Commentaire sur Houlin 5:1
אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בְּחֻלִּין וּבְמֻקְדָּשִׁין. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ חֻלִּין בַּחוּץ, שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים, וְהַשֵּׁנִי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב כָּרֵת, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִים, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם סוֹפְגִים אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. חֻלִּין בִּפְנִים, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִים, וְהַשֵּׁנִי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. קָדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים, הָרִאשׁוֹן כָּשֵׁר וּפָטוּר, וְהַשֵּׁנִי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים וּפָסוּל:
L'interdiction d'abattre un animal et ses petits le même jour (Lév.22, 28), est obligatoire en Terre Sainte, et en dehors de celle-ci, pendant et après l'existence du Temple, en ce qui concerne les animaux abattus à des fins profanes. [c'est-à-dire pour les manger], et à ceux qui sont abattus comme sacrifices consacrés, comme suit. Lorsqu'une personne abattait un animal et ses petits [le même jour] sans la cour du temple [non pas comme des sacrifices sacrés, mais] comme des animaux abattus à des fins profanes alors que les deux animaux sont casher, mais en abattant le second, il encourt la peine des quarante rayures. S'il les avait massacrés à l'extérieur de la cour du temple comme de saints sacrifices, il encourt la peine d'une excision totale [כרת] pour le massacre du premier. Les deux animaux sont des Pasul, et il a en outre encouru la peine de quarante coups de feu pour l'abattage de chaque animal. S'il les avait abattus comme חולין [c'est-à-dire pour un usage profane ou ordinaire] dans la cour du temple, les deux animaux sont Pasul; et pour le massacre du second, il encourt la peine de quarante coups. Si les deux étaient des sacrifices consacrés et étaient abattus dans la cour du temple, l'animal abattu pour la première fois est un sacrifice valable, et la personne qui l'a abattu n'a encouru aucune pénalité pour cela; mais il encourt la peine des quarante coups pour le massacre du deuxième animal, et cet animal est impropre au sacrifice.
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
אותו ואת בנו – the mother and the male offspring, or the mother and the female offspring, but the father with the male offspring or with the female offspring is not forbidden [to be slaughtered on the same day], for (Leviticus 22:28): “[However, no animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered] on the same day with its young,” implies whomever’s offspring is clinging, excluding the male (i.e., the father) whose male offspring is not clinging.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
Introduction
Leviticus 22:28 states, “When it comes to an ox or a sheep, it and its young you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Our chapter discusses this prohibition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ –since it is necessary to teach, whether with unconsecrated things whether with consecrated things, it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches also “whether in the Land of Israel” or “whether outside the Land of Israel,” even though it is not necessary, for it is the obligation of personal duty (as opposed to laws connected with the soil of the Land of Israel), for personal duty applies whether in the Land of Israel or whether outside the Land of Israel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
[The law of] “It and its young” applies both within the land of Israel and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated animals. The prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day applies in all times and all places and to both consecrated (dedicated to the Temple) and non-consecrated (hullin) animals.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
בפני הבית – at the time when the Temple exists.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
How so? The mishnah now explains various scenarios in which a person slaughters an animal and its young, and the various liabilities that can be occurred, depending on whether the animals were consecrated and where they were slaughtered.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ושלא בפני הבית – you might think I would say, for since it is written regarding the matter of Holy Things, that when the Temple exists, we will apply it, when the Temple doesn’t exist, we will not apply it. Therefore, it comes to tell us the opposite.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If a person slaughtered an animal and its young, both animals being unconsecrated, [and they slaughtered them] outside [the sanctuary], they are both valid, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. In this case, both animals are hullin (unconsecrated) and both are slaughtered outside of the Temple, where they should be slaughtered. Both animals are valid and can be eaten. The fact that the second one should not have been slaughtered does not render its slaughtering to be invalid. The second person, the one who slaughters the second animal (whether or not this is the parent or offspring), is liable for the forty lashes for having transgressed a biblical commandment. The first person is not liable because when he slaughtered the animal, he did nothing wrong.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
בחולין ובמוקדשים – whether both (i.e., the mother and the offspring) are unconsecrated or both are sanctified, and from where in the Torah do we learn that it applies to that which is sanctified? As it is written (Leviticus 22:27): “When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born,[it shall stay seven days with its mother, and from the eight day on] it shall be acceptable as a gift to the LORD,” and afterwards it is written (Leviticus 22:28): “However no animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If both animals were consecrated [and they were slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary], [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of karet, both animals are invalid, and each incurs forty lashes. In this case both animals are consecrated and should have been slaughtered only in the Temple. The person who slaughters the first animal is liable for karet for having slaughtered a consecrated animal outside the Temple. The person who slaughters the second animal is not liable for karet because that animal could not have been offered as a sacrifice on that day since its parent/child had already been slaughtered. Since it could not have been a sacrifice, the one who slaughters it outside the Temple is exempt from karet. Both animals are invalid as sacrifices because they were slaughtered outside the Temple (see Zevahim 14:2). Both slaughterers are liable for lashes but for different reasons. The first is liable for having slaughtered a consecrated animal outside of the Temple and the second for slaughtering an animal on the same day that its parent/young was slaughtered.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
בחוץ – outside of the Temple courtyard.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If both animals were unconsecrated [and they were slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], both animals are invalid, and [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. In this case both animals were unconsecrated, and yet both were slaughtered inside the Temple. This makes them invalid and it is forbidden to derive benefit from either animal (see Kiddushin 2:9). There is no biblical punishment for slaughtering an unconsecrated animal inside the Temple, therefore the first slaughterer is not punished. The second slaughterer is liable for having slaughtered an animal on the same day that its parent/young was slaughtered.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
שניהם כשרים – because it was necessary to teach in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] that both of them are disqualified, the first clause [of the Mishnah] teaches that both are fit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If both animals were consecrated [and they were slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not culpable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes, and it is invalid. In this case both were consecrated and both were slaughtered inside the Temple, as is required. The first animal is valid as a sacrifice and the one who slaughters it is exempt, for he has done nothing wrong. The second animal is invalid and the one who slaughters it is liable for having slaughtered an animal on the same day that its parent/young was slaughtered
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
והשני סופג את הארבעים – because of the negative commandment of “no animal…[shall be slaughtered on the same day] with its young” (Leviticus 22:28). And there is no difference whether he slaughtered the mother first, and makes no difference whether he slaughtered the offspring first. It makes no difference whether both were slaughtered by one person, and makes no difference if two people [slaughtered the mother and its young].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
הראשון חייב כרת – because of slaughtering outside of the Temple. But the second [of the pair of the mother and its offspring] is exempt from extirpation, for since the mother was slaughtered, the offspring is further not worthy to be slaughtered today inside, for it is disqualified because of lacking time (i.e., an offering cannot be offered because its time to be offered has not yet arrived), for it is not appropriate to slaughter it and to offer it today, and he is not liable because of slaughtering outside [the Temple] unless it is appropriate inside, as it is written (Leviticus 17:4): “and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” that which is appropriate [to be brought] to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, he is liable for it outside, and if not, then not.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ושניהם סופגים את הארבעים – the first because of slaughtering outside, for all who are liable for violating laws of extirpation are flogged, and the second because of the negative commandment of “the mother and its young.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
חולין בפנים שנהים פסולין – because unconsecrated offerings which were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
והשני סופג – because of “the mother and its young.” But because of unconsecrated animals in the Temple courtyard, there is the warning of a positive commandment (Deuteronomy 12:21): “If the place [where there LORD has chosen to establish His name] is too far from you, you may slaughter [any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you],” when there is a distance of place, you slaughter, but you do not slaughter when the place is close.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
קדשים בפנים כו' והשני סופג – because of “the mother and its young.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ופסול – because of lacking time.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy