Комментарий к Вайикра 22:28

אתו ואת בנו [AND WHETHER IT BE AN OX OR A SHEEP YE SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER] IT AND ITS YOUNG [BOTH IN ONE DAY] — This law applies only to the female parent, although Scripture uses the masculine term אתו — that it is forbidden to slaughter the dam and its male or female young in one day, but it does not apply to the male parent, and it is permissible to slaughter the father animal and its young whether male or female in one day (Chullin 78b; cf. also Onkelos).

AND WHETHER IT BE OF THE HERD OR FLOCK, ‘OTHO V’ETH B’NO’¹⁵³Literally: “him and his young” — in the masculine. Since the law, as will be explained, applies only to the mother and the young, the question appears why Scripture uses here the masculine. Ramban will further on explain it. (IT AND ITS YOUNG) YE SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER IN ONE DAY. “[The law] applies only in the case of the female parent, it being forbidden to slaughter the dam and its male young, or the dam and its female young, but it does not apply to the male parent, and it is therefore permissible to slaughter the male parent and his young.” This is Rashi’s language.
The Rabbi [Rashi] thus decided that the conclusive decision of the law is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage¹⁵⁴Rabbi Yehudah (Chullin 79 a). who says that we do not take into consideration the male parentage [of animals]. And such also is the opinion of Onkelos [who translated: “and whether it be the dam or the ewe, her and her young ye shall not slaughter in one day”]. This is the correct decision [reached] in the Gemara [of Tractate Chullin]¹⁵⁵Ibid. concerning the law of “It and its young.” But the way of Scripture when mentioning specifically the female [of the herd], is to call it parah (cow),¹⁵⁶Genesis 32:16, etc. and if so it would have been proper that Scripture say, “and whether it be parah (cow) or ewe, her and her young.” But since He had mentioned [at the beginning of this section], When any of the herd, or a sheep or a goat is brought forth,¹⁵⁷Verse 27. and He mentioned the dam and its young by saying, then it shall be seven days under its dam,¹⁵⁷Verse 27. He therefore states [in the verse before us] that concerning these kinds of animals mentioned, namely, the herd and the flock, there is yet another commandment that it and its young mentioned above, must not be slaughtered in one day [and thus it is self-evident that the law applies only to the female parent].

אותו ואת בנו, “it together with its offspring.” This legislation applies only to the females of the species, not to the males. [Although according to the masculine mode employed by the Torah we might have been misled. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that actually we could have expected the Torah to write instead of the words שור או כשב או עז, the feminine equivalent i.e. פרה או כבשה אותה ואת בנה, the reason why the Torah did not do so was that the paragraph began with the legislation that the species cattle and sheep etc., must not be used as sacrifices on the same day.

ושור או שה, אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד, “and an ox and its (son) young, you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Seeing that the Torah has already mentioned that there is a special commandment regarding sacrificial animals and their offspring, i.e. that the young must not be separated from the mother for at least seven days before it may be offered up as a sacrifice, the Torah immediately lists another related commandment, namely not to offer both the mother animal and the young on one and the same day. First of all, contrary to the impression gained from the grammar in the verse, the ruling applies to female animals, i.e. mother and young, not father and young. It is perfectly in order to slaughter the calf’s father with the calf on the same day (Chulin 79). This also corresponds to the way Onkelos translates the words, i.e. ותורתא או שיתא לה וברה, “and a cow and a sheep, her and her “son.” In other words, the law applies to mother animals. According to this halachah, the difficulty is that the Torah should have written ופרה ובנה, instead of ושור ובנה. Or, at least, if the Torah considered the word שור as the generic term for the category of cattle, it should have continued with the words אותה ואת בנה, instead of the misleading אותו ואת בנו. However, seeing that the Torah already spoke about a female animal and her son when mentioning the law not to offer the young animal during the first seven days, by continuing with this legislation immediately the Torah hinted that here too we are speaking about a law applying to the mother animal and its young. This is the interpretation of Nachmanides.

The mother [together with] the son or daughter. We derive this from the sending away [of the mother bird from] the nest as [we derive other things from the mother bird] later below [in the next S.C.]. Just as over there females are also included because it says “on the fledglings” which includes both males and females, here too, it makes no difference whether they are males or females.

, ושור, “and a bullock,” as opposed to a free roaming mammal;

אתו ואת בנו IT AND ITS YOUNG — The prohibition of slaughtering the young first and then it (the dam) in one day is also implied (Chullin 82a).

A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Emor 13 draws a parallel between Proverbs 12,10; “the righteous man knows the soul (needs) of his beast; but the compassion of the wicked is cruelty.” The “righteous one” in that verse is a reference to the Almighty who has said that mother animal and its young are not to be slaughtered on the same day; by contrast the compassion of the wicked cited by Solomon refers to someone like Haman who decreed that all Jews of all generations be killed on the same day (Esther 3,13). Another example of the righteous (G’d) knowing the needs of his beast is reflected in the legislation in Deut. 22,6 that the mother bird is to be sent off before its nest is to be robbed of its chicks or eggs. By contrast, the “compassion for the wicked which is cruelty” was demonstrated by Sancheriv the wicked of whom it is written (Hoseah 10,14) “when mothers and babes were dashed to death together.”

And it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son. We derive this by comparing this case to the sending away [of the mother bird from] the nest. The mitzvah of “it and its offspring” applies to parents and offspring, and the mitzvah of sending away [from] the nest applies to parents and offspring. Just as over there it [only applies] to offspring and a mother as it is written “And the mother is sitting,” so here [it only applies to] offspring and a mother. You might ask that it should have said אותה ואת בנה, “she and her offspring”? The answer is that since it is written earlier, “an ox or a lamb” in the male gender, therefore Scripture also writes the adjacent אותו ואת בנו, [lit.] “he and his son” in the male gender.

או שה, “or a lamb,” as opposed to a bird.

Even its offspring and it. I.e., if one slaughtered the offspring before it, one is also liable since לא תשחטו [“you shall not slaughter” in the plural] implies that there is a case where two slaughterers are liable, both the one who slaughtered the mother and the one who slaughtered the daughter. Where do we find such a case? The case must be that there are three cows, a daughter, a mother, and a granddaughter, and the first [slaughterer] is always exempt. You cannot say the case is that one person slaughtered the mother and the two other people each slaughtered a daughter, because in that case it would be obvious that the last two are liable as both are [cases of] “it and its offspring.” Thus the case must certainly be that one person slaughtered a cow, and one person [then] slaughtered its mother and is liable, and another person slaughtered its daughter. Why is the person who slaughtered the mother liable when the first person had slaughtered its daughter beforehand? This indicates that one is also liable when the offspring is slaughtered before the mother. You need not ask: Perhaps [the Torah writes] תשחטו so that you do not think that only if one person slaughtered [both] it and its offspring is he liable, but if one person slaughtered the mother and another person slaughtered the offspring he would not be liable, and therefore it writes תשחטו, [to teach] that even though one person slaughtered the mother and a second person slaughtered the offspring, the second person is liable. Because if so, the Torah should have said לא ישחט (“it shall not be slaughtered”), [see Re’m]. This is easy to understand. (Rav Yaakov Taryosh).

אותו ואת בנו, the older generation, i.e. the “mother” or “father;” the one who models itself after the mother, i.e. a female calf. This would exclude a male lamb. According to Rashi, slaughtering a male animal and its male offspring on the same day is not prohibited. Let us agree that there is no penalty of lashes for slaughtering both “father” and “son” on the same day, nonetheless there is a prohibition to do so. This has been spelled out in the Talmud tractate Chulin, folio 79. [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, shows that later authorities are all agreed on this. Ed.]