Mishnayos Chullin Perek 5 Mishnah 3

פרה חטאת – the red heifer, which is not for consumption.

ושור הנסקל – after its verdict has been announced, for we hold hat it is prohibited to derive benefit even when slaughtering it.

ועגלה ערופה – for he holds that it is forbidden while alive, and even if e slaughtered it, it is forbidden. But in the Gemara (Tractate Hullin 82a) reaches the definitive conclusion that the red heifer and the heifer whose neck is to be broken are not taught in our Mishnah. For regarding both of them, their slaughter is appropriate, and one must remove them from the Mishnah and Rabbi Shimon did not exempt them (for slaughter that is not appropriate for eating is not called slaughter).

וחכמים מחייבין – this that the Sages make him liable when slaughtering for idolatrous purposes, they did not teach other than when he slaughtered the first for idolatrous purposes and the second [animal] came and he slaughtered it for his table to eat it, but if the first was for his table and the second was for idolatrous purposes, that through the latter slaughtering is what makes him liable because of “an animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28), the law of killing comes upon him, and he is exempt from lashes–flogging because he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer penalty which is death (i.e., for slaughtering for idolatrous purposes, but he is exempt from flogging for the slaughtering of the animal and her young in one day – see Talmud Hullin 81b) for two [punishments] we don’t do to him. But sometimes, that even when he slaughtered the first for his table and the second for idolatrous purposes, he is liable, as, for example, when they (i.e., witnesses) warned him because of “an animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28), but they didn’t warn him because of idolatrous purposes, for since they did not warn him regarding idolatrous purposes, he is not killed, but he is flogged because of “an animal and its young.” But the Halakha is according to the Sages.

ונתנבלה בידו – inadvertently–unknowingly.

והנוחר – inserting the knife in its nostrils and cuts [the windpipe].

והמעקר – tearing loose the windpipe and gullet from the place where they are attached and he doesn’t slaughter them.

פטור – and even according to the Rabbis. But it is not similar to ritual slaughter of above, for there, it is an appropriate ritual slaughter, and another things causes it to be invalidated, but here, there isn’t ritual slaughter at all.

איזה שלקח ראשון ישחוט ראשון – if they came to the Jewish court, he who came first to slaughter and his fellow detains him and says: “I need it more than you,” we say to them, that the first purchaser should סperson and he detained for himself, the [original] purchaser would slaughter it. For such we taught in the Tosefta (Hullin, Chapter 5, Halakha 5), that he who purposes it from the owner, he precedes the owner, for on that account, he purchased it.

ואם קדם השני זכה – that he advanced himself in order that he not come to a prohibition, and he has the interval that he eats meat today.

סופג שמונים – for on every male offspring that he slaughters, he transgresses a negative commandment.

סופג את ארבעים – for there isn’t here a forbidden slaughtering other than one.

שחטה ואת בתה ואח"כ את בת בתה – there are two [violations] of “an animal and its young.”

שחטה ואת בת בתה – there is [not] yet here a prohibition. ואח"כ שחט את בתה – and there is in this slaughtering two prohibitions, “an animal and its young” because of its mother,” and an offspring and it because of its female offspring of that which has already been slaughtered.

סופג ארבעים – it is one negative commandment ‘violated] and one warning and one deed.

סומכוס אומר סופג שמונים – for Sumachos holds that he is liable for one warning and with one negative commandment, two [punishments of] stripes. And the same law applies with the first clause [of the Mishnah] which teaches that if he slaughtered its two offspring and afterwards slaughtered her (i.e., the mother), he receives forty (actually thirty-nine) lashes. According to Sumachos, he receives eighty lashes. Such it is in the Tosefta (Hullin, Chapter 5, Halakha 7), if he slaughters her five offspring and afterwards slaughter it (i.e., the mother), Sumachos states in the name of Rabbi Meir that he is liable because of [the violation] of five negative commandments.

בארבעה פרים בשנה – it is the manner of Israel to make meals on these four seasons [of the year], for a person who simply purchases an animal does not purchase it other than to slaughter it immediately, therefore, a person who sells an animal to his fellow and he sells first its mother or its female offspring on that selfsame day, he must state to the second [person]: “Know for yourself that I sold its mother for slaughter” or “I sold its female offspring for slaughter” lest it was already slaughtered.

ביום טוב האחרון של חג – they would increase in joy because it is a festival of its own and was beloved to them. And this did not consider the eve of the first day of the Festival, because the entire world is preoccupied with [the building of] the Sukkah and [acquiring] a Lulav [and Etrog], and they don’t have free time to make a large slaughtering.

אף ערבי יום הכיפורים בגלילי – but not in Judea and not in the rest of the lands, for they would not eat on the Eve of Yom Kippur anything other than meat, children and–or fish as is proven in Bereshit Rabbah, regarding a particular tailor who sold a fish.

בזמן שאין לו ריוח – interruption between them, that he sold the mother [animal] today.

אבל יש לו ריוח – that he sold the first yesterday and the second today.

אין צריך להודיעו – for I say: “Yesterday, I slaughtered it first.” Another explanation: At the time when he doesn’t have space of time that he is in haste and hurries to purchase that shows that he wants to slaughter today. But if he has a space of time that he is not in haste to purchase it, he is not required to inform him, for lest it was for the need of another day that he purchases it. But Rabbi Yehuda, he comes to explain the matter of the first Tanna–teacher and not to dispute it.

ומודה ר' יהודה – even hough that he purchased this [animal] today and that [animal] on the morrow, And regarding the second explanation, even though he is not in haste and hurried to purchase.

את האם לחת ואת הבת לכלה – it is a usual incident, for it is the custom of the world to make a large meal at the house of the groom from the house of the bride; therefore, the mother fo the grow who is larger, and the offspring which is smaller to the bride.