Halacha
הלכה א
הַשׁוֹחֵט אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד הַבָּשָׂר מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) "אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד". וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא עַל שְׁחִיטַת הָאַחֲרוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי חֲבֵרוֹ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
1.
When a person slaughters an animal and its offspring on the same day, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:3) mentions a difference of opinion concerning this matter, for some authorities forbid partaking of the meat. The Rama clarifies that the difference of opinion applies only with regard to the second animal. The first animal is permitted. Moreover, even the more stringent authorities maintain that the prohibition applies:a) only that day, and
b) only for the transgressor himself. It is a penalty imposed upon him by the Sages and not a prohibition of Scriptural Law. See Maggid Mishneh; Turei Zahav 16:23. The slaughterer, however, is punished by lashes,2Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 101) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 294) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
See Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 48, that states that this prohibition was given to us to prevent cruelty. For an animal will be severely aggrieved if its offspring or its mother is slaughtered before its eyes. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 where the Rambam emphasizes that the Torah's mitzvot were not given to us for the sake of any particular rationale. Note, however, the conclusion of Hilchot Temurah which explains that there are two dimensions to every mitzvah: that it is God's decree and that He issued that decree for a particular rationale. (See also Halachah 3 which indicates that the prohibition is a Divine decree, not limited to that rationale.) as [Leviticus 22:28] states: "Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep]3The Torah (and the Rambam) use the masculine although the prohibition applies primarily to a mother and its offspring. See Halachah 11. and its offspring on one day." He receives lashes only for slaughtering the second animal. Accordingly, if one person slaughtered one of such a pair and another person slaughtered the second, [the one who slaughtered the second alone] receives lashes.
הלכה ב
אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל מָקוֹם. בְּחֻלִּין וּבְמֻקְדָּשִׁין. בֵּין קָדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין בֵּין קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין. לְפִיכָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בַּעֲזָרָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּחוּץ. אוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּחוּץ וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּעֲזָרָה. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֻלִּין אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן קָדָשִׁים. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן חֻלִּין וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים. זֶה שֶׁשָּׁחַט אַחֲרוֹן לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ:
כסף משנה
2.
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies in all times and in all places, with regard to ordinary animals and sacrificial animals. [With regard to the latter category, it applies] with regard to sacrifices of which we partake and with regard to sacrifices of which we do not partake.4For the prohibition concerns slaughter. Therefore if one slaughtered the first animal in the Temple courtyard and the second outside of it or the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside, the one who slaughtered the second animal receives lashes [for violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring. [This applies] whether they were both ordinary animals,5And it is forbidden to slaughter an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard. they were both sacrificial animals,6And thus may not be sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard. or one7I.e., either the one that was sacrificed inside the Temple or the one sacrificed outside. The point of these statements is, as stated in Halachah 6, even though the slaughter is not befitting, within the context of this prohibition, it is considered as ritual slaughter. was an ordinary animal and one, a sacrificial one.הלכה ג
אֵין אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) "לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ" בִּשְׁחִיטַת שְׁנֵיהֶן הוּא הָאִסּוּר. אֲבָל אִם נָחַר הָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ נִתְנַבֵּל בְּיָדוֹ מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנִחָר הַשֵּׁנִי אוֹ נִתְנַבֵּל בְּיָדוֹ פָּטוּר:
כסף משנה
3.
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to ritual slaughter, as the verse states: "Do not slaughter." [Implied] is that the prohibition involves the slaughter of both animals. If, however, one chopped off the head of one of them or it became a nevelah in his hand,8I.e., the slaughter was unacceptable. If, however, it was discovered that the animal was trefe, it is considered to have been slaughtered and it is forbidden to slaughter the second animal (Halachah 6, Siftei Cohen 16:18). it is permitted to slaughter [the other]. Similarly, if he slaughtered the first and chopped off the head of the second or it became a nevelah in his hand, he is not liable.הלכה ד
חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ בֵּינָם לְבֵין עַצְמָן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט שֵׁנִי אַחֲרֵיהֶם. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָתָן שְׁחִיטָה (כְּלָל):
כסף משנה
4.
When a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally incapable person, or a minor slaughtered the first animal privately,9If, however, they slaughtered under the supervision of a knowledgeable adult, their slaughter is acceptable (Chapter 4, Halachah 5). Hence, this prohibition applies. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 16:9). it is permitted to slaughter the second animal afterwards because their slaughter is not considered as slaughter.10Hence it is equivalent to cutting off the head of the animal and the previous halachah applies.הלכה ה
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן וַהֲרֵי הוּא סְפֵק נְבֵלָה אָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט הַשֵּׁנִי. וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
5.
When one slaughters the first animal, but a question arises whether it is a nevelah or not, it is forbidden to slaughter the second [animal].11For perhaps the animal was kosher and one would be violating the prohibition. If one slaughters it, he is not liable for lashes.12Because there is a doubt involved.הלכה ו
שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה. לְפִיכָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט חֻלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה אוֹ טְרֵפָה אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְעַכּוּ''ם וּבָא הָאַחֲרוֹן וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן אֶת הָאֶחָד וּבָא הָאַחֲרוֹן וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וַהֲרֵי הוּא חֻלִּין בָּעֲזָרָה אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל אוֹ עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
6.
Slaughter from which it is not fit to eat is, nevertheless, considered slaughter. Therefore if the first person slaughtered an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard,13Rambam LeAm questions why this concept is mentioned. It was already stated in Halachah 2. one which is trefe, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, a red heifer, or slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,14In all these instances, it is forbidden to benefit from the slaughtered animal. (See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9; Hilchot Rotzeach 10:6, Hilchot Parah Adumah 1:7; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2.) a person who slaughters the second animal is liable. Similarly, if one slaughtered the first animal and another slaughtered the second though it is an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, or a red heifer, [the second person] is liable for lashes.הלכה ז
שְׁחָטוֹ לְעַכּוּ''ם פָּטוּר מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. וְאִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ וְלֹא הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם עַכּוּ''ם לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
7.
When [the second animal] is slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,15Seemingly, the same principles stated in the previous halachah would apply in this instance. Nevertheless, in this case, there is another factor involved as the Rambam continues to explain. [the slaughterer] is not liable because of [the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring, for he is liable for capital punishment.16As befits one who sacrifices to a false deity. One is not liable for both capital punishment and lashes for the same act. Since he is liable for capital punishment, he is not held liable for lashes. (See Ketubot 33b; Chullin 81b.) If, however, he was given a warning for [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring and was not given a warning for the worship of false deities,17I.e., when the witnesses administered the warning, they mentioned the lesser transgression and not the more severe one. he receives lashes.18For in this instance, he is not liable for the more severe punishment. There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud concerning whether one is absolved from liability for lashes in such a situation or not and the halachah follows the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that one is liable. See Ketubot 34b-35a, Chullin, loc. cit.הלכה ח
אֵין אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) "וְשׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד". וְנוֹהֵג בְּכִלְאַיִם. כֵּיצַד. צְבִי שֶׁבָּא עַל הָעֵז וְשָׁחַט הָעֵז וְאֶת בְּנָהּ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל הָעֵז שֶׁבָּא עַל הַצִּבְיָה אָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת בְּנָהּ. וְאִם שָׁחַט אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. פָּרָה וּבְנָהּ אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה לֹא צִבְיָה וּבְנָהּ:
כסף משנה
8.
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to a kosher domesticated animal. [This is derived from the exegesis of Leviticus, loc. cit.]:19See the Sifra to the verse which states that the first excludes wild beasts and fowl. "Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep] and its offspring on one day."[This prohibition] does apply with regard to hybrid species. What is implied? When a [male] deer mates with a [female] goat and one slaughters the goat and its offspring, one is liable. When, however, a [male] goat mates with a [female] deer and one slaughters the deer and its offspring, it is forbidden to slaughter [the deer and its offspring], if one slaughters them, however, one is not liable for lashes.20See the Turei Zahav 16:11 and the Siftei Cohen 16:16 who debate the rulings of the Rashba and the Maharshal who permit one to slaughter the deer and its offspring even as an initial and preferred option. The Torah forbade slaughtering a cow21I.e., a kosher domesticated animal. and its offspring and not a deer and its offspring.
הלכה ט
הָיְתָה בַּת הַצִּבְיָה הַזֹּאת נְקֵבָה וְיָלְדָה בֵּן וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַנְּקֵבָה בַּת הַצִּבְיָה וְאֶת בְּנָהּ לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִמִּין כֶּבֶשׂ וּמִמִּין עֵז בֵּין מִכֶּבֶשׂ עִם הָעֵז בֵּין מֵעֵז עִם הַכִּבְשָׂה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ:
כסף משנה
9.
If the offspring of this deer was female and it gave birth to offspring, one is liable for lashes should he slaughter the female offspring of this deer and its offspring [on the same day].22Since ultimately, the ancestor of the hybrid deer was a domesticated animal, we hold the slaughterer liable (see Chullin 80a). Although in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who does not hold the slaughtered liable for lashes, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:8), he cites the Rambam's view. The Turei Zahav 16:12 and the Siftei Cohen 16:17 debate this issue and side with the more lenient views, questioning the Rambam's ruling in light of his position in Halachah 11. Similarly, if a hybrid species is produced by mating a sheep and a goat - regardless of which is male and which is female - [the slaughterer can be held liable for] lashes for [violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring.הלכה י
מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט אֶת הַמְעֻבֶּרֶת. עֻבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא. וְאִם יָצָא הָעֻבָּר חַי אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וְהִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. וְאִם שָׁחַט אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
10.
It is permitted to slaughter a pregnant animal. The fetus is considered as a limb of its mother.23And not a separate entity for whose slaughter one is held liable. If the fetus emerged alive after the slaughter of its mother and stepped on the ground,24If the fetus does not step on the ground, it need not be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:14). Hence, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring would not apply. one should not slaughter it on the same day. If one did, one is not liable for lashes.25The Tosefta states: Since it is not required to slaughter such an animal, one is not liable for slaughtering it together with its mother.הלכה יא
אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת שֶׁזֶּה [] בְּנָהּ וַדַּאי. וְאִם נוֹדַע וַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה הוּא אָבִיו אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. וְאִם שָׁחַט אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁהַדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים אוֹ אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג:
כסף משנה
11.
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies with regard to a mother, for the offspring is certainly its own. If one knows with certainty that a male fathered offspring, the two should not be slaughtered on the same day. If one slaughtered [them together, however,] he is not liable for lashes, for there is a doubt whether or not the prohibition applies with regard to males.26This issue was apparently a matter of uncertainty for the Rambam, for in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 5:6) he revised his interpretation several times. His final text (see Rav Kapach's version which differs from the standard published text) parallels the text here. Note, however, Bechorot 7:7 which appears to refer to this prohibition with regard to males.הלכה יב
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפָּרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי בָּנֶיהָ לוֹקֶה שְׁתֵּי מַלְקִיּוֹת. שָׁחַט אֶת בָּנֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט הִיא לוֹקֶה אַחַת. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בִּתָּהּ וְאֶת בֶּן בִּתָּהּ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בֶּן בִּתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַבַּת לוֹקֶה אַחַת בֵּין הוּא בֵּין אַחֵר:
כסף משנה
12.
When a person slaughters a cow and afterwards slaughters two of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.27For he violated the prohibition twice. If he slaughters [several of] its offspring and then it, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.28For he performed one forbidden act. If he slaughtered it, its female offspring and the offspring of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.29For in this instance as well, he violated the prohibition twice. If he slaughtered it, the offspring of its offspring and its female offspring, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.30Although the same act caused two violations of the prohibition, since it was only one deed, the majority opinion in Chullin 82a only holds the person liable for set of lashes. As Rashi explains: There is one prohibition, one deed, and one warning.הלכה יג
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּקְחוּ שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת זֶה הָאֵם וְזֶה הַבַּת וּבָאוּ לְדִין. זֶה שֶׁלָּקַח רִאשׁוֹן יִשְׁחֹט רִאשׁוֹן וְהַשֵּׁנִי יַמְתִּין לְמָחָר. וְאִם קָדַם הַשֵּׁנִי וְשָׁחַט זָכָה וְיַמְתִּין הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד לְמָחָר:
כסף משנה
13.
When two people [each] purchased an animal: one the mother and one the offspring and they brought the matter for judgment,31I.e., they both desired to slaughter their animal that day. the one who purchased [the animal] first is allowed to slaughter it first,32The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) states that this law applies only when the two purchased the animals from the same person. If they purchased them from different individuals, neither has precedence over the other. the other one should wait until the next day. If the second purchaser slaughtered [his animal] first, he gains and the first must wait until the next day.הלכה יד
בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים בְּשָׁנָה הַמּוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ כְּבָר מָכַרְתִּי אִמָּהּ אוֹ בִּתָּהּ לְאַחֵר לִשְׁחֹט כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּמְתִּין זֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן וְלֹא יִשְׁחֹט עַד לְמָחָר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. עֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג. וְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח. וְעֶרֶב עֲצֶרֶת. וְעֶרֶב רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה:
כסף משנה
14.
Four times a year, it is necessary for a person who sells an animal to a colleague to inform him that he already sold the mother or the daughter of the animal to another person for the sake of slaughtering it so that the latter purchaser will wait and not slaughter until the next day.33In other situations, it is not necessary to notify him, for it is not certain that either purchaser will slaughter the animal on that day. They are: the day preceding the final holiday of Sukkot,34This is the holiday of Shemini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, a day of great rejoicing. Hence it is appropriate that meat be part of the festive meals. On the first day of Sukkot, by contrast, because the people are involved in preparing a sukkah and a lulav, they do not have the energy for excessive celebration. the day preceding the first holiday of Pesach,35For the Seder is a time of great rejoicing and celebration. The seventh day of Pesach, by contrast, is not considered that important a festival. the day preceding Shavuot,36Rashi explains that the animals were necessary for sacrifices to be brought for the holiday. Tosafot states that Shavuos is customarily marked by great celebration in commemoration of the Giving of the Torah. and the day preceding Rosh HaShanah.37For it is customary to begin the new year with celebratory feasts.הלכה טו
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁרָאָה זֶה שֶׁלָּקַח בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה נֶחְפָּז לִקְנוֹת וְהָיָה בְּסוֹף הַיּוֹם שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹחֵט עַתָּה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה רֶוַח בַּיּוֹם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִשְׁחֹט אֶלָּא לְמָחָר:
כסף משנה
15.
When does the above apply? When he saw that the person who purchased it last was anxious to buy and it was at the end of the day, [in which instance,] it can be presumed that he will slaughter it immediately. If, however, there was ample time during the day, he is not required to inform him, for perhaps he will not slaughter until the following day.38The fact that he shows repose indicates that he may be purchasing the animal for a later date. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the person's repose is taken into consideration only when he purchases the animal on the day before the day preceding the festival. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) quotes the Raa'vad's ruling.הלכה טז
והַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הָאֵם לֶחָתָן וְהַבַּת לַכַּלָּה צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָן. שֶׁוַּדַּאי בְּיוֹם אֶחָד שׁוֹחֲטִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
16.
When one sells the mother to a groom and the daughter to the bride, he must notify them.39That the other animal was also sold. This applies even if he did not sell them both on the same day [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6)]. For certainly, they will slaughter them both on the same day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.הלכה יז
יוֹם אֶחָד הָאָמוּר בְּאֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁשָּׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן בִּתְחִלַּת לֵיל רְבִיעִי לֹא יִשְׁחֹט הַשֵּׁנִי עַד תְּחִלַּת לֵיל חֲמִישִׁי. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּסוֹף יוֹם רְבִיעִי קֹדֶם בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שׁוֹחֵט הַשֵּׁנִי בִּתְחִלַּת לֵיל חֲמִישִׁי. שָׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שֶׁל לֵיל חֲמִישִׁי לֹא יִשְׁחֹט הַשֵּׁנִי עַד לֵיל שִׁשִּׁי. וְאִם שָׁחַט בְּיוֹם חֲמִישִׁי אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה