Chullin Daf 82 צולין דַף 82

The Mishnah lists shechting an עגלה ערופה as a שחיטה שאינה ראויה. The Gemara objects from a Mishnah: that if the murderer was found before the עגלה was decapitated, it returns to the flock, because the עגלה remains permitted until its decapitation. If so, shechting it should permit it in consumption!? Reish Lakish quotes Rebbe Yannai saying that עגלה ערופה should be removed from the Mishnah’s text. However, the Gemara disproves this attribution. Rebbe Yannai said: גבול שמעתי בה ושכחתי – I heard what is the cutoff line for when [an עגלה ערופה] becomes forbidden, but I forgot what it is, and it was determined that ירידתה לנחל איתן אוסרתה – its descent to the hard valley is what prohibits it. Therefore, Rebbe Yannai could have interpreted our Mishnah to refer to shechting an עגלה ערופה after its descent to the נחל איתן. Reish Lakish derives the prohibition of צפורי מצורע – birds used for the מצורע’s purification משעת לקיחה – from the time of their taking for צפורי מצורע, from עגלה ערופה, which is likewise forbidden while alive. Therefore, the Gemara concludes that it is Rebbe Yochanan who removed "עגלה ערופה" from our Mishnah.

The Mishnah states that one who shechts a cow and its two calves the same day incurs two sets of malkus, but one who shechted the two calves and then the mother (which was forbidden for two reasons), incurs only one. If one shechted a cow, its daughter, and its daughter’s daughter, he incurs two sets of malkus, but if he shechted a cow and its “granddaughter” first, and then its daughter (thereby violating two prohibitions simultaneously), the Tanna Kamma obligates one set of malkus, but סומכוס obligates two sets. [סומכוס would also argue in the רישא and say that one who shechts two calves and then the mother receives two sets of malkus.] The Mishnah clearly assumes one is liable for shechting offspring and then its mother, and the Gemara asks that the Torah only forbids shechting "אותו ואת בנו" – it and its offspring, but not "בנו ואותו" – its offspring and it!? It answers that the plural phrase "לא תשחטו" – you shall not shecht implies that two people can be liable for shechting, i.e., where a cow was shechted, and then one shechted its mother, and another shechted its offspring.

Abaye asked Rav Yosef why Sumchos obligates two sets of malkus for shechting the daughter after shechting the “grandmother” and “granddaughter.” Does he hold אכל שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחד חייב שתי חטאות – if one ate two כזיתים of חלב in one lapse of awareness, he is liable to two חטאות (and similarly, two intentional transgressions of the same prohibition in one act obligates two sets of malkus)? Or, does Sumchos agree that one who eats two כזיתים of חלב in one העלם is only liable to one חטאת, and he obligates two sets of malkus in the Mishnah הואיל וגופין מוחלקין – because the multiple transgressions result from acts in separate bodies (i.e., shechting the daughter violates shechting it the same day as its mother, and shechting it the same day as its daughter)? Rav Yosef replied that סומכוס indeed holds that eating two כזיתים of חלב in one העלם obligates two חטאות. However, every proof to this assertion is deflected.