conflict with their opinion: Now, if there, in the case of the mishna that discusses various animals that are separate entities, the Rabbis deem him exempt from a second set of lashes, here, in the mishna that discusses the sciatic nerve, where there are no separate animals, should they not all the more so exempt him from a second set of lashes? Rather, is the mishna not in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos? Consequently, in his opinion one who eats the same prohibited item, such as an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, twice after a single forewarning receives two sets of lashes.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜专讘谞谉 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara responds: No, actually the case is one where he ate from the two sciatic nerves one after the other and received separate forewarnings, and the first opinion in that mishna is that of the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos with regard to: Itself and its offspring. And as for the difficulty that Rabbi Yehuda does not render one liable if the forewarning is an uncertain one, this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of another tanna with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讚讗诪专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗砖 转砖专驻讜

As that other tanna says that Rabbi Yehuda holds: An uncertain forewarning is considered a forewarning, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 82

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 82

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讛 谞驻讚讬转 注诇 讙讘讬 诪注专讻转讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻专转 讞讟讗转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in explanation of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement: Rabbi Shimon would say that the red heifer can be redeemed with money even once it has been slaughtered and placed upon its pyre in preparation for being burned. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon states that there could be a time when the heifer was fit for consumption, i.e., if it was redeemed. Why, then, does he deem one who slaughters it exempt from liability for transgressing the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring? Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The statement with regard to the red heifer of purification is not considered part of the mishna, and Rabbi Shimon agrees that its slaughterer is liable for transgressing the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring.

讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诇讗讜 砖讞讬讟讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 谞诪爪讗 讛讛讜专讙 注讚 砖诇讗 转注专祝 讛注讙诇讛 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: And is the slaughter of the heifer whose neck was to have been broken not considered an act of slaughter that is fit? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sota 47a): If a heifer was set aside to have its neck broken to atone for the murder of an individual whose murderer was not known, and then the murderer was found before the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, the heifer shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. Evidently, before its neck is broken, deriving benefit from it is not prohibited, and its slaughter would be one that is fit. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The statement with regard to the heifer whose neck was to have been broken is not considered part of the mishna, and Rabbi Shimon agrees that its slaughterer is liable for violating the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讙讘讜诇 砖诪注转讬 讘讛 讜砖讻讞转讬 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讗 诇讜诪专 讬专讬讚转讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讗讜住专转讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yannai actually say so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yannai say: I heard the boundary, i.e., stage, beyond which the heifer is forbidden, but I have forgotten what it is; but the group of scholars were inclined to say that the heifer鈥檚 descent to a hard valley, where its neck is broken, is the action that renders it forbidden?

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬砖谞讬 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讬专讬讚讛 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讬专讬讚讛

And if it is so, let him resolve the contradiction by saying: Here, where deriving benefit from the heifer is permitted, and its slaughterer is liable for transgressing the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, it is referring to an act of slaughtering that is fit and is performed before the heifer鈥檚 descent, while there, in the mishna, where Rabbi Shimon holds that there is no liability for transgressing: Itself and its offspring, it is referring to slaughtering performed after its descent. At that time, deriving benefit from the heifer is already prohibited, and the slaughter is therefore not considered fit.

讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 讗谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 拽砖讬讗 诇谉 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讬

Rav Pine岣s, son of Rav Ami, said: We taught the statement in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish himself, not as a quote from Rabbi Yannai: The statement with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken is not considered part of the mishna. Rav Ashi said: When we were studying in the study hall of Rav Pappi, that statement was difficult for us: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish actually say that it is not considered part of the mishna?

讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 爪驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 诪讗讬诪转讬 谞讗住专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖

But it was stated that amora鈥檌m engaged in a dispute concerning the following issue: From when is one prohibited from deriving benefit from the leper鈥檚 birds? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One is prohibited from the moment of their slaughter; and Reish Lakish says: One is prohibited from the moment they are taken and designated to be a leper鈥檚 birds. And we say: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish?

讙诪专 拽讬讞讛 拽讬讞讛 诪注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛

His reasoning is that he derives it via verbal analogy from the terms: 鈥淭aking [ki岣]鈥 (Leviticus 14:4), with regard to the birds, and: 鈥淭aking [ki岣]鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3), with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken. Consequently, just as deriving benefit from the heifer whose neck is broken is prohibited from the time of its selection, so too must deriving benefit from these birds be prohibited from the time of their selection. Clearly, then, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that deriving benefit from the heifer whose neck is broken is prohibited while it is still alive. Therefore, its slaughter is one that does not render the animal fit for consumption. Accordingly, Rabbi Shimon would exempt its slaughterer from the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, as is taught in the mishna.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛

Rather, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The statement with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken is not considered part of the mishna, and this resolution of the difficulty was articulated by Rabbi Yo岣nan rather than Reish Lakish.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬诐 砖诇拽讞讜 驻专讛 讜讘谞讛 讗讬讝讛 砖诇拽讞 专讗砖讜谉 讬砖讞讜讟 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗诐 拽讚诐 讛砖谞讬 讝讻讛

MISHNA: With regard to two people who purchased a cow and its offspring, where each purchased one of the animals, whoever purchased his animal first shall slaughter it first, and the second one must wait until the next day to slaughter his animal, so as not to violate the prohibition of: It and its offspring. But if the second one preceded him and slaughtered his animal first, he benefitted, and the one who purchased the animal first may not slaughter it until the next day.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇注谞讬谉 讚讬谞讗 转谞谉 转谞讗 讗诐 拽讚诐 讛砖谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讝专讬讝 讜谞砖讻专 讝专讬讝 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讜谞砖讻专 讚拽讗讻讬诇 讘砖专讗

GEMARA: Rav Yosef said: We learn in the mishna that the first purchaser is granted precedence only with regard to the matter of a court judgment, in case the two purchasers go to court each demanding to slaughter his animal first. But there is no prohibition against the second one slaughtering his animal first if no claim is brought to court. Likewise, a Sage taught in a baraita: If the second one preceded him and slaughtered his animal first, he is diligent and rewarded; he is diligent because he did not violate a prohibition, and he is rewarded because he eats meat already that day.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟 驻专讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖谞讬 讘谞讬讛 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讘谞讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讛 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 砖讞讟讛 讜讗转 讘转讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐

MISHNA: If one slaughtered a cow and thereafter slaughtered its two offspring on the same day, he incurs eighty lashes for two separate actions violating the prohibition against slaughtering the mother and the offspring on the same day. If one slaughtered its two offspring and thereafter slaughtered the mother cow, he incurs the forty lashes, as he performed a single prohibited act. If one slaughtered the mother and its daughter, and, later that day, slaughtered its daughter鈥檚 daughter, he incurs eighty lashes, as he has performed the act of slaughtering a mother and its offspring twice.

砖讞讟讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讘转讛 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐

But if one slaughtered the mother and its daughter鈥檚 daughter and thereafter slaughtered its daughter, he incurs the forty lashes, as he performed a single prohibited act. Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He incurs eighty lashes for slaughtering the daughter on the same day as its calf and its mother, as that act comprises two separate violations of the prohibition.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讘谞讜 讜讗讜转讜 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讗诪讜 诪谞讬谉

GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna that if one slaughters two calves and thereafter slaughters their mother he incurs the forty lashes, the Gemara asks: Why does he receive lashes? After all, the phrase: 鈥淚t and its offspring鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), is what the Merciful One states in the Torah, and not: Its offspring and it. The Gemara answers: That thought should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita: From the phrase 鈥渋t and its offspring鈥 I have derived only that the prohibition includes slaughtering the animal itself first and its offspring afterward. From where do I derive that the prohibition also includes the case of slaughtering the offspring itself first and its mother afterward?

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讗诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讘谞讛 砖谞讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉

It is derived in the following manner: When the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter [tish岣tu] both in one day鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), this is referring to two people who are prohibited from slaughtering on the same day, as the word 鈥渟laughter鈥 is phrased in the plural. How so? If, during the course of a single day, there is one person who slaughters the cow and then another who slaughters that cow鈥檚 mother, and then there is another person who slaughters that cow鈥檚 offspring, the two latter people are liable, the first of them for slaughtering the mother after its offspring was slaughtered, and the second person for slaughtering the offspring after its mother was slaughtered.

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 诇讗 转砖讞讜讟 诪讗讬 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜

The Gemara challenges: That verse is necessary for the prohibition itself, and it cannot be used to teach this additional halakha. The Gemara explains: If so, that the verse teaches only the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring in one day, let the Torah write: You shall not slaughter [tish岣t], in the singular. For what reason did the Torah write: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter [tish岣tu]鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), in the plural? It is to teach that two different people are prohibited from slaughtering, as explained earlier.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖讞讜讟 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讚 讗讬谉 转专讬 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But, nevertheless, the plural is necessary, as had the Merciful One written in the Torah: You shall not slaughter [tish岣t] in the singular, I would say: With regard to one person, yes, it is prohibited to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, but with regard to two, it is not prohibited for one of them to slaughter the mother and the other to then slaughter the offspring on the same day.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 诇讗 讬砖讞讟讜

Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter [tish岣tu],鈥 in the plural, indicating that even two individuals may not slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day. The Gemara answers: If so, that only this is derived from the verse, let the Torah write: They shall not be slaughtered, indicating that whether by one individual or two, the slaughter of an animal and its offspring in a single day is prohibited, but only the one who slaughters the offspring has violated the prohibition.

诪讗讬 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

What is meant by: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter,鈥 which indicates that two different people are prohibited from slaughtering? Conclude two conclusions from it: Conclude that the prohibition applies even if two people perform the two acts of slaughter, and that two cases are prohibited: Slaughtering the offspring after the mother, and slaughtering the mother after the offspring.

砖讞讟讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住

搂 The mishna teaches: If one slaughtered the mother and its daughter鈥檚 daughter and thereafter slaughtered its daughter, he incurs the forty lashes. Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He incurs eighty lashes, because by slaughtering the daughter, he transgresses twice the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Sumakhos that the transgressor incurs eighty lashes?

拽讗 住讘专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

Does Sumakhos hold, in general, that if one unwittingly ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring two sin offerings, since he transgressed the prohibition twice? If so, then in a case where one is forewarned that if he transgresses intentionally he will receive lashes and he then violates the same prohibition twice, as is the case in the mishna, he receives two sets of lashes.

讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讘注诇诪讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讛讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉

And by right the mishna should have informed us of Sumakhos鈥檚 opinion in a general case, such as that of eating two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during a single lapse of awareness, but the reason that it teaches us this dispute in this situation, where one slaughters an animal and its daughter鈥檚 offspring and, later that day, slaughters its daughter, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, that even though the two animals that caused the daughter to be forbidden are separate entities, the Rabbis still exempt the transgressor from a second set of lashes.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽住讘专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 拽住讘专 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

Or perhaps, Sumakhos holds in general that if one ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin offering. If so, one who transgresses intentionally after being forewarned receives only one set of lashes even if he transgresses the same prohibition twice. But here, in the mishna, this is the reason that the transgressor receives two sets of lashes: It is that the two animals that caused the daughter to be prohibited are separate entities. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Yes, Sumakhos holds in general that if one ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring two sin offerings.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚转谞谉 讛讝讜专注 讻诇讗讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讜拽讛 诪讗讬 诇讜拽讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讜拽讛 讗讞转 驻砖讬讟讗 讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讻诇讗讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 砖转讬 诪诇拽讬讜转

The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Yosef derive this? He derives it from that which we learn in a baraita: One who sows diverse kinds, diverse kinds, i.e., he twice sows grain together with grape seeds, is flogged for violating the prohibition of diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Is flogged? If we say it means that he is flogged one set of lashes, this is obvious. And additionally, if he receives only one set of lashes, what is the reason that the case of: Sowing diverse kinds twice, is mentioned, where he transgressed twice? Even if he transgressed only once, he receives lashes. Rather, it is obvious that he receives two sets of lashes.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讘砖转讬 讛转专讗讜转 转谞讬谞讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转砖转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讗诇 转砖转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讘讛转专讗讛 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that we are dealing with a case where one violates the prohibition twice, one time after the other and with two separate forewarnings, it is unnecessary for the baraita to teach this, as we already learn it in a mishna (Nazir 42a): A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If onlookers said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, forewarning him several times, and he drinks after each forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every drink. Rather, it is obvious that he violated the prohibition twice at the same time and with a single forewarning, i.e., after he was forewarned he sowed wheat together with a grape seed with one hand, and barley together with a grape seed with the other hand, and he receives two sets of lashes.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos in the mishna, who hold that one who slaughters an animal and its daughter鈥檚 offspring and, later that day, slaughters its daughter receives only one set of lashes, that would not be reasonable: Now, if there, in the mishna, where there are animals that are separate entities, the Rabbis exempt him from a second set of lashes, since he violated a single prohibition with a single forewarning; here, in the baraita with regard to diverse kinds, where, unlike animals, seeds are not considered separate entities (see 83a), if one sows diverse kinds twice at the same time, should they not all the more so exempt him from a second set of lashes?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讻诇讗讬诐

Rather, is it not that the ruling of the baraita with regard to diverse kinds is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos and teaches that, even with a single entity, one who violates the same prohibition twice receives two sets of lashes? The Gemara responds: No, actually the baraita with regard to diverse kinds is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and he was forewarned before each act of sowing, which is why he receives two sets of lashes. And although this statement is redundant, by repeating the phrase: Diverse kinds, it teaches us a matter in passing: That there are two categories of the prohibition of diverse kinds: Sowing wheat together with grape seed and sowing barley together with grape seed.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 注讚 砖讬讝专注 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讝专注 讞讟讛 讜讞专爪谉 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 谞诪讬 诪讞讬讬讘

And the baraita serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, as Rabbi Yoshiya says: One who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat, and barley, and grape seed with a single hand motion, i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously. Therefore, it teaches us that when one sows only wheat and grape seed, or only barley and grape seed, he is liable as well. Consequently, a source clarifying Sumakhos鈥檚 opinion in a case where one violates the same prohibition twice during a single lapse of awareness, or with only a single forewarning when one violated the prohibition intentionally, has not been found.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讻诇 诪讝讛 讻讝讬转 讜诪讝讛 讻讝讬转 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜驻讙 讗诇讗 讗专讘注讬诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讘砖转讬 讛转专讗讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 讛讬讗 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna with regard to the prohibition against eating from the sciatic nerve (96a): If one ate an olive-bulk from this sciatic nerve in the right leg of an animal, and an olive-bulk from that sciatic nerve in the left leg of the same animal, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What are the circumstances? If we say that he ate them one after the other and with two separate forewarnings, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is an uncertain forewarning, as Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain whether the prohibition against eating from the sciatic nerve applies to the sciatic nerve of the right thigh or that of the left thigh (see 90b). And we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda says: An uncertain forewarning is not considered a forewarning.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讞讝专 讜讛讻讛 讗转 讝讛 拽诇诇 讗转 讝讛 讜讞讝专 讜拽诇诇 讗转 讝讛 讗讜 砖讛讻讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讜 砖拽诇诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘

As it is taught in a baraita: If one is uncertain which of two men is his father, and he struck this man and then struck that man, or cursed this man and then cursed that man, or struck both of them simultaneously, or cursed both of them simultaneously, in all these cases he is liable for violating the prohibition of: 鈥淎nd he that strikes his father, or his mother, shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:15), or that of: 鈥淎nd he that curses his father, or his mother, shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:17), as one of them is certainly his father.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讘讛转专讗讛 讗讞转

Rabbi Yehuda says: Although if he struck or cursed both of them simultaneously he is liable, if he struck or cursed them one after the other, he is exempt, as each time he strikes or curses one of them he receives an uncertain forewarning, as perhaps this man is not his father, and one is liable only after receiving a definite forewarning. Consequently, if one was forewarned before eating from the sciatic nerve from the right leg, and afterward he was forewarned before eating from the sciatic nerve from the left leg, he would similarly be exempt as each of the forewarnings was uncertain. Rather, it is obvious that the case in the mishna is one where he partook of the two sciatic nerves simultaneously and with a single forewarning, and therefore, he incurs only forty lashes according to Rabbi Yehuda.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗

And who is the first tanna who holds that in such a case one receives eighty lashes? If we say that it is the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos in the mishna about the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, that would conflict with their opinion: Now, if there, in the case of the mishna that discusses various animals that are separate entities, the Rabbis deem him exempt from a second set of lashes, here, in the mishna that discusses the sciatic nerve, where there are no separate animals, should they not all the more so exempt him from a second set of lashes? Rather, is the mishna not in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos? Consequently, in his opinion one who eats the same prohibited item, such as an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, twice after a single forewarning receives two sets of lashes.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜专讘谞谉 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara responds: No, actually the case is one where he ate from the two sciatic nerves one after the other and received separate forewarnings, and the first opinion in that mishna is that of the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos with regard to: Itself and its offspring. And as for the difficulty that Rabbi Yehuda does not render one liable if the forewarning is an uncertain one, this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of another tanna with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讚讗诪专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗砖 转砖专驻讜

As that other tanna says that Rabbi Yehuda holds: An uncertain forewarning is considered a forewarning, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10).

Scroll To Top