שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁחֹט בְּהֵמָה וּבְנָהּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד – שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט בְּהֵמָה וּבְנָהּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, בֵּין בְּקָדָשִׁים בֵּין בְּחֻלִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. To not slaughter a beast and its child on one day: That we not slaughter a beast and its child on one day — whether consecrated or mundane — as it is written (Leviticus 22:28), “it and its child you shall not slaughter on one day.”
מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי הַמִּצְוָה. שֶׁיִּתֵּן הָאָדָם אֶל לִבּוֹ כִּי הַשְׁגָּחַת הַשֵּׁם בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל כָּל מִינֵי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים בִּכְלָל, וְעִם הַשְׁגָּחָתוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם יִתְקַיְּמוּ לְעוֹלָם, כִּי הַשְׁגָּחָתוֹ בַּדְּבָרִים זֶהוּ קִיּוּמָם, וְעַל כֵּן לֹא יִבְטַל מִן הַמִּינִין לְגַמְרֵי כָּל יְמֵי עוֹלָם, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְׁגָּחָתוֹ עַל מִין הָאָדָם בִּפְרָט, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי לְמַעְלָה בְּסֵדֶר "אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ" (מצוה קסט), לֹא כֵן מִינֵי שְׁאָר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ כְּלָל בַּמִּין יָשִׂים הַשְׁגָּחָתוֹ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְעַל כֵּן נִמְנַעְנוּ מִלְּכַלּוֹת הָאִילָן וַעֲנָפָיו בְּיַחַד, לִרְמֹז זֶה. וְעוֹד נוּכַל לוֹמַר בָּעִנְיָן עַל צַד הַפְּשָׁט כְּמוֹ כֵן, שֶׁהוּא לִקְבֹּעַ בְּנַפְשׁוֹתֵינוּ מִדַּת הַחֶמְלָה וּלְהַרְחִיק מִדַּת הָאַכְזָרִיּוּת שֶׁהִיא מִדָּה רָעָה, וְלָכֵן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתִּיר לָנוּ הָאֵל מִינֵי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים לְמִחְיָתֵנוּ, צִוָּנוּ לְבַל נַהֲרֹג אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, וְלִקְבֹּעַ בְּנַפְשֵׁנוּ מִדַּת הַחֶמְלָה. It is from the roots of the commandment that a person should place upon his heart that the providence of God, blessed be He, is upon all species of animals more generally. And with His providence over them, they shall endure eternally; as His providence over things is [itself] their sustenance. And therefore no species will ever become completely extinct. And even though His providence over the human species is individual — and as I explained earlier in the Order of Eesha ki Tazria (Sefer HaChinukh 169) — this is not the case for other species of animals. Rather His providence, blessed be He, is for the species as a whole. And we are therefore prevented from finishing ‘the tree and its branches’ together to hint [about] this. And we can also say about the matter from the angle of the simple understanding as well, that this is to fix in our souls the trait of compassion and to distance us from the trait of cruelty — which is a bad trait. And therefore even though God permitted us [to eat] species of animals for our sustenance, He [also] commanded us that we not kill it and its child on one day to fix the trait of compassion in our souls.
דִּינֵי הַמִּצְוָה. מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (חולין פב, א) שֶׁאֵין חִלּוּק בֵּין אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, אוֹ בְּנוֹ תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָאֵם, וּמָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (שם פג, א) דִּבְאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים בַּשָּׁנָה, הַמּוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ, אִמָּהּ מָכַרְתִּי לִשְׁחֹט, לְפִי שֶׁבְּאַרְבָּעָה זְמַנִּים אֵלּוּ, כָּל הַקּוֹנִים מִן הַסְּתָם לְשָׁחֳטָן לְשָׁעָה קוֹנִים, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן עֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חָג וְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח, וְעֶרֶב עֲצֶרֶת, וְעֶרֶב רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וּכְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, אַף בְּעֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בַּגָּלִיל. וְהָא דִּתְנַן צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ דַּוְקָא הַמּוֹכֵר צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ הַדָּבָר, אֲבָל הַלּוֹקֵחַ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאֹל מִשּׁוּם דִּסְפֵק סְפֵיקָא הוּא עָלָיו שֶׁמָּא אֵין לָהּ אֵם, וְאִם יֵשׁ לָהּ שֶׁמָּא לֹא מְכָרָהּ לִשְׁחֹט. וּמָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (שם פב א) דִּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּקְחוּ פָּרָה וּבְנָהּ, שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁלָּקַח רִאשׁוֹן יִשְׁחֹט רִאשׁוֹן, וְאִם קָדַם הַשֵּׁנִי וְשָׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין אָסוּר הָרִאשׁוֹן לִשְׁחֹט. וְדִין הַשּׁוֹחֵט פָּרָה וּשְׁנֵי בָּנֶיהָ אוֹ שְׁנֵי בָּנֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִיא, וְכֵן הִיא וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ. וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט הָאֵם עִם בַּת בִּתָּהּ, שֶׁלֹּא אָסַר הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ. The laws of the commandment: That which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 82a) that there is no distinction between it and its child and its child and it (the order is not important). And that which they said (Chullin 83a) that at four periods during the year, one who sells a beast to his fellow must inform him, “I sold the mother for slaughter” — because at these four times, all purchasers presumably buy to slaughter [immediately]. And these are them: the eve of the last holiday of [Sukkot]; the eve of the first holiday of Pesach; the eve of [Shavuot]; and the eve of Rosh HaShanah. And according to the words of Rabbi Yose HaGalili, also on the eve of Yom Kippur in the Galilee. And behold, that which we learned that he needs to inform him — it is specifically the seller that has to inform [of] the thing. But the buyer need not ask, as it is a double doubt for him: lest it does not have a mother; and [even] if it does, perhaps [the seller] did not sell it for slaughter. And that which they said (Chullin 82a) [regarding] two people that bought a cow and its child — that the one who purchased first, slaughters first; but if the second preceded him and slaughtered against the law, the first is forbidden to slaughter. And the law of slaughtering a cow and two of her children, or her two children and her afterwards; and so [too,] it and her daughter and the daughter of her daughter. And it is permitted to slaughter the mother and the daughter of her daughter, as the Torah only forbade “it and its child.”
וּמָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט הָאֵם וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַבַּת שֶׁאֵין סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבִּשְׁחִיטַת בַּת זוֹ עוֹבֵר שְׁנֵי לָאוִין מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, וּבְנוֹ וְאוֹתוֹ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם חַד מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא. And that which they said that if one slaughters the mother and the daughter of her daughter, and then the daughter, he is only lashed forty [lashes]. And [that is] even though he transgresses two negative commandments on account of “it and its child” and on account of “its child and it” — nonetheless it is [still] one deed.
וּמָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה, (שם עח, ב) שֶׁאִסּוּר אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּנְקֵבוֹת, שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ בְּנוֹ, מִי שֶׁבְּנוֹ כָּרוּךְ אַחֲרָיו דְּהַיְנוּ הַנְּקֵבָה. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם הָכִי אַסִּיקְנָא בְּחֻלִּין (עט א) עִם הַפֵּרוּשִׁים הַטּוֹבִים, שֶׁאִם נִתְבָּרֵר לָנוּ הַדָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָבִיו וַדַּאי, שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ עִם בְּנוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, מִשּׁוּם דְּפָסְקִינַן שָׁם הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְפִי הַנִּשְׁמָע מִדְּבָרָיו סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵהּ אִי חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב אִם לֹא, מִדְּקָאָמַר לְעִנְיַן כִּלְאַיִם בִּפְרָדוֹת אֵין מַרְבִּיעִין עָלֶיהָ לֹא סוּס וְלֹא חֲמוֹר אֶלָּא מִינָהּ, וְאִי הֲוָה סְבִירָא לֵהּ דְּאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין וַדַּאי לְזֶרַע הָאָב לֹא הָיָה אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא הָכִי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר, אֵין מַרְבִּיעִין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא מִינָהּ, מִצַּד אֵם, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵהּ, וְכִי קָאָמַר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, כַּוָּנָתוֹ לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא נָחוּשׁ לְזֶרַע הָאָב לְהָקֵל בַּדָּבָר, אֲבָל לְהַחְמִיר, וַדַּאי נָחוּשׁ לְזֶרַע הָאָב. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חֻמְרָא כְּשֶׁנֹּאמַר שֶׁלֹּא נָחוּשׁ, אָז נֹאמַר שֶׁאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּסַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵהּ אָזְלִינַן לְחֻמְרָא בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וּלְפִי זֶה, הֵיכָא שֶׁאָנוּ יוֹדְעִין וַדַּאי הַזָּכָר נָחוּשׁ לוֹ בְּעִנְיַן אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ. וְיֶתֶר פְּרָטֶיהָ, בְּחֻלִּין פֶּרֶק שְׁמִינִי [י"ד סי' ט"ז]. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 78b) that the prohibition of “it and its child” is only practiced with females (mothers) — as they said in explanation of “its child,” the one who the child is attached to, which is the [mother]. And nevertheless, we conclude in Chullin 79a — with the good commentaries — that if the thing becomes clear to us that this is certainly its father, we [may] not slaughter it and its child on the same day; because we determine there that the law [follows] Rabbi Yehudah. And according to what is implied from his words, Rabbi Yehudah is in doubt if we concern ourselves with the seed of the father or not — [as] he says regarding the forbidden mixtures with mules [that] we do not mate a horse nor a donkey with it, but only its [own] species. And if he reasoned that we certainly do not concern ourselves with the seed of the father, he would not have said that. Rather, he would have had to say thus: “We only mate it [with] its species from the side of the mother.” But rather Rabbi Yehudah is certainly in doubt. And when he said [that] we do not concern ourselves with the seed of the father, his intention was to say that we do not concern ourselves with the seed of the father to be lenient about a thing; but to be stringent, we definitely concern ourselves with the seed of the father. And [likewise,] in any place that a stringency will result from saying that we are not concerned, then we say that we are not concerned for [the father]. As since it was a doubt for him, we go towards stringency in every case. And according to this, when we definitively know the [identity of the father] we should be concerned for him regarding “it and its child.” And the rest of its details are in the eighth chapter of Chullin. (See Tur, Yoreh Deah 16.)
וְנוֹהֶגֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן בִּזְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל זֶה וְשָׁחַט אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ בְּנוֹ וְאוֹתוֹ חַיָּב מַלְקוּת. The commandment is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses this and slaughtered “it and its child on one day” — or its child and it — is lashed.