Chullin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3. This whole chapter is built around oto ve'et beno, the ban on taking a mother animal and her young within a single day. Because the Torah frames that ban in the vocabulary of shechitah, a basic boundary emerges: liability arises only where each of the two animals was taken by a kosher act of shechitah, one that leaves the meat fit for the table. The mishnah before us asks what the halachah is when one of the pair never became permitted food, and it then moves on to a series of practical questions that grow out of this prohibition.
Valid shechitah, forbidden meat
The mishnah begins with a list of animals whose slaughter was technically flawless, yet whose meat may not be eaten for some unrelated reason.
"Hashochet venimtza terefah": one slaughtered an animal and afterward it was discovered to be a terefah. The shechitah itself was performed properly; a separate factor rendered the animal problematic.
"Hashochet la'avodah zarah": one slaughtered an animal as an offering to an idol. Anything offered to an idol may not be benefited from at all.
"Vehashochet parat chatat": one slaughtered a parah adumah, the red cow used to purify people from tumah. The parah adumah is consecrated, and one may not derive benefit from it. Only after it is burned and reduced to ashes are those ashes used for people. Even a perfectly executed shechitah does not make it permitted.
"Veshor haniskal": an ox sentenced to death by stoning, such as one that gored a person fatally and received its verdict from beit din. No form of benefit may be drawn from such an animal. Should someone perform a kosher shechitah on it rather than stone it, its flesh stays prohibited.
"Ve'eglah arufah": where a slain man is discovered between two towns and his killer is unknown, the nearer town takes a calf and breaks its neck. Benefit from that calf is prohibited, and even a flawless shechitah performed on it leaves it forbidden as food.
Now suppose that on that very day this same person had also slaughtered the mother of the animal, or its young. What is the halachah concerning him?
"Rabbi Shimon poteir." No lashes, rules Rabbi Shimon. As he understands it, liability is generated only where both animals died through a shechitah that genuinely released their meat for eating. Since one member of the pair never became permitted food, the transgression never took hold.
"Vachachamim mechayvin." The Chachamim impose lashes. For them, both acts of slaughter were, purely as acts of shechitah, entirely sound. Some external factor turned the meat into forbidden food, but the slaughter itself stands, so the man has breached oto ve'et beno and is flogged.
When the shechitah itself was flawed
The mishnah now turns to cases where the act of killing was not a proper shechitah at all.
"Hashochet venitnavlah beyado": the shechitah was bungled in his hands and the animal ended up a neveilah, as when the blade failed to travel fully across the trachea or the esophagus.
"Vehanocheir": he killed the animal by piercing and tearing from the nostrils down to the chest rather than by shechitah.
"Veham'akeir": he tore out the trachea or the esophagus, for example with a nicked knife that ripped the organs out instead of cutting cleanly across them.
Should he have taken the mother or the young on that same day as well, the mishnah rules "patur mishum oto ve'et beno," no lashes. On this the Chachamim do not argue: a killing that fails to qualify as shechitah is simply not shechitah, and it cannot satisfy the conditions for transgressing oto ve'et beno.
Two owners, one pair of animals
This ban binds two separate owners no less than one. Where a mother belongs to one man and her calf to another, once the first has slaughtered his animal his neighbor may not slaughter his own that day and must wait for tomorrow. The mishnah brings precisely such a case.
"Shenayim shelakchu parah uvnah": two people bought a cow and her calf from the same seller, and both come to court wanting to slaughter on the same day. The ruling is "eizeh shelakach rishon yishchot rishon," whoever purchased first slaughters first, and the second buyer must wait until the following day.
And what if the later purchaser gets there first? "Ve'im kadam hasheini," should he beat the other one to it and slaughter that day, "zachah," the right to eat his animal immediately is his, and now it is the earlier purchaser who waits for the morrow. With the second animal already slaughtered, the first buyer must hold back rather than stumble into oto ve'et beno.
Counting the lashes
How many lashes accumulate when a cow and several of her young all fall within one day? The mishnah now takes up that count.
"Shachat parah," he slaughtered a cow, "ve'achar kach shnei vaneha," and following her, two of her calves on that day: "sofeig shemonim," he absorbs two rounds of forty, eighty lashes in all. Every calf taken after its mother stands as its own violation: two deeds, two aveirot.
Now reverse the order. "Shachat shnei vaneha," the two calves went first, "ve'achar kach shechatah," and only afterward the mother herself. Here the ruling is "sofeig et ha'arba'im," one round of forty. Just one prohibited deed was done, the slaughter of the mother, and one deed draws one set of makkot.
"Shechatah," he slaughtered the cow, "ve'et bitah," then her daughter, "ve'et bat bitah," then the daughter's own daughter, all inside one day: "sofeig shemonim." Forty come for taking the daughter together with her own mother, and another forty for taking the granddaughter together with hers, that is, the middle generation.
Now shift the sequence: "shechatah ve'et bat bitah," he took the cow and afterward the granddaughter, which is entirely permitted, since a cow and her granddaughter may both be slaughtered within one day. "Ve'achar kach shachat bitah," then he slaughtered the animal in the middle, the daughter. That single shechitah breaks two prohibitions at once: she is the young of the eldest cow, and she is the mother of the youngest. The Tanna Kamma holds "sofeig et ha'arba'im," forty and no more, for although two prohibitions fell, only one forbidden act of slaughter was performed, and one act carries one set of lashes.
Sumchos dissents. "Sumchos omeir mishum Rabbi Meir," reporting in the name of Rabbi Meir: "sofeig shemonim," eighty. That one deed carried two aveirot, and it is the transgressions we tally, not the number of times the knife was drawn.
Carry that principle backward and Sumchos must part company with an earlier ruling as well, the two calves slaughtered before their mother, which we explained as a single forty. On his approach, the one slaughter of the mother trampled oto ve'et beno twice over, once with regard to each calf, so eighty lashes follow.
The seller's duty to warn
Ordinarily, a man who sells one animal and later that day sells its mother or its young to somebody else bears no duty to tell the later purchaser what he has already sold. We do not presume that a transgression is on the verge of happening; nothing suggests that both purchasers intend to slaughter today. There are, however, exceptions.
"Be'arba'ah perakim bashanah," at four points in the year, "hamocheir behemah lechaveiro," one who sells an animal to his fellow, "tzarich lehodio," must speak up, if earlier that day he sold that animal's mother or its offspring. He tells him: "Immah macharti lishchot," today I sold its mother for slaughter, or "bitah macharti lishchot," today I sold its daughter for slaughter. Forewarned, the buyer refrains from slaughtering that day, and nobody runs afoul of oto ve'et beno.
"Ve'eilu hein," and these are the four occasions:
- "Erev yom tov ha'acharon," the eve of the concluding festival day, "shel chag," of Sukkot: that is Hoshana Rabbah, Sukkot's seventh day, since what follows it is Shemini Atzeret. Shemini Atzeret is chag bifnei atzmo, a festival standing on its own, and Am Yisrael holds it especially dear, so generous meals were prepared and animals were slaughtered in quantity. Observe that Erev Sukkot is absent from the list: at that point people are occupied with putting up the sukkah and with the arba'at haminim, slaughtering is not on their minds, and the seller has nothing to announce.
- "Ve'erev yom tov harishon," the eve of the opening festival day, "shel Pesach," of Pesach.
- "Ve'erev Atzeret," the eve of Shavuot.
- "Ve'erev Rosh Hashanah," the eve of Rosh Hashanah.
"Uchedivrei Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, af erev Yom HaKippurim baGalil." Rabbi Yosei HaGelili appends a fifth occasion: in the Galil, Erev Yom Kippur as well. Galileans were accustomed to eat very ample meals on that day, partly out of rejoicing over the pardon of their aveirot and partly to fulfill the mitzvah of eating generously before the fast. Because of that regional practice, a Galilean seller too had to alert his second customer. Elsewhere the pre-fast meal was made of fish or poultry, and those lie outside oto ve'et beno altogether.
On all of these days people are preparing large feasts, so a seller must assume that an animal sold will be slaughtered that very day. Having sold one animal of the pair, when he comes to sell the second, the mother or the offspring, he must warn the second buyer not to slaughter it that day.
Rabbi Yehudah defines the obligation
"Amar Rabbi Yehudah, eimatai?" When, Rabbi Yehudah wants to know, does this duty of disclosure actually take effect? His answer: "bizman she'ein lo revach," where nothing separates the two transactions, meaning that the earlier animal was sold on this same day. Two sales falling essentially side by side within one day obligate the seller to speak.
"Aval yeish lo revach," but where a stretch of time did intervene, say the earlier animal changed hands yesterday and the second is being sold today, "ein tzarich lehodio," nothing need be mentioned. The seller may take for granted that the first animal was already slaughtered on the day it was bought.
"Umodeh Rabbi Yehudah," Rabbi Yehudah grants one exception: "bemocheir et ha'eim lechatan," where the mother was sold to a groom, "ve'et habat lekallah, shetzarich lehodio," and the daughter to his bride, disclosure is required, even where the two sales fell on days apart, for "beyadua," it is perfectly obvious, "sheshneihem shochatin beyom echad," that the two of them will slaughter on one and the same day. Their wedding is coming and both want fresh meat for the feast. The rule, then, is to think practically: wherever it is clear that the two related animals are headed for a single day's slaughter, the seller must give notice even though the sales took place on separate days.