Talmud Bavli Hullin 82a-b - translation by Tzvee

[82a] And said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “R. Simeon used to say that a cow could be redeemed even when it was laying upon the pile of wood [after it was already slaughtered. Therefore the act is valid. Cf. M. Parah 3:9].”

C.            Said R. Shaman bar Abba, said R. Yohanan, “The cow of purification is not supposed to be in our Mishnah.”

II.2

A.            And is the [slaughter of] a heifer whose neck is to be broken [M. 5:3 C] an act of slaughter that is invalid? But lo, it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: [If] the murderer was found before the neck of the heifer was broken, it [simply] goes forth and pastures in the herd [M. Sotah 9:7 A]. [If it is then slaughtered, it is valid.]

B.            Said R. Simeon b. Laqish in the name of R. Yannai, “The heifer whose neck is to broken is not supposed to be in our Mishnah.”

C.            But did R. Yannai say this? But lo, said R. Yannai, “I learned that there was some limitation to this rule. But I forgot what it was. But the associates turned out to say, `When it is taken down to the rugged valley, it is rendered prohibited.'”

D.            And if you have it [listed in our Mishnah] teach as follows: This one [the rule in M. Sotah] refers to [the heifer] before it went down [into the rugged valley and is still valid for eating]. And this one [the rule in our Mishnah] refers to [the heifer] after it went down [into the rugged valley and is no longer valid].

E.            Said R. Phineas the son of R. Ammi, “I taught in the name of R. Simeon b. Laqish, `The heifer whose neck is to be broken is not supposed to be in our Mishnah.”

F.             Said R. Ashi, “When I was in the house of R. Pappi we had a question as to whether R. Simeon b. Laqish said this.”

G.            But lo, it was stated: The birds [for the sacrifices] of the leper — from what time do they become prohibited? R. Yohanan said, `From the time they are slaughtered.' R. Simeon b. Laqish said, `From the time they are taken [as a sacrifice]' [b. Qid. 57a].

H.           And we say, “What is the basis for the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish? He derives if from the common use of the term `take' [with regard to the birds of the leper and with regard to] the heifer whose neck is broken.” [The verses are: “The priest shall command then to take for him who is to be cleansed two living clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet stuff and hyssop” (Lev. 14:4); “And the elders of the city which is nearest to the slain man shall take a heifer which has never been worked and which has not pulled in the yoke” (Deut. 21:3).]

I.              Rather said R. Hiyya bar Abba, said R. Yohanan, “The heifer whose neck is to be broken is not supposed to be in our Mishnah.”

I.1 analyzes the premises of the rule of Mishnah. II.1-2 is an interesting exercise in Mishnah-criticism. The units cite relevant Tannaite sources and criticize the working of the Mishnah-paragraph.

                                                                  5:3 J-L

                J.             Two who purchased, [one] a cow, and [the other] its offspring —

                K.            that one who purchased the first slaughters first.

                L.            But if the second did it first, he has acquired the right [to do so].

I.1

A.            Said R. Joseph, “The Mishnah taught this with regard to the legal rights [of the purchasers and not with regard to the prohibition itself (Rashi)].”

B.            It was taught on Tannaite authority: If the second on [slaughter his animal] first, lo he is astute and he gains an advantage. He is astute in that he did not violate a prohibition. And he gains an advantage in that he gets to eat meat [that day].

I.1 identifies Mishnah's operative principle.

                                                                5:3 M-Q

I              M.           [If] he slaughtered a cow and afterward its two offspring, he incurs eighty stripes.

II             N.           [If] he slaughtered its two offspring and afterward slaughtered it, he incurs forty stripes.

III           O.           [If] he slaughtered it, its daughter, its granddaughter, he incurs eighty stripes.

IV           P.            [If] he slaughtered it and its granddaughter and afterward slaughtered its daughter, he incurs forty stripes.

                Q.           Sumkhos says in the name of R. Meir, “He incurs eighty stripes.”

I.1

A.            Why is this the case [that he is liable in N]? The Torah stated, “It and its offspring” (Lev. 22:28) and not “Its offspring and it.” No. You cannot have concluded that. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: [From the verse], “It and its offspring” I may derive only [that it is prohibited to slaughter in order], “It and its offspring.” What is the source [of the prohibition of slaughtering in the reverse order], It and its mother? When it says, “[And whether the mother is a cow or a ewe], you (plural) shall not kill [both her and her young in one day]” (Lev. 22:28). Lo, here you have reference to two [people who are liable to punishment].

B.            Lo, what is the case? Where one person slaughtered the cow and one person slaughtered its mother and one person slaughtered its offspring, the last two are liable [for transgressing the prohibition against slaughtering it and its offspring on the same day].

C.            [82b] But is this phrase not needed for defining the prohibition itself? If that is all [that Scripture intended] it should have written, “You (singular) shall not kill.” Why does it say, “You (plural) shall not kill”? But we still would need to state it [in the plural]. For if the Torah had written, “You (singular) shall not kill” I would have reasoned that if one [person slaughtered both animals then] yes [he would be liable for violating the prohibition]. But if two [people slaughtered, each slaughtering one animal then] no [neither would be liable]. The Torah [therefore] wrote, “You (plural) shall not kill.” This implies that even two [people who each slaughtered one animal are liable].

D.            If this is the case, then let [the Torah] write, “They shall not kill.” Why does it say, “You (plural) shall not write”? We derive from this two [rules. Two may slaughter and it may be in either order.].

II.1

A.            [If] he slaughtered it and its granddaughter and afterward slaughtered its daughter, he incurs forty stripes. Sumkhos says in the name of R. Meir, “He incurs eighty stripes” [M. 5:3 P-Q]. Said Abayye to R. Joseph, “What is the basis for the view of Sumkhos. Does Sumkhos reason in accord with the view that one who ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in one inadvertent violation is liable to bring two sin-offerings [b. Shab. 93b]?

B.            “And it is logical to conclude that we may be instructed of this [opinion of Sumkhos] in general [wherever there is a possibility of multiple transgressions]. And the reason that it makes the novel point [of specifying his view] in regard to our rule is to apprise you of the authority of the opinion of the rabbis. For even though [he commits the act of slaughter on] two separate entities, the rabbis exempted him [of the additional forty stripes.

C.            “Or perhaps Sumkhos reasons in accord with the view that one who ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in one inadvertent violation is liable to bring only one sin-offering. But here the basis for his view [that he incurs the penalty of eighty stripes] is because [he commits the act of slaughter on] two separate entities.”

D.            He [Joseph] said to him, “Yes. He holds the view that one who ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in one inadvertent violation is liable to bring two sin-offerings.”

E.            Why do we draw this conclusion? Based on what was taught on Tannaite authority: One who plants seeds of diverse kinds, [and again plants seeds] of diverse kinds, incurs the penalty of stripes. What does it mean that he incurs the penalty of stripes? If you say that it means he incurs the penalty of one set of stripes, that is obvious [and need not be stated]. And furthermore, what does it mean [by repeating] of diverse kinds, of diverse kinds?

F.             But it is obvious that it means he incurs the penalty of two sets of stripes. What case are we dealing with? If you say that the case is where he [sowed them] one after another and with two [separate] warnings [that the act is prohibited], this was taught on Tannaite authority: A Nazirite who was drinking wine all day long is liable for only one [violation]. If they said to him, “Do not drink it,” and he drank it, [and again they said to him], “Do not drink it,” and he drank it, he is liable for each and every one [M. Makkot 3:7].

G.            But it is obvious then that we are dealing with a case where he sows them all at once and with one warning. In accord with whose opinion is this? If we say in accord with the opinion of the rabbis that dispute the view of Sumkhos, let us now consider the matter. What is the case there [in our Mishnah]? There are separate entities and the rabbis exempted him [from multiple punishments]. Here [where he sows all at once] is it not more logical to conclude [that he be exempt from multiple punishments]?

H.           Then rather do we not interpret [the rule stated in E] in accord with the view of Sumkhos? No. It is consistent to say that we interpret in accord with the view of the rabbis. And it makes the novel point of teaching us about one matter incidental to another, [that is that] there are two types of diverse kinds. And this serves to disclaim the view of R. Oshaia.

I.              For said R. Oshaia, “[One is not liable for violating the prohibition of sowing diverse kinds] until he sows wheat, barley and grape seeds in one throw” [b. Qid. 39a]. It makes the novel point [here] that if he sowed wheat and grape seeds or barley and grape seeds he also would be liable.

II.2

A.            Come and take note: [If] he ate two sinews from two thighs from two beasts, he incurs eighty stripes. R. Judah says, “He incurs only forty stripes” [T. 7:5 E-F]. What is the situation? If we say that [he ate in two acts] one after the other and he received two warnings, then what is the basis for the view of R. Judah. [Each time he eats] it is a warning that is subject to doubt. [Judah holds the view that only one of the thighs is prohibited and we do not know which one. Each warning then is subject to doubt.] And we learned of [a principle that] R. Judah held. For he said, “Any warning that is subject to doubt is not a valid warning” [M. 5:1, II.3 I, b. 81a].

B.            For it was taught on Tannaite authority: [Concerning a son who is not certain which of two men is his father]: If he struck one [man who might be his father] and then he struck the other [who might be his father]; If he cursed one and then he cursed the other [he is exempt from punishment. But] if he hit them both at the same time; or if he cursed both of them at the same time, he is liable [to the death penalty in accord with Exod. 21]. R. Judah says, “[If he hit them] at the same time he is liable. [If he hit them] one after the other, he is exempt” [cf. T. Yeb. 12:7 H-K, for a variant version].

C.            But it is obvious that we deal with a case where he did both acts [of eating the thigh] at the same time and he had one warning. And in accord with whose view is that of the first Tanna? If we say in accord with the opinion of the rabbis that dispute the view of Sumkhos, let us now consider the matter. What is the case there [in our Mishnah]? There are separate entities and the rabbis exempted him [from multiple punishments]. Here [where he performs the acts all at once] is it not more logical to conclude [that he be exempt from multiple punishments]?

D.            Then rather do we not interpret [the rule] in accord with the view of Sumkhos? No. It is consistent to say that we interpret that it is a case [where he performed the acts] one after the other and it is in accord with the view of the rabbis. And this Tanna reasons in accord with the view of another Tanna, in accord with R. Judah who said that a warning that is subject to doubt is a valid warning.