Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Study Guide

Study Guide

The Gemara brings a third source to attempt to prove Rav Yosef's assertion that Sumchos holds one who eats two olive-bulks of forbidden fat (chelev) in a single lapse of awareness is liable for two sin-offerings, but this attempt also fails. A Mishna details four times during the year - the eves of the last day of Sukkot, the first day of Pesach, Shavuot, and Rosh Hashanah - when an animal seller must inform the buyer if its parent or offspring were sold that day for slaughter, due to high meat demand raising concerns of same-day slaughter. On these four occasions, the Sages also instituted that the purchase is acquired by the buyer upon the payment of money, and they compel the butcher to slaughter in order to supply meat for the festival eve. The Gemara explains this ruling either as an acquisition made on the buyer's behalf through a third party (zicha) without the buyer's knowledge, or as a restoration of biblical law on these days where payment alone transfers ownership (ma'ot konot), overriding the standard rabbinic decree requiring physical pulling (meshicha). The Mishna and Gemara establish that the phrase "one day" (yom echad) regarding the prohibition of oto v'et beno is calculated according to the order of Creation (as those same words appear there), where night precedes day, unlike consecrated offerings (kodashim) where day precedes night. Rebbi derives from these words the obligation to give notification on these four festival eves. The sixth chapter deals with the mitzva of "Kisui HaDam," covering the blood and opens with a Mishna stating that the commandment to cover blood applies to non-sacred (chullin) undomesticated animals and birds, but not to kodashim. The Gemara clarifies why kodashim are exempt from blood-covering and establishes the exemption as referring to birds consecrated for Temple maintenance (bedek habayit).

Rav Hamnuna states in the name of Rabbi Shimon that the prohibition of oto v'et beno does not apply to consecrated animals (kodashim). This is based on Rabbi Shimon's principle that an invalid slaughter is not halakhically considered a slaughter (shechita she'eina reuya lo shema shechita), and since the meat of a sacrifice is not permitted for consumption until its blood is sprinkled, the slaughter itself is initially unfit. Rava challenges this using a text discussing various combinations of slaughtering consecutive sacrifices inside or outside the Temple courtyard (bifnim or bachutz), tracing the respective liabilities of karet and negative prohibitions under the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. To resolve the contradiction, Rava explains that Rabbi Shimon does acknowledge the prohibition for kodashim, but holds that one does not receive lashes for it because the warning given at the time of slaughter is a doubtful warning (hatra'at safek), as the validity of the slaughter depends on the future sprinkling of the blood, and a doubtful warning is legally invalid. The Mishna states that if one slaughters an animal and it is found to be a treifa, or slaughters it for idolatry, as a Red Heifer, an ox convicted to be stoned, or a broken-necked heifer, Rabbi Shimon exempts him from the prohibition of oto v'et beno because the slaughter is invalid since the animal is not permitted for consumption, while the Rabbis declare him liable. However, if the slaughter itself is physically disqualified, such as if the animal becomes a carcass during the shechita process or if one stabbed the animal, all agree he is exempt. Reish Lakish establishes the Mishna's liability (according to the Rabbis' position) for idolatry only when the first animal was slaughtered for idolatry and the second for consumption. If the second was for idolatry, the rule of kim lei b'draba minei applies (one incurs the capital punishment for idolatry and is exempt from the lashes of oto v'et beno) as one only receives the harsher of the two punishments. Rabbi Yochanan counters that even if the second animal was for idolatry, one can still be liable for lashes for oto v'et beno if one was warned specifically for that prohibition and not for idolatry. Reish Lakish maintains that since one would be exempt if properly warned for the capital crime, one remains exempt even without that warning, and even without receiving the harsher punishment. They have the same dispute regarding the rule of kim lei b'draba minei even in cases of death/lashes and monetary liability when one was not warned for the death/lashes.

Study Guide After the Gemara establishes the root of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis regarding a koy, Rav Papa clarifies the specific type of koy they dispute concerning the prohibition of slaughtering a parent and its offspring on the same day (oto v'et beno) and the distribution of priestly gifts (matnot kehuna). He also explains that the Mishna's ruling—which prohibits slaughtering a koy on Yom Tov due to the uncertainty of whether its blood requires covering (kisuy hadam)—aligns specifically with the Rabbis' position. The Gemara then introduces three other opinions regarding the exact definition of a koy. Rabbi Oshaya notes that the Mishna does not align with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who views any slaughter that is not fit for consumption—including the slaughter of sacrifices in general, since it does not permit the meat until the blood is sprinkled—as an invalid slaughter (shechita she'eina reuya). Consequently, under his view, one who slaughters an animal in the Temple and its offspring on the same day does not violate the prohibition of "you shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day" (oto v'et beno lo tishchatu b'yom echad). The Gemara questions why the Mishna omits the rule that one receives lashes for slaughtering an animal in the Temple courtyard whose time has not yet come (mechusar zman—because its mother was already slaughtered today) on account of slaughtering an unfit animal in the Temple, and offers two answers to resolve this.

The Gemara discusses the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day (oto v'et beno). The Mishna presents various permutations of non-sacred animals (chullin) and consecrated sacrifices slaughtered either inside or outside the Temple courtyard, outlining the respective punishments incurred and the halakhic status of the meat. A braita derives from biblical verses that this prohibition applies to consecrated animals, and the Gemara subsequently demonstrates that it applies to non-consecrated animals as well. Since the laws of oto v'et beno are learned from consecrated animals, the Gemara questions why the prohibition also applies to crossbreeds (kilayim), which are unfit for the Altar. This is resolved by explaining that the word "or" (o) in the verse serves to include crossbreeds. This explanation raises a difficulty, as the word "or" should be needed to teach that one is liable for slaughtering either an ox or a sheep with its offspring, rather than needing to slaughter both to violate the prohibition. The Gemara resolves this by pointing to the singular word "its" (oto), which teaches individual liability. Alternatively, according to Chananya - who uses the word "its" to include male parents in the prohibition - it is already self-evident that one is liable for either animal individually, in accordance with Rabbi Yonatan's interpretive principle regarding the biblical prohibition of cursing one's parents. This discussion leads to a discussion about the  dispute between Chananya and the Rabbis r regarding whether the prohibition of oto v'et beno applies to both the father and mother, or exclusively to the mother.

If a bone is broken but the majority of its width is surrounded by flesh and skin, the animal is not considered a treifa—even if the break is above the knee joint (arkuva)—and the limb is not considered a limb severed from a living animal (ever min hachai). A case came before Rava where the bone was covered by a majority of "flesh" only when including soft sinews. Rava initially permitted this based on Rabbi Yochanan's opinion that soft sinews are considered like meat for fulfilling the mitzva of eating the Pesach sacrifice. However, Rav Papa challenged this from Reish Lakish's opposing view that such sinews do not count as meat, and the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yochanan ultimately retracted his position, rendering the case forbidden. The Gemara clarifies additional questions regarding broken bones surrounded by skin and flesh in different manners, in some of which the flesh is no longer actually attached to the bone. The law of a ben pekua (a fetus found in its mother's womb after she was slaughtered) permits the fetus to be eaten without independent slaughter. This law also permits its placenta (shilya) to be eaten, as derived from the same verse from which the laws of ben pekua are derived. However, if even a small portion of the placenta emerged outside the womb prior to the mother's slaughter, it is forbidden to eat even the portion that remained inside out of concern that the head of the fetus may have emerged with it before the slaughter. If an animal carrying its first offspring miscarries a placenta, one does not have to treat the placenta with the sanctity of a firstborn (bechor). This is because perhaps the fetus inside was a female, and even if it was a male, perhaps it was a non-viable anomaly that is not fit for firstborn sanctity (such as a sheep that looks like a goat). In contrast, the placenta of a consecrated sacrifice is treated with sanctity, as sacrifices can also be brought from female animals, and therefore the likelihood of it having sanctity is much higher. The placenta is not considered food and therefore does not contract food impurity. Within this discussion, the Gemara inquires whether or not the hide of a domestic donkey that was cooked is susceptible to impurity. The Gemara presents two different versions of a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan regarding a placenta that emerges alongside a visible fetus. They debate whether perhaps there is a (second) hidden fetus inside the placenta, with each version of their debate applying this concern to different circumstances. Non-Jews used to bury placentas at intersections or hang them on trees as a superstitious remedy, and therefore these actions are forbidden under the prohibition of following non-Jewish customs (darchei ha-Emori). Regarding this, Abaye and Rava define the boundary, establishing that anything done for a proven medical remedy is permitted, while that which has no apparent medical benefit but is purely superstitious is forbidden.

Study Guide

The Gemara cites two conflicting statements of Rav regarding a hanging limb of an animal. In one statement, Rav rules that eating this limb incurs lashes, while in the other, he rules it does not. Rav Yosef resolves this contradiction: if the animal dies naturally, death causes legal detachment (oseh nipul), retroactively defining the hanging limb as ever min hachai (a limb from a living animal) which incurs lashes for one who eats it. Conversely, if the animal is slaughtered, slaughter does not cause legal detachment (eino oseh nipul), meaning the limb is not treated as a separate forbidden entity and the eater does not receive lashes. Rava brings a biblical source for this differentiation between death and slaughter, and the Gemara raises two difficulties against his proof but resolves them both. Rav Chisda and Rabba dispute whether the debate between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis - regarding whether slaughter causes legal detachment for an emerged fetal limb - applies only when the fetus is alive, or even when the fetus is dead. Rav Chisda holds that when the fetus is dead, the emerged limb is definitely considered detached and carries impurity. In the course of a back-and-forth argument between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir in the Mishna, it was mentioned that slaughtering would not remove impurity from an eight-month fetus, as it is not viable, and there is no type of eight-month fetus that can be validly slaughtered. However, a braita states that there are eight-month fetuses that can be permitted by slaughter. Rav Kahana reconciles this by differentiating between slaughtering the fetus itself and permitting the animal via its mother's slaughter (ben pekua). Rav Hoshaya inquires whether a live nine-month-old fetus can be validly slaughtered while still in utero. This question is evaluated under the views of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rav Chananya attempts to resolve this inquiry from a braita, but his answer is ultimately rejected by Rava. The Mishna introduces a dispute regarding the laws of ben pekua and whether they apply to a fully formed, nine-month-old fetus found inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir rules that the laws of ben pekua do not apply here, and the fetus requires its own independent slaughter. Conversely, the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri hold that as long as the fetus is still inside the womb, it is covered by the laws of ben pekua and is permitted by the slaughter of the mother. Operating under the Rabbis' position, Rabbi Eleazar states in the name of Rabbi Oshaya that the mother's slaughter only covers the animal born from this womb regarding the laws of eating. In other halakhot, this animal is considered a distinct entity and standard animal laws apply to it. The Gemara presents two versions of what Rabbi Oshaya's statement was coming to exclude: the first version suggests it excludes the animal's fat, sciatic nerve, and blood from the mother's exemption, while the second version suggests it excludes using the animal for work or illicit cross-breeding. The first version is ultimately rejected based on other sources, leaving the second version as the preferred explanation. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether the blood of a ben pekua (a nine-month fetus) is permitted as well. Rabbi Yochanan raises one difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, which the Gemara subsequently resolves. According to the position of the Rabbis, a question is asked whether one can redeem a firstborn donkey with a ben pekua. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi disagree. A second question is asked whether a ben pekua that is still in utero can be considered a separate unit for the laws of ritual impurity. This is a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and each one raises a difficulty against the other's position.

Study Guide

The Gemara presents biblical derivations establishing that undomesticated animals (chaya) are included in the legal category of domesticated animals (behema) and vice versa. This crossover applies to kosher signs, crossbreeding laws, sacrificial impurities, and miscarriages. The Mishna rules that if a fetus dies in utero and a midwife reaches inside and touches it, the midwife contracts seven-day corpse impurity, while the mother remains pure until the fetus emerges. Rabba establishes that just as absorbed impurity (tuma belua) does not pass on impurity, absorbed purity (tahara beluah cannot become impure. The Gemara seeks biblical and logical sources for these principles, evaluating various kal va-chomer (a fortiori) arguments, including extending this law to animals. Rava notes that both laws are already stated in Mishnayot concerning a swallowed ring, prompting the Gemara to clarify that Rabba's unique ruling applies to a case where someone swallows two rings simultaneously - one pure and one impure - and the impure ring does not make the pure one impure.

The Mishna explains at what stage a delivery is considered a birth (even for a stillborn animal) to determine whether it exempts subsequent offspring from firstborn status, particularly in the case of a difficult birth where the fetus is extracted in pieces. Rav Huna and Raba disagree regarding when the majority of the animal emerges: does the sanctity of the firstborn apply retroactively or only from that moment onward? The Gemara presents two cases demonstrating the practical ramifications of this dispute. A difficulty is raised against Rav Huna's position from our Mishna, but it is ultimately resolved through a reinterpretation of the Mishna. A series of unanswered questions are then raised regarding whether a newborn is considered a firstborn if there is some type of chatzitza (interposition) between the fetus and the womb. The Mishna explains that touching a dead fetus while it is in utero does not convey the impurity of a carcass. However, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosi haGelili debate whether this exemption applies to all animals - both kosher and non-kosher- or only to kosher animals, and the Gemara presents explanations for each position.

Different rabbis raise a total of four questions regarding various scenarios in which a ben pekua (a fetus of an animal whose mother was slaughtered) previously had a limb or limbs leave the womb. The Gemara investigates the biblical source for the Mishna's ruling that parts of a fetus that were severed but remained inside the mother at the time of slaughter are permitted to be eaten, offering two different suggested sources.

Study Guide A fetus that is inside the mother at the time of her slaughter is permitted without needing its own slaughter. If a limb of the fetus emerges before the mother is slaughtered, that limb is forbidden. However, if the limb is pulled back inside before the mother's slaughter, its status is subject to a dispute: Rav holds that the limb remains forbidden, while Rabbi Yochanan rules that it is permitted. Three difficulties are raised against Rav's position—one from our Mishna and two from other tannaitic sources—and all are ultimately resolved in the same manner. A difficulty raised against Rabbi Yochanan's position remains unresolved.

The Gemara details the hermeneutical methods used to permit drinking water from pits, ditches, or caves without concern for finless and scaleless creatures. Regarding water in vessels, the braita states that its exemption is explicit in one verse and implicit in another. One version holds that the permission for vessels is explicit, derived from the verse explaining that fish in seas and streams must have fins and scales to be eaten (Vayikra 11:9), meaning that anything in vessels is permitted. The second version reverses this, arguing that the explicit source is the subsequent verse (Vayikra 11:10-11) which forbids fish in seas and streams that lack fins and scales. The discussion then shifts to spontaneous generation. While creatures that crawl upon the ground are biblically forbidden, creatures that spontaneously generate within vessels or food are excluded from this prohibition, provided they have not yet crawled upon the ground. The Gemara delineates the exact parameters of this exclusion.

The braita from the school of Rav and the braita from the school of Rabbi Yishmael disagree about whether a grasshopper with a long head is kosher. The source of the dispute stems from their application of different hermeneutical principles to the verse. Further on, the Gemara raises two difficulties against other parts of the braita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael and resolves them. The definitive kosher signs of fish are fins and scales. A fish that lacks scales in its youth but will grow them later, or a fish that has scales but sheds them upon leaving the water, is kosher. Since any fish with scales inherently has fins, the Torah did not need to specify fin, but did so to magnify the Torah and make it glorious. The need for two separate verses, one permitting fish with fins and scales and one prohibiting fish without fins and scales, is to establish both a positive and a negative commandment for one who transgresses. The words "This you can eat from all that are in the waters," which are seemingly superfluous, teach that one who drinks water from pits, ditches, and caves does not need to be concerned about fish that grew there that lack fins and scales, as they are not included in the prohibition.