Main Text
ג. הַצָּד חֲלָזוֹן וּפְצָעוֹ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם צָד. וְאַחַת מִשׁוּם נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אַחַת. הַיְידָא הִיא מִשׁוּם נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה. וְלֵית לָהּ צַידָה. וְאַתְיָא כַּהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. מִין חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה בָרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה בַּמִּדְבָּר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן נִגְנְזָה. רִבִּי אָבוּן אָמַר. קֶרֶשׁ הָיָה שְׁמָהּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. דְּחָדָא קֶרֶן. וְתִיטַב לָיי מִשּׁוֹר פָּר מַקְרִין וּמַפְרִיס. מַקְרֵן כָּתוּב.
English Translation
3. One who traps a chilazon and wounds it. There are Tannaim who teach: he is liable for two. There are Tannaim who teach: he is liable for only one.
[About] the one who says two: one is because of trapping, and one is because of taking a life. And about the one who says one: which one is it? It is because of taking a life. And it has no trapping.
And this follows that which Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Abahu, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Meir: “A kind of pure wild animal, HaKadosh Baruch Hu created for Moshe in the wilderness. Once he used it for the work of the Mishkan, it was hidden away.”
Rabbi Avun said: Keresh was its name. Rabbi Hoshaya taught: it had one horn.
“And it shall be better to Hashem than an ox, a bull, horned and hoofed.”
It is written מַקְרֵן — “horned” in the singular.
English Footnotes
The Yerushalmi is discussing someone who traps a ḥilazon and wounds it on Shabbos.
There are two opinions. One opinion says he is chayav for two melachos: tzad, because he trapped it, and netilas neshamah, because he wounded it and took its life.
The other opinion says he is chayav for only one melachah: netilas neshamah. According to that view, trapping the ḥilazon is not a chiyuv of tzad. That is the meaning of the words:
ולית לה צידה
“There is no trapping-liability here.”
The Yerushalmi then brings the keresh/tachash, the one-horned animal used in the Mishkan. That is not meant to identify the ḥilazon. It is a separate point. If the melachah of tzad is not learned from trapping the ḥilazon, then it can be learned from trapping the tachash/keresh used for the Mishkan.
So the Yerushalmi is not saying the ḥilazon was a one-horned land animal. It is saying that according to one opinion, trapping the ḥilazon may not count as tzad at all, and the Mishkan source for tzad comes from a different creature: the tachash/keresh.
