Question: Is Shechitah of a Parah Adumah really invalid?!

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): Parah Adumah can receive Tum'as Ochlim, because it was once proper to be eaten.

(Reish Lakish): He holds that the Parah may be redeemed after Shechitah, before it is burned.

Answer (R. Yochanan): It is proper Shechitah. The (correct text of the) Mishnah does not list Parah Adumah.

Question: Is Shechitah of Eglah Arufah really invalid?!

(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!)

Answer (Reish Lakish citing R. Yanai): It is proper Shechitah. The correct text of the Mishnah does not list Eglah Arufah.

Question: Did R. Yanai really say this?!

(R. Yanai): There is a time from which the calf becomes forbidden (while alive). I forgot it.

(Rabanan): It is forbidden from when it is taken down to the Nachal (valley; Rambam - river.)

(Summation of question): R. Yanai could have said that 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 Shechitah is invalid)!

Answer (R. Pinchus): Reish Lakish himself answered that the Mishnah does not list Eglah Arufah. (R. Yanai did not say so.)

Question (Rav Ashi): Also Reish Lakish holds that it becomes forbidden while it is alive!

(R. Yochanan): The birds used for Taharas Metzora are permitted while alive. The slaughtered bird becomes forbidden when it is slaughtered.

(Reish Lakish): They become forbidden when they are bought.

Reish Lakish learns a Gezerah Shavah "Kichah-Kichah" from Eglah Arufah (which also becomes forbidden while alive)!

Answer: Rather, R. Chiya bar Aba said in the name of R. Yochanan that the Mishnah does not list Eglah Arufah. (R. Yanai and Reish Lakish did not say so.)

(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.)

(Gemara - Rav Yosef): (If they agree, either may slaughter first.) The Mishnah teaches that if both want to slaughter today, the first man prevails.

(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.

(Mishnah): If a man slaughtered a cow and then its two children, he receives 80 lashes. (We will always list the Shechitos in order.)

If he slaughtered the two children and then the mother, he receives 40 lashes;

If he slaughtered a cow, its daughter and the daughter's daughter, he receives 80 lashes;

If he slaughtered a cow and its daughter's daughter and the daughter, he receives 40 lashes;

Sumchus says, he receive 80 lashes.

(Gemara) Question: Why is he lashed (when he slaughters the mother last)? The Torah says "Oso v'Es Beno", but not 'Beno v'Oso'!

Answer (Beraisa): "Oso v'Es Beno" is in that order;

"You will not slaughter" includes another animal forbidden to slaughter;

After slaughtering a cow, one who slaughters its mother or son is liable.

Question: "You will not slaughter" is necessary. It is not extra to be expounded!

Answer: It could have said 'you will not slaughter' in the singular. We expound the use of the plural form.

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!

Answer: It could have said 'they will not slaughter' to forbid when two slaughter. It says "you (plural)" to include the son and mother.

(Mishnah): If he slaughtered a cow and its granddaughter...

Question (Abaye): What is Sumchus' reason?

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. (This is called Ein Gufim Muchlakim, i.e. he is liable more than once even though he did not sin with discrete objects. Really, Sumchus should have taught a case of Ein Gufim Muchlakim;)

The Mishnah teaches Oso v'Es Beno to show the extremity of Chachamim. They obligate only once even in a case of Gufim Muchlakim.

Possibility #2: He holds that if one eats two k'Zeisim in one Helam, he brings only one Chatas;

Oso v'Es Beno is a case of Gufim Muchlakim, therefore he is liable twice.

Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): A Beraisa shows that he holds like Possibility #1:

(Beraisa): If one sows Kilayim (a forbidden mixture of seeds) and Kilayim, he is lashed.

Question: How many lashes does he get?

Suggestion: He gets 40 lashes.

Rejection #1: This is obvious. What is the Chidush of the Mishnah?!

Rejection #2: If so, why does it say 'Kilayim and Kilayim'?

Answer: Rather, he gets 80 lashes.

Question: What is the case?

If he received separate warning for each transgression, a Mishnah teaches this (in a different case)!

(Mishnah): If a Nazir drank wine all day, he gets only 40 lashes. If he was warned repeatedly, he gets 40 lashes for each warning that he transgressed.

Answer: Rather, he was warned once, and he threw two sets of mixed seeds at the same time.

Question: Like whom is the Beraisa?

It is not like Chachamim of (who argue with) Sumchus. Even in a case of Gufim Muchlakim, they obligate only once, and all the more so in this case!

Answer: Rather, it is like Sumchus.

Rejection: No, it is like Chachamim. The Beraisa teaches that there are two ways to be liable for Kilayim, unlike R. Yoshiyah.

(R. Yoshiyah): One is liable for Kilai ha'Kerem (Kilayim with grapes) only if he sows a wheat seed, barley seed and grape seed together.

The Beraisa obligates for wheat and grape seeds alone (i.e. without barley), and for barley and grape seeds alone.

Answer #2 (Mishnah): If one ate a k'Zayis of the Gid ha'Nasheh of each thigh of an animal, he gets 80 lashes;

R. Yehudah says, he gets 40 lashes (only one of the Gidim is forbidden.)

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: He received separate Hasra'ah (warning) before eating each.

Rejection: If so, R. Yehudah would exempt, for he holds that Hasra'as Safek (we are unsure which Gid is forbidden) is invalid!

(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!');

R. Yehudah says, he is liable only if he struck or cursed both at the same time.

Answer: Rather, we must say that he received one Hasra'ah, and ate from both Gidim at the same time.

Question: Who is the first Tana, who says he gets 80 lashes?

It is not Chachamim of Sumchus. Even in a case of Gufim Muchlakim, they obligate only once, all the more so in this case!

Answer: Rather, it is Sumchus.

Rejection: Really, it is Chachamim. This Tana holds that R. Yehudah says that Hasra'as Safek is valid;

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "You may not leave over (from the Korban Pesach) until morning; you will burn what is left over" is a Mitzvas Aseh to fix the Lav, to exempt from lashes. (If not for the Aseh he would be lashed, even though there cannot be definite Hasra'ah. Perhaps the person will finish eating later!)

(R. Yakov): No, one is not lashed because this Lav is not transgressed through an action, rather through inaction.