## Chullin Daf 83a

###### Chullin 83a:1
[Chullin 83a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:1)

בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The verse comes to provide a positive** mitzva to burn the leftovers, in the second part of the verse that states: “But that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire.” This positive mitzva is stated **after the prohibition** against leaving it over was stated in the first part of the verse, **to say that one is not flogged for** transgressing the prohibition. This is because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.** If not for this reason, Rabbi Yehuda evidently would hold that he receives lashes. The forewarning given in this case is uncertain, as he must be forewarned before morning, and at that time he might still consume it.


###### Chullin 83a:2
[Chullin 83a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:2)

רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ya’akov says: This is not for** that **reason [*hashem*]. Rather,** it is **because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action.** The transgression is simply the failure to consume all the meat during the allotted time rather than the performance of an action. **And one is not flogged for** the violation of **any prohibition that does not involve an action.**


###### Chullin 83a:3
[Chullin 83a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אָכַל שְׁנֵי גִידִין מִשְּׁתֵּי יְרֵכוֹת מִשְּׁתֵּי בְהֵמוֹת – סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים; רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה וּבִשְׁתֵּי הַתְרָאוֹת – מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: אַרְבָּעִים וְתוּ לָא? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּבַת אַחַת וּבַחֲדָא הַתְרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution with regard to the opinion of Sumakhos from a *baraita* discussing the sciatic nerve: If **one ate two** sciatic **nerves from two thighs of two** different **animals,** he **incurs** the penalty of **eighty** lashes; **Rabbi Yehuda says:** He **incurs only forty** lashes. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in this case? **If we say** that he ate them **one after the other and with two** separate **forewarnings, what is the reasoning of** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda, who says:** The violator receives **forty** lashes **and nothing more?** After all, he violates two separate prohibitions with two separate forewarnings. **Rather,** it is **obvious** that he ate them **at the same time and** with **a single forewarning.**


###### Chullin 83a:4
[Chullin 83a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: Itself and its offspring, that would contradict their opinion: Now, **if there,** in that mishna in a case **where** there are various animals that are **separate entities, the Rabbis deem** him **exempt** from a second set of lashes, **here,** in the *baraita* about two sciatic nerves, which are not separate entities, should they **not all the more so** deem him exempt from a second set of lashes? **Rather, is it not Sumakhos** who is the first *tanna*? 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 83a:5
[Chullin 83a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:5)

לְעוֹלָם בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? כְּגוֹן דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת, דְּתַנְיָא: אֲכָלוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת – חַיָּיב, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Actually,** he ate the two sciatic nerves **one after the other** with separate forewarnings, incurring two sets of lashes even according to the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos in the mishna about: Itself and its offspring. **And** as for **that which you say: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda** who holds that the transgressor incurs only a single set of lashes? This is a case **where** the volume of one of the sciatic nerves **is not** even **an olive-bulk,** and Rabbi Yehuda follows his line of reasoning, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one ate** the entire sciatic nerve, **and** its volume **is not** even **an olive-bulk,** he is **liable** to incur forty lashes; **Rabbi Yehuda says:** He is not liable **unless it has** a volume of at least **an olive-bulk.**


###### Chullin 83a:6
[Chullin 83a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים בַּשָּׁנָה, הַמּוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ: ״אִמָּהּ מָכַרְתִּי לִשְׁחוֹט״, ״בִּתָּהּ מָכַרְתִּי לִשְׁחוֹט״. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג, וְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח, וְעֶרֶב עֲצֶרֶת, וְעֶרֶב רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. וּכְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, אַף עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בַּגָּלִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **On four occasions during the year one who sells an animal to another is required to inform him: I sold the mother of** this animal today for the buyer **to slaughter** it,or: **I sold the daughter of** this animal today for the buyer **to slaughter** it. **And those** four occasions **are: The eve of the last day of the festival** of *Sukkot*, **the eve of the first day of the festival of Passover, and the eve of *Shavuot*, and the eve of Rosh HaShana. And according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the eve of Yom Kippur in the Galilee** is included **as well.**


###### Chullin 83a:7
[Chullin 83a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ רֶיוַח, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ רֶיוַח – אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּמוֹכֵר אֶת הָאֵם לֶחָתָן וְאֶת הַבַּת לַכַּלָּה – שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ, בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם שׁוֹחֲטִין בְּיוֹם אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda said: When** must he inform the buyer on those days? He must do so **at a time when** the seller **has no interval** between the sale of the mother and the offspring, as they were both sold on that day. **But** if the seller **has an interval** between the sales, **he does not need to inform** the buyer, as presumably each buyer purchased the animal to slaughter it on the day he purchased it. **And Rabbi Yehuda concedes** that in a case **where one sells the mother** animal **to the groom and the offspring to the bride, that** even if he did not sell them on the same day, **he must inform** the buyer, as it is **obvious that they are both** planning to **slaughter** their animal **on one day,** for their wedding feast.


###### Chullin 83a:8
[Chullin 83a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:8)

בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים אֵלּוּ מַשְׁחִיטִין אֶת הַטַּבָּח בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹר שָׁוֶה אֶלֶף דִּינָרִים וְאֵין לוֹ לְלוֹקֵחַ אֶלָּא דִּינָר – כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לִשְׁחוֹט. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם מֵת – מֵת לַלּוֹקֵחַ. אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה אֵינוֹ כֵּן, לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת – מֵת לַמּוֹכֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**On those four occasions, one compels the butcher to slaughter** animals even **against his will; even if** there is **a bull worth one thousand dinars and the buyer has only one dinar** worth of meat, i.e., he already paid the butcher for one dinar’s worth of meat, **one compels him to slaughter** the animal and give him a dinar’s worth of meat. **Therefore, if** the bull **dies** before slaughter, although no act of acquisition was performed, **it dies at** the expense **of the buyer,** and he loses his dinar. **But during the rest of the days of the year it is not so.** On other days, until the buyer performs the act of pulling to assume ownership of the portion of the bull that he is purchasing, the bull remains in the butcher’s possession. **Therefore, if** the bull **dies** before the transaction is complete, **it dies at** the expense of **the seller,** who returns the buyer’s money.


###### Chullin 83a:9
[Chullin 83a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא, אִם לֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ – הוֹלֵךְ וְשׁוֹחֵט וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that on the four occasions mentioned it is the seller’s responsibility to inform the purchaser that the mother or offspring of the animal he is purchasing was sold that day. With regard to this it is **taught:** Consequently, the purchaser has no obligation to clarify the situation, and **if** the seller **did not inform him,** the purchaser **may go and slaughter** the animal he has purchased **and** need **not refrain** from doing so.


###### Chullin 83a:10
[Chullin 83a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵימָתַי. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי אֶת הָאֵם לֶחָתָן וְאֶת הַבַּת לַכַּלָּה? מִלְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמִטְרַח בֵּי חַתְנָא טְפֵי מִבֵּי כַלְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yehuda says: When** must he inform the buyer on those days? It then teaches: And Rabbi Yehuda concedes that in a case where one sold the mother animal to the groom and the offspring to the bride, even if he did not sell them on the same day, he must inform the buyer. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **to teach** that the butcher sold specifically **the mother** animal **to the groom and the offspring to the bride?** It could have taught: He sold one to the groom and the other to the bride. The Gemara answers: **It teaches us a** related **matter in passing, that** it is **proper conduct for the groom’s household to exert more** effort **than the bride’s household** in the marriage preparations. Therefore, the groom purchases the mother, the larger animal, while the bride purchases the smaller animal, the offspring.


###### Chullin 83a:11
[Chullin 83a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:11)

בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים אֵלּוּ, וְהָא לֹא מָשַׁךְ! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֶׁמָּשַׁךְ. אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה אֵינוֹ כֵּן, לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת – מֵת לַמּוֹכֵר, וְהָא מָשַׁךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **On those four occasions,** one compels the butcher to slaughter animals even against his will, and even if there is a bull worth one thousand dinars and the buyer has paid for only one dinar’s worth of meat, one compels him to slaughter the animal. Therefore, if the bull dies before slaughter, it dies at the expense of the buyer. The Gemara challenges: **But** the buyer **did not** yet **pull** the animal to effect acquisition; consequently, although he paid the seller, the animal is not his. **Rav Huna said** that **Rav said:** The case is **where he pulled** it, and thereby acquired it. The Gemara asks: **If so, say the latter clause: But during the rest of the days of the year it is not so. Therefore, if** the bull **dies, it dies at** the expense of **the seller,** who returns the buyer’s money. **But** according to Rav, **didn’t** the buyer **pull** the animal? If so, why is its death at the expense of the seller?


###### Chullin 83a:12
[Chullin 83a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: לְעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא מָשַׁךְ, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁזִּיכָּה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר, בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים אֵלּוּ דִּזְכוּת הוּא לוֹ – זָכִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה דְּחוֹב הוּא לוֹ – אֵין חָבִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: Actually,** the case in the mishna is one **where** the buyer **did not pull** the animal, **and** it is a case **where** the seller **transfers ownership to** the customer **by means of another** person, i.e., by instructing another to acquire a dinar’s worth of the ox’s meat on the customer’s behalf, without having obtained the customer’s consent. Therefore, **on those four occasions, where it is for** the customer’s **benefit,** as he wants meat for the Festival, the principle: **One can act in a person’s interest in his absence,** applies. By contrast, **during the rest of the days of the year, where it is to** the customer’s **disadvantage** to acquire the meat before the bull is slaughtered, as he does not want to incur avoidable expenses, **one cannot act to the disadvantage** of another **person in his absence.** Therefore, if the bull dies, it is at the expense of the seller.


###### Chullin 83a:13
[Chullin 83a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:13)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים אֵלּוּ הֶעֱמִידוּ חֲכָמִים דִּבְרֵיהֶם עַל דִּין תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that there is a different explanation: **On those four occasions the Sages based their statement on** the **Torah law** that giving money effects acquisition, and therefore, the payment of the buyer acquires the meat for him with no need for pulling.


###### Chullin 83a:14
[Chullin 83a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:14)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ ״נִשְׂרְפוּ חִטֶּיךָ בַּעֲלִיָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: By Torah law,** giving **money effects** the **acquisition** of movable property with no need for pulling. **And what is the reason** that the Sages **said** that **pulling effects acquisition?** It is a rabbinic **decree lest** the seller, once he receives the money, be unconcerned about the welfare of the movable property that he has sold, and, for example, not protect it from fire, so that he **will say to** the buyer: **Your wheat was burned in the upper story** of my house and I have no responsibility for it. For the benefit of rejoicing on the Festival, the Sages ordained that Torah law remains in effect on those four occasions and the buyer’s money effects acquisition, and one compels the butcher to slaughter animals even against his will.


###### Chullin 83a:15
[Chullin 83a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״יוֹם אֶחָד״ הָאָמוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ – הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה. אֶת זוֹ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן זוֹמָא: נֶאֱמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית ״יוֹם אֶחָד״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ ״יוֹם אֶחָד״ – מָה ״יוֹם אֶחָד״ הָאָמוּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה, אַף ״יוֹם אֶחָד״ הָאָמוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to the phrase **“one day” that is stated with regard to** the prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring, the day follows the night.** Therefore, one may slaughter an animal during the day and slaughter its offspring that night, but one may not slaughter an animal at night and slaughter its offspring the following day. **Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma derived this** by means of a verbal analogy. **It is stated in the act of Creation: “One day”** (Genesis 1:5), **and it is stated with regard to** the slaughter of an animal **itself and its offspring: “One day”** (Leviticus 22:28). **Just as** concerning the phrase **“one day” that is stated in the act of Creation, the day follows the night, so too** concerning the phrase **“one day” that is stated with regard to** the slaughter of an animal **itself and its offspring, the day follows the night.**


###### Chullin 83a:16
[Chullin 83a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/83a:16)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶת זוֹ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן זוֹמָא, לְפִי שֶׁכׇּל הָעִנְיָן כּוּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּקָדָשִׁים, וּבְקָדָשִׁים לַיְלָה הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַיּוֹם, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״יוֹם אֶחָד״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית ״יוֹם אֶחָד״, מָה ״יוֹם אֶחָד״ הָאָמוּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית – הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה, אַף יוֹם הָאָמוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ – הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma taught this** explanation: **Because the entire section** of the Torah where the prohibition: Itself and its offspring, appears **speaks only about sacrificial** animals, **and with regard to sacrificial** animals the **night follows the day,** one **might** have thought that **even** with regard to **this** prohibition it **is so.** Therefore, the following derivation is required: **It is stated here,** with regard to the slaughter of an animal and its offspring: **“One day,” and it is stated in the act of Creation: “One day.” Just as** concerning the phrase **“one day” that is stated in the act of Creation, the day follows the night, so too** concerning the phrase **“one day” that is stated with regard to** the slaughter of an animal **itself and its offspring, the day follows the night.**