## Chullin Daf 82b

###### Chullin 82b:1
[Chullin 82b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:1)

הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ? אִם כֵּן, לִיכְתּוֹב ״לֹא תִשְׁחוֹט״, מַאי ״לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 [*tishḥot*],** in the singular. For **what** reason did the Torah write: **“You shall not slaughter [*tishḥatu*]”** (Leviticus 22:28), in the plural? It is to teach that two different people are prohibited from slaughtering, as explained earlier.


###### Chullin 82b:2
[Chullin 82b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:2)

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא תִשְׁחוֹט״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חַד – אִין, תְּרֵי – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But, nevertheless,** the plural **is necessary, as had the Merciful One written** in the Torah: **You shall not slaughter [*tishḥot*]** 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.


###### Chullin 82b:3
[Chullin 82b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:3)

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵי! אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב ״לֹא יִשְׁחֲטוּ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the Merciful One writes** in the Torah: **“You shall not slaughter [*tishḥatu*],”** 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.


###### Chullin 82b:4
[Chullin 82b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:4)

מַאי ״לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What** is meant by: **“You shall not slaughter,”** 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.


###### Chullin 82b:5
[Chullin 82b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:5)

שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בַּת בִּתָּהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **one slaughtered** the mother **and its daughter’s 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?


###### Chullin 82b:6
[Chullin 82b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:6)

קָא סָבַר סוֹמְכוֹס: אָכַל שְׁנֵי זֵיתֵי חֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – חַיָּיב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 82b:7
[Chullin 82b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:7)

וּבְדִין הוּא דְּלַישְׁמְעִינַן בְּעָלְמָא, וְהַאי דְּקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן בְּהָא, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּגוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין – פָּטְרִי רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And by right** the mishna **should have informed us** of Sumakhos’s 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’s 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.


###### Chullin 82b:8
[Chullin 82b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:8)

אוֹ דִלְמָא קָסָבַר סוֹמְכוֹס: אָכַל שְׁנֵי זֵיתֵי חֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – הוֹאִיל וְגוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, קָסָבַר אָכַל שְׁנֵי זֵיתֵי חֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד חַיָּיב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 82b:9
[Chullin 82b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:9)

מִמַּאי? מִדִּתְנַן: הַזּוֹרֵעַ כִּלְאַיִם כִּלְאַיִם לוֹקֶה. מַאי לוֹקֶה? אִילֵּימָא לוֹקֶה אַחַת – פְּשִׁיטָא! וְעוֹד, מַאי כִּלְאַיִם כִּלְאַיִם? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא שְׁתֵּי מַלְקִיּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 82b:10
[Chullin 82b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:10)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה וּבִשְׁתֵּי הַתְרָאוֹת – תְּנֵינָא: נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן כׇּל הַיּוֹם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ׳אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה!׳ וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה, ׳אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה!׳ וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּבַת אַחַת וּבְהַתְרָאָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 82b:11
[Chullin 82b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:11)

מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּסוֹמְכוֹס – הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה הָתָם דְּגוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין פָּטְרִי רַבָּנַן, הָכָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s 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?


###### Chullin 82b:12
[Chullin 82b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:12)

אֶלָּא לָאו סוֹמְכוֹס הִיא? לָא, לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, וּמִילְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי כִּלְאַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 82b:13
[Chullin 82b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:13)

וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה: עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּכִי זָרַע חִטָּה וְחַרְצָן וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן נָמֵי מִחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s 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.


###### Chullin 82b:14
[Chullin 82b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אָכַל מִזֶּה כְּזַיִת וּמִזֶּה כְּזַיִת – סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה וּבִשְׁתֵּי הַתְרָאוֹת – מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק הִיא, וְשָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 82b:15
[Chullin 82b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:15)

דְּתַנְיָא: הִכָּה אֶת זֶה וְחָזַר וְהִכָּה אֶת זֶה, קִלֵּל אֶת זֶה וְחָזַר וְקִלֵּל אֶת זֶה, אוֹ שֶׁהִכָּה שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת, אוֹ שֶׁקִּלֵּל שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: “And he that strikes his father, or his mother, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:15), or that of: “And he that curses his father, or his mother, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:17), as one of them is certainly his father.


###### Chullin 82b:16
[Chullin 82b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:16)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּבַת אַחַת – חַיָּיב, בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – פָּטוּר. אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּבַת אַחַת וּבְהַתְרָאָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 82b:17
[Chullin 82b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:17)

וּמַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אִילֵימָא רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּסוֹמְכוֹס – הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה הָתָם דְּגוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין פָּטְרִי רַבָּנַן, הָכָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא לָאו סוֹמְכוֹס הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 82b:18
[Chullin 82b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:18)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, וְרַבָּנַן, וְהַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּאִידַּךְ תַּנָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 82b:19
[Chullin 82b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/82b:19)

דְּאָמַר: הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: “And **you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire”** (Exodus 12:10).