Chulin 82
Summary
- Today’s שיעור on מסכת חולין דף פ"ב begins from דף פ"א ע"ב at פרה חטאת and treats the משנה’s cases of שחיטה שאינה ראויה as they relate to the מחלוקת רבי שמעון and the רבנן about applying אותו ואת בנו, first by reclassifying פרה חטאת and עגלה ערופה as cases that should be removed from the משנה. It explains why רבי שמעון nevertheless holds פרה אדומה can be מטמאה טומאת אוכלין due to its redeemability, and it brings multiple ראשונים to justify the relevance of טומאת אוכלין despite פרה אדומה being described as מטהר טמאים ומטמא טהורים. It then shifts to a “transformative” משנה that introduces monetary rights when two buyers purchase a mother and its young, and it develops the framework that the first buyer acquires priority rights to slaughter that day. Finally, it analyzes the משנה’s ladder-cases of multiple slaughters and the resulting מלקות, derives from the pasuk לא תשחטו that both order and multiple actors are included, and clarifies סומכוס’s יסוד that multiple violations can generate multiple punishments even within one העלם, with attempted proofs from כלאים and גיד הנשה.
- A פרה אדומה initially appears to be שחיטה שאינה ראויה because it is slaughtered for טהרה and not for eating, and that makes it a key example for the מחלוקת רבי שמעון and the רבנן about whether אותו ואת בנו applies by שחיטה שאינה ראויה. A broader מחלוקת in ש״ס states that foods that are אסור בהנאה are still susceptible to טומאת אוכלין according to the רבנן, while רבי שמעון holds they are not. A ברייתא teaches that רבי שמעון nevertheless says פרה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין because הואיל והיתה לה שעת הכושר, since רבי שמעון holds פרה נפדית על גב מערכתה and can be redeemed even after שחיטה if a nicer פרה is found, making the שחיטה potentially for eating and thus a שחיטה ראויה. רבי שמעון בר אבא בשם רבי יוחנן concludes that פרה חטאת אינה משנה and should be removed from the משנה’s list of שחיטה שאינה ראויה.
- The ראשונים question the relevance of debating טומאת אוכלין for פרה אדומה when it is classically described as מטהר טמאים ומטמא טהורים. רש״י explains that טומאת אוכלין matters for שיעור כביצה, such as combining פחות מכביצה dough with פרה אדומה meat to reach כביצה and enable transmission of טומאה if the meat has טומאת אוכלין status. תוספות explains that despite a high level of טומאה applying in certain respects, טומאת אוכלין is a distinct lower-level טומאה that can apply as well. רבינו תם explains that the special טומאה of פרה אדומה applies to those involved in its preparation, while others who merely come into contact with it require the separate determination of whether it is subject to טומאת אוכלין.
- The משנה’s inclusion of עגלה ערופה as שחיטה שאינה ראויה is challenged from the דין that if the corpse is found before the עריפה then תצא ותרעה בעדר, showing it can become permitted for eating. ריש לקיש בשם רבי ינאי states עגלה ערופה אינה משנה, but the גמרא questions this because רבי ינאי also says גבול שמעתי ושכחתי and the חבריא say בירידתה לנחל איתסרא, implying that after descent to נחל איתן it becomes irreversibly אסור and could still fit the משנה as שחיטה שאינה ראויה. רבי פנחס בריה דרב אמי testifies that he learned from ריש לקיש that עגלה ערופה אינה משנה, and רב אשי cites a challenge from the dispute about צפורי מצורע where רבי יוחנן says the איסור begins משעת שחיטה while ריש לקיש says משעת לקיחה, based on גמר לקיחה לקיחה מעגלה ערופה. רב חייא בר אבא בשם רבי יוחנן concludes that עגלה ערופה אינה משנה because רבי יוחנן does not accept the irreversible הקדש-like status that would anchor the משנה after ירידה לנחל איתן, and he views the שחיטה as potentially ראויה.
- The משנה moves from pure איסור והיתר into a financial framing about who has the right to slaughter “today” when two people buy a mother and its young. The ראשונים explain the case as a single Jewish seller who owned both animals, where the first buyer acquires not only the animal but also the seller’s right to slaughter the other animal that day, leaving the second buyer with that limitation. The משנה rules that the one who bought first slaughters first, and if the second preempted and slaughtered first then he “wins” practically because the first can no longer slaughter without violating אותו ואת בנו. The חתם סופר says the first buyer cannot recover monetary damages in בית דין because the loss is only גרמא בנזקין.
- The ראשונים limit the משנה’s דין to a case where one Jewish seller owned both mother and offspring, since a גוי seller is not bound by אותו ואת בנו and retains full rights to sell without restriction. The ראשונים also note that if the mother and offspring come from two different sellers, the mechanism of “first buyer acquires the seller’s slaughter-rights” does not apply. The תבואות שור says that in disputes in such alternative cases the matter goes to בית דין, which then determines who needs the animal’s meat more.
- Rav Yosef explains that the משנה here is oriented to monetary rights rather than defining which slaughter constitutes the עבירה, since for the איסור itself the second slaughter is always the violation. The גמרא glosses that if the second slaughtered first he is זריז ונשכר because he avoids any possibility of being the second slaughterer who violates, and he gets to eat the meat. אחרונים debate whether calling him זריז applies only in cases where the earlier “right” was not clearly established, while other אחרונים justify it based on the view that a buyer is generally not obligated to investigate whether a related animal was sold earlier that day. The רא״ש infers from ואכל בשרא that the second slaughterer may need to wait until tomorrow to eat, supporting the הלכות גדולות that the violator postpones the meat.
- The מאזנים לתורה of Rav Zalman Sorotzkin says that one lesson of אותו ואת בנו is that Jews become connected through each other’s actions, since two unrelated purchasers become halachically linked by who slaughtered first and who thereby becomes capable of sinning by slaughtering second.
- The משנה rules that slaughtering the mother and then both children yields סופג שמונים because each child constitutes a separate violation. The משנה rules that slaughtering both children first and then the mother yields סופג ארבעים because only one act of שחיטה creates the violation. The משנה rules that slaughtering mother, then daughter, then granddaughter yields סופג שמונים, while slaughtering mother, then granddaughter, then daughter yields סופג ארבעים according to the רבנן because one act causes the violations, and סומכוס משום רבי מאיר gives שמונים because he counts per עבירה rather than per act. The ראשונים reject applying בני בנים הרי הם כבנים here because the Torah must explicitly extend such a rule in this context, and the sugya itself shows ספק even about fatherhood being included.
- The ראשונים debate whether סומכוס would also impose two sets of מלקות when one slaughters two children and then the mother, since the משנה only records his dissent in the “mother–granddaughter–daughter” order. Many ראשונים say סומכוס would give two because two עבירות occurred, while other ראשונים distinguish the last case as “two directions” of violation versus the earlier case being “one direction,” and therefore hold that even סומכוס would give only one מלקות there.
- The גמרא asks why the order should not matter when the Torah says אותו ואת בנו, and it answers from a ברייתא that the plural לא תשחטו implies two and includes both slaughtering parent then child and child then parent. The gzerah from לא תשחטו is tested against the need to establish the basic prohibition, and the גמרא answers that if only the basic prohibition were intended the Torah could have written לא תשחט, while לא תשחטו adds further meaning. The גמרא then says that the plural is also needed to teach that even if two people perform the two slaughters the second one violates, and it concludes that the precise wording לא תשחטו rather than לא ישחטו teaches תרתי: order does not matter and multiple actors are included.
- Abaye asks Rav Yosef for סומכוס’s reasoning, and the gמרא frames it as סומכוס holding that eating two כזיתים of forbidden fat in one העלם can obligate שתי חטאות, which would be a broad חומרא beyond cases of גופא מחולקים. The gמרא says the משנה presents this to show the כוחא דרבנן, since even though the violations are tied to distinct bodies, the רבנן still impose only one מלקות when one act generates them. The gמרא attempts to prove the scope of סומכוס from a teaching about כלאים כלאים implying שתי מלכויות, but it rejects the proof by interpreting it as two separate acts with two התראות and says its real novelty is that there are תרי גווני כלאים, against רבי אושעיא who requires planting wheat, barley, and grape seed together in one handful.
- A further attempted proof comes from a ברייתא about eating כזית from each גיד הנשה, where the תנא קמא gives סופג שמונים and רבי יהודה gives only ארבעים. The גמרא argues the case must be בבת אחת ובהתראה אחת, because if it were בזה אחר זה with separate warnings then רבי יהודה would exempt entirely due to התראת ספק, consistent with his ruling in a case of uncertain fatherhood where liability exists only when striking or cursing both simultaneously. The gמרא then infers that the תנא קמא cannot be the רבנן who give one מלקות even with גופא מחולקים in the משנה, and it concludes the תנא קמא is סומכוס, establishing that סומכוס obligates two punishments even when the case is not limited to גופא מחולקים.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions