Quando si scoprì che uno degli animali era Terefá, o che era stato massacrato per idolatri, o che era una mucca di un sacrificio per il peccato, o un bue condannato a morte, o un vitello il cui collo doveva essere staccato, R. Shimon assolve [la persona che ha macellato il secondo animale lo stesso giorno] da qualsiasi sanzione; ma i saggi sostengono "Che ha sostenuto quello [delle quaranta strisce]". Quando uno degli animali diventa Nevelah viene macellato impropriamente; o quando è stato ucciso da un coltello che gli è stato infilato nelle narici; o che la trachea e l'esofago sono stati strappati con la forza, la legge contro la macellazione di un animale e dei suoi piccoli nello stesso giorno non è applicabile: quando una mucca e il suo vitello sono stati acquistati da due persone, una comprando la mucca e l'altra il vitello, il primo acquirente ha il diritto di macellare prima il suo acquisto; ma se l'altro acquirente lo ha anticipato nel macellare il suo, ha acquisito il suo diritto. Se una persona avesse massacrato una mucca e i suoi due vitelli nello stesso giorno, avrebbe subito una penalità di ottanta strisce; ma se ha massacrato prima i due vitelli e poi la mucca, ha subito solo una penalità di quaranta strisce. Se ha massacrato [lo stesso giorno] una mucca e la sua giovane e il vitello di quella giovane mucca, gli verranno inflitte ottanta strisce. Se ha macellato [nello stesso giorno] una mucca, quindi il vitello del suo giovane, e infine il giovane stesso, gli saranno inflitte le quaranta strisce. Somchos, nel nome di R. Meir, dice "ottanta [strisce]". In quattro periodi dell'anno un venditore di bestiame è tenuto ad informare l'acquirente di aver venduto la diga o la leer giovane nello stesso giorno allo scopo di essere macellato, vale a dire. nel giorno che precede l'ultimo giorno della festa dei tabernacoli, in quelli che precedono il primo giorno della Pasqua, la festa delle settimane e del nuovo anno; e secondo R. Yose il Galileo, anche il giorno precedente il Giorno dell'Espiazione in Galilea. R. Yehuda dice: "Quando è tenuto a fornire tali informazioni? Solo se non ci dovrebbe essere un intervallo di un giorno tra la vendita di uno degli animali e quella dell'altro; ma se ci fosse un tale intervallo, le informazioni menzionate sono non richiesto dal venditore. " Eppure R. Yehuda ammette: "Nel caso in cui vendesse la diga a uno sposo, e il giovane alla sua sposa, è tenuto a informarli, perché si suppone che entrambi gli animali saranno macellati nello stesso giorno. "
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
פרה חטאת – the red heifer, which is not for consumption.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered the red cow, or an ox which was condemned to be stoned, or a heifer whose neck was to be broken: Rabbi Shimon exempts [him from having transgressed the law of “it and its young”]; But the sages make him liable. In all of these cases a person slaughters a parent and its offspring on the same day, but one of the animals was an animal that could not be eaten. There are five such categories: 1) A terefah, an animal that has a flaw that will cause it to eminently die. 2) An animal slaughtered for idolatry. 3) The red cow, used for purifying people with corpse impurity. 4) An ox condemned to die for either killing a person or for engaging in bestiality. It is forbidden to derive benefit from such an ox. 5) The heifer whose neck is broken to atone for an unsolved murder. Since these animals can not be eaten, even if they were slaughtered properly, Rabbi Shimon exempts the one who slaughters the second one from being liable for “it and its son.” Rabbi Shimon holds that slaughtering that would not make an animal fit for consumption even if done properly is not called “slaughtering.” The other rabbis disagree and say that he is liable, since he did indeed slaughter the second animal.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ושור הנסקל – after its verdict has been announced, for we hold hat it is prohibited to derive benefit even when slaughtering it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he does not thereby transgress the law of it and its young. In this case, the animal was valid before it was slaughtered, but then was invalidated by an improper method of slaughtering. Such a person is not liable for transgressing “it and its son” because this prohibition only applies to one who “slaughters,” the verb used in the verse. This person did not successfully slaughter.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ועגלה ערופה – for he holds that it is forbidden while alive, and even if e slaughtered it, it is forbidden. But in the Gemara (Tractate Hullin 82a) reaches the definitive conclusion that the red heifer and the heifer whose neck is to be broken are not taught in our Mishnah. For regarding both of them, their slaughter is appropriate, and one must remove them from the Mishnah and Rabbi Shimon did not exempt them (for slaughter that is not appropriate for eating is not called slaughter).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If two people bought a cow and its young, he who bought first can slaughter first; but if the second preceded him, he holds his advantage. If two people buy a cow and its young, they might end up arguing about who has the right to slaughter first. The mishnah says that the first person to buy has the right to slaughter first, and the second person should wait. But if the second person slaughters first, the other person will have to wait for the next day.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
וחכמים מחייבין – this that the Sages make him liable when slaughtering for idolatrous purposes, they did not teach other than when he slaughtered the first for idolatrous purposes and the second [animal] came and he slaughtered it for his table to eat it, but if the first was for his table and the second was for idolatrous purposes, that through the latter slaughtering is what makes him liable because of “an animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28), the law of killing comes upon him, and he is exempt from lashes–flogging because he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer penalty which is death (i.e., for slaughtering for idolatrous purposes, but he is exempt from flogging for the slaughtering of the animal and her young in one day – see Talmud Hullin 81b) for two [punishments] we don’t do to him. But sometimes, that even when he slaughtered the first for his table and the second for idolatrous purposes, he is liable, as, for example, when they (i.e., witnesses) warned him because of “an animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28), but they didn’t warn him because of idolatrous purposes, for since they did not warn him regarding idolatrous purposes, he is not killed, but he is flogged because of “an animal and its young.” But the Halakha is according to the Sages.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If a person slaughtered a cow and then two of its calves, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered its two calves and then the cow, he is liable for forty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf and then the calf's offspring, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf's offspring and then the calf, he is liable for forty lashes. Symmachos says in the name of r. Meir: he is liable for eighty lashes. This section attempts to delineate how many transgressions a person has transgressed when he slaughters multiple animals on the same day. We will take case by case. 1) Once he slaughters the mother, he will be liable for each of its offspring that he slaughters on that day. Therefore, when he slaughters two offspring, he is liable twice. 2) However, if he slaughters two offspring and then the mother, he has violated the prohibition only once, by slaughtering the mother. In other words, we don’t count his transgressions retroactively. 3) When he slaughters the mother, it is prohibited to slaughter its young. So when he slaughters the young, he is liable for forty lashes. When he slaughters the offspring of the young, he has violated the prohibition again, and is liable for another forty lashes (ouch!) 4) If after slaughtering the mother, he first slaughters the offspring of the mother’s offspring (the third generation), and then the mother’s own offspring, according to the first opinion, he has only transgressed once. Slaughtering the third generation was not prohibited at the time that he slaughtered it. And although slaughtering the second generation violated two prohibitions, for it is the mother of the third generation and the child of the first generation, one can be liable only once for each animal. Rabbi Meir holds that he is liable twice, even though he slaughtered only one prohibited animal, since that one animal was prohibited in two different ways.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ונתנבלה בידו – inadvertently–unknowingly.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
At four periods in the year he who sells a beast to another must inform him, “I sold today its mother to be slaughtered,” or “I sold today its young to be slaughtered,” and these are they: on the eve of the last day of the feast [of Sukkot], on the eve of the first day of Pesah, on the eve of Shavuot, and on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also on the eve of Yom Kippur, in the Galilee. Rabbi Judah says, this is so, only when there was no time in between the sales, but if there was time, he need not inform him. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he sold the mother to the bridegroom and the young to the bride, he must inform them of it, for it is certain that they will each slaughter on the same day. When a merchant sells an animal and then sells its mother/offspring to different customers there might be a concern that the two people will slaughter the animals on the same day and thereby unwittingly the prohibition of “it and its son.” This will only be a concern if it is anticipated that a person who buys an animal will slaughter it on that very day. The mishnah informs us that this is a strong possibility four times a year, the four times when people ate the most meat. The four times are as follows: 1) Before the last day of Sukkot, which we call Shemini Atzeret. Interestingly, people seem to have eaten more meat on the last day of Sukkot then on the first day. This might be connected with Simchat Bet Hashoevah, the celebration described in the end of tractate Sukkah. 2) Before the first day of Pesah. People would have eaten meat for the Pesah meal (the seder) both before and after the destruction of the Temple. 3) Before Shavuot. 4) Before Rosh Hashanah. Rabbi Yose the Galilean notes that in the Galilee the same rule would hold the day before Yom Kippur. In the Galilee they ate large meat meals before the onset of the fast. Rabbi Judah limits the law to a case where there was not a day separating the sale of the mother and its young. If there was a day separating the sales, then the seller need not inform him. According to Rabbi Judah, two different buyers buying on two different days are not likely to slaughter on the same day. There is a case where Rabbi Judah agrees that even if the sales occur on two different days, the seller must inform the purchasers. If a bride and bridegroom buy a mother and its young, he must inform them, because it is clear that they will be slaughtered on the same day.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
והנוחר – inserting the knife in its nostrils and cuts [the windpipe].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
והמעקר – tearing loose the windpipe and gullet from the place where they are attached and he doesn’t slaughter them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
פטור – and even according to the Rabbis. But it is not similar to ritual slaughter of above, for there, it is an appropriate ritual slaughter, and another things causes it to be invalidated, but here, there isn’t ritual slaughter at all.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
איזה שלקח ראשון ישחוט ראשון – if they came to the Jewish court, he who came first to slaughter and his fellow detains him and says: “I need it more than you,” we say to them, that the first purchaser should סperson and he detained for himself, the [original] purchaser would slaughter it. For such we taught in the Tosefta (Hullin, Chapter 5, Halakha 5), that he who purposes it from the owner, he precedes the owner, for on that account, he purchased it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ואם קדם השני זכה – that he advanced himself in order that he not come to a prohibition, and he has the interval that he eats meat today.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
סופג שמונים – for on every male offspring that he slaughters, he transgresses a negative commandment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
סופג את ארבעים – for there isn’t here a forbidden slaughtering other than one.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
שחטה ואת בתה ואח"כ את בת בתה – there are two [violations] of “an animal and its young.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
שחטה ואת בת בתה – there is [not] yet here a prohibition. ואח"כ שחט את בתה – and there is in this slaughtering two prohibitions, “an animal and its young” because of its mother,” and an offspring and it because of its female offspring of that which has already been slaughtered.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
סופג ארבעים – it is one negative commandment ‘violated] and one warning and one deed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
סומכוס אומר סופג שמונים – for Sumachos holds that he is liable for one warning and with one negative commandment, two [punishments of] stripes. And the same law applies with the first clause [of the Mishnah] which teaches that if he slaughtered its two offspring and afterwards slaughtered her (i.e., the mother), he receives forty (actually thirty-nine) lashes. According to Sumachos, he receives eighty lashes. Such it is in the Tosefta (Hullin, Chapter 5, Halakha 7), if he slaughters her five offspring and afterwards slaughter it (i.e., the mother), Sumachos states in the name of Rabbi Meir that he is liable because of [the violation] of five negative commandments.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
בארבעה פרים בשנה – it is the manner of Israel to make meals on these four seasons [of the year], for a person who simply purchases an animal does not purchase it other than to slaughter it immediately, therefore, a person who sells an animal to his fellow and he sells first its mother or its female offspring on that selfsame day, he must state to the second [person]: “Know for yourself that I sold its mother for slaughter” or “I sold its female offspring for slaughter” lest it was already slaughtered.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ביום טוב האחרון של חג – they would increase in joy because it is a festival of its own and was beloved to them. And this did not consider the eve of the first day of the Festival, because the entire world is preoccupied with [the building of] the Sukkah and [acquiring] a Lulav [and Etrog], and they don’t have free time to make a large slaughtering.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
אף ערבי יום הכיפורים בגלילי – but not in Judea and not in the rest of the lands, for they would not eat on the Eve of Yom Kippur anything other than meat, children and–or fish as is proven in Bereshit Rabbah, regarding a particular tailor who sold a fish.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
בזמן שאין לו ריוח – interruption between them, that he sold the mother [animal] today.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
אבל יש לו ריוח – that he sold the first yesterday and the second today.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
אין צריך להודיעו – for I say: “Yesterday, I slaughtered it first.” Another explanation: At the time when he doesn’t have space of time that he is in haste and hurries to purchase that shows that he wants to slaughter today. But if he has a space of time that he is not in haste to purchase it, he is not required to inform him, for lest it was for the need of another day that he purchases it. But Rabbi Yehuda, he comes to explain the matter of the first Tanna–teacher and not to dispute it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ומודה ר' יהודה – even hough that he purchased this [animal] today and that [animal] on the morrow, And regarding the second explanation, even though he is not in haste and hurried to purchase.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
את האם לחת ואת הבת לכלה – it is a usual incident, for it is the custom of the world to make a large meal at the house of the groom from the house of the bride; therefore, the mother fo the grow who is larger, and the offspring which is smaller to the bride.
