1) INVALID SLAUGHTERS

(a) Question: Is slaughter of a Parah Adumah really invalid?!
1. (Beraisa – R. Shimon): Parah Adumah can receive Tum’as Ochlim, because it was once fitting to be eaten.
2. (Reish Lakish): He holds that the Parah may be redeemed after slaughter, before it is burned.
(b) Answer (R. Yochanan): It is proper slaughter; the (correct text of the) Mishnah does not list Parah Adumah.
(c) Question: Is slaughter of Eglah Arufah really invalid?!
1. (Mishnah): If the murderer was found before the calf was beheaded, it may graze with the flock (it is not forbidden until it is beheaded!)
(d) Answer (Reish Lakish citing R. Yanai): It is proper slaughter; the correct text of the Mishnah does not list Eglah Arufah.
(e) Question: Did R. Yanai really say this?!
1. (R. Yanai): There is a time from which the calf becomes forbidden (while alive) – I forgot it.
2. (Rabanan): It is forbidden from when it is taken down to the Nachal (valley; Rambam – river.)
3. (Summation of question): R. Yanai could have said, the calf is permitted if the murderer was found before the calf was taken down, it is forbidden if he was found after it was taken down (that is when slaughter is invalid)!
(f) Answer (R. Pinchus): Reish Lakish himself answered that the Mishnah does not list Eglah Arufah.
(g) Question (Rav Ashi): But Reish Lakish also holds that it becomes forbidden while it is alive!
1. (R. Yochanan): The birds used for Taharas Metzora are permitted while alive; the slaughtered bird becomes forbidden when it is slaughtered.
2. (Reish Lakish): They become forbidden when they are bought.
i. Reish Lakish learns a Gezerah Shavah “Kichah-Kichah” from Eglah Arufah (which also becomes forbidden while alive)!
(h) Answer: Rather, R. Yochanan (as cited by R. Chiya bar Aba) said that the Mishnah does not list Eglah Arufah.
2) WHO MAY SLAUGHTER FIRST?
(a) (Mishnah): If Oso v’Es Beno were sold to two people, the first buyer slaughters first (i.e. today); if the second slaughtered first, he was zealous and profits (he may eat today.)
(b) (Gemara – Rav Yosef): (If they agree, either may slaughter first -) the Mishnah teaches that if both want to slaughter today, the first man prevails.
(c) (Beraisa): If the second slaughtered first, he was zealous and gained – he was zealous to avoid transgressing; he gained, he may eat the meat today.
3) MULTIPLE TRANSGRESSIONS
(a) (Mishnah): If a man slaughtered a cow and then its two children, he receives 80 lashes;
1. (We will always list the slaughters in order.)
2. If he slaughtered the two children and then the mother, he receives 40 lashes;
3. If he slaughtered a cow, its daughter and the daughter’s daughter, he receives 80 lashes;
4. If he slaughtered a cow and its daughter’s daughter and the daughter, he receives 40 lashes;
5. Sumchus says, he receive 80 lashes.
(b) (Gemara) Question: Why is he lashed (when he slaughters the mother last) – the Torah says “Oso v’Es Beno”, not ‘Beno v’Oso’!
(c) Answer (Beraisa): “Oso v’Es Beno” – in that order;
1. “You will not slaughter” – this includes another animal forbidden to slaughter;
i. After slaughtering a cow, one who slaughters its mother or son is liable.
82b—————————————82b

2. Question: “You will not slaughter” is necessary, it is not extra to be expounded!
3. Answer: It could have said ‘You (singular) will not slaughter’; we expound the use of the plural form.
4. Question: Had it used the singular form, this would imply that it is only forbidden for one person to slaughter both animals – it used the plural form, to show that even when two slaughter, the latter transgresses!
5. Answer: It could have said ‘They will not slaughter’; by saying “You (plural)”, we also learn to include the son and mother.
(d) (Mishnah): If he slaughtered a cow and its granddaughter…
(e) Question (Abaye): What is Sumchus’ reason?
1. Possibility #1: He holds that if one eats two k’Zeisim of Chelev in one Helam (i.e. , without remembering in between that this is forbidden), he must bring two Chata’os;
2. (This is called Ein Gufim Muchlakim, the multiplicity of transgressions does not depend on discrete objects.)
i. Really, Sumchus should have taught a case of Ein Gufim Muchlakim);
ii. The Mishnah teaches Oso v’Es Beno to show the extremity of Chachamim, they Mechayev only once even in a case of Gufim Muchlakim.
3. Possibility #2: He holds that if one eats two k’Zeisim in one Helam, he brings only one Chatas;
i. Oso v’Es Beno in a case of Gufim Muchlakim, therefore he is liable twice.
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): A Beraisa shows that he holds like Possibility #1:
1. (Beraisa): If one sows Kilayim (a forbidden mixture of seeds) and Kilayim, he is lashed.
2. Question: How many lashes does he get?
i. Suggestion: He gets 40 lashes.
ii. Rejection #1: This is obvious, what does the Mishnah teach?!
iii. Rejection #2: If so, why does it say ‘Kilayim and Kilayim’?
3. Answer: Rather, he gets 80 lashes.
4. Question: What is the case?
i. If he received separate Hasra’ah for each transgression, a Mishnah teaches this (in a different case)!
ii. (Mishnah): If a Nazir drank wine all day, he gets only 40 lashes; if he was warned repeatedly, he gets 40 lashes for each Hasra’ah he transgressed.
5. Answer: Rather, he was warned once, and threw two sets of mixed seeds at the same time.
6. Question: Like whom is the Beraisa?
i. It is not like Chachamim of (that argue with) Sumchus – even in a case of Gufim Muchlakim, they Mechayev only once, all the more so in this case!
7. Answer: Rather, it is like Sumchus.
(g) Rejection: No, it is like Chachamim; the Beraisa teaches that there are two ways of being liable for Kilayim, unlike R. Yoshiyah.
1. (R. Yoshiyah): One is only liable for Kilai ha’Kerem (Kilayim of a vineyard) only if he sows a wheat seed, barley seed and grape seed together.
2. The Beraisa is Mechayev for wheat and grape seeds alone (i.e. without barley), and for barley and grape seeds alone.
(h) Answer #2 (Mishnah): If one ate a k’Zayis of the Gid ha’Nasheh of each thigh of an animal, he gets 80 lashes;
(i) R. Yehudah says, he gets 40 lashes (only one of the Gidim is forbidden.)
(j) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: He received separate Hasra’ah before eating each.
2. Rejection: If so, R. Yehudah would exempt, for he holds that Hasra’as Safek (we are unsure which Gid is forbidden) is invalid!
i. (Beraisa): If we are unsure if Reuven is the son of David or Moshe, and Reuven strikes or curses David and Moshe, one after the other or at the same time, he is liable (even though when he hits one at a time, we cannot say ‘This is (surely) your father, do not hit him!’);
ii. R. Yehudah says, he is liable only if he struck or cursed both at the same time.
(k) Answer: Rather, we must say that he received one Hasra’ah, and ate from both Gidim at the same time.
(l) Question: Who is the first Tana, who says he gets 80 lashes?
1. It is not Chachamim of Sumchus – even in a case of Gufim Muchlakim, they Mechayev only once, all the more so in this case!
(m) Answer: Rather, it is Sumchus.
(n) Rejection: Really, it is Chachamim; this Tana holds that R. Yehudah says that Hasra’as Safek is valid.
1. (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): “You may not leave over (from the Korban Pesach) until morning; you will burn what is left over” – the Torah gives a Mitzvas Ase after the Lav, to exempt from lashes. (Definite Hasra’ah cannot be given, perhaps the person will finish eating later!)
2. (R. Yakov): No – one is not lashed because this Lav is not transgressed through an action, rather through inaction.