Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Chullin 104
הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר מוּתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים.
And one who takes a vow that meat is prohibited to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers.
גְּמָ׳ הָא עוֹף אָסוּר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָאָמַר: חַיָּה וָעוֹף אֵינוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
GEMARA: Since the mishna does not distinguish between the meat of animals and that of birds, it may consequently be inferred that the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law, just like the meat of animals. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t he say that the prohibition of the meat of undomesticated animals and birds cooked in milk is not by Torah law?
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר – מוּתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים, הָא עוֹף אָסוּר, אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: כֹּל מִילֵּי דְּמִימְּלִיךְ עֲלֵיהּ שָׁלִיחַ – בַּר מִינֵיהּ הוּא.
The Gemara continues: But say the latter clause of the mishna: One who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers. It may consequently be inferred that it is prohibited for him to eat birds. If so, here we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Anything about which an agent sent to purchase a given item would inquire, being unsure whether it qualifies as that type of item, is considered its type.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיָּרָק, מוּתָּר בַּדִּלּוּעִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וַהֲלֹא אוֹמֵר אָדָם לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״קַח לָנוּ יָרָק״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא דִּלּוּעִין״!
As it is taught in a mishna (Nedarim 54a): One who takes a vow that vegetables are forbidden to him is permitted to eat gourds, as people do not typically consider gourds a type of vegetable, but Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: But it is a common occurrence that a person says to his agent: Purchase vegetables for us, and the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns and says: I found only gourds. This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.
אָמַר לָהֶן: כֵּן הַדָּבָר, כְּלוּם אוֹמֵר ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא קִטְנִית״?! אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּלּוּעִין בִּכְלַל יָרָק, וְאֵין קִטְנִית בִּכְלַל יָרָק. רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!
Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves that my opinion is correct. Does the agent return and say: I found only legumes? Rather, it is evident that gourds are included in the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent explains that he found only gourds, and asks whether he should purchase them. But legumes are not included in the category of vegetables, and that is why an agent would not even ask about them. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva should also hold that one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating birds. And if so, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי הִיא, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְתַנָּאֵי, בִּנְדָרִים סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בְּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן.
Rav Yosef said: That is not difficult. The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna according to the opinions of different tanna’im. In the latter clause, with regard to vows, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas in the first clause, with regard to meat cooked in milk, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הַבָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב, מֵהֶן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וּמֵהֶן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים, שֶׁאֵינָם לֹא מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְלֹא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
Rav Ashi said a different explanation: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as indicated by the latter clause, concerning vows. And as for the first part of the mishna, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to cook any meat in milk, some types of meat by Torah law, i.e., that of domesticated animals, and some types of meat by rabbinic law, i.e., that of undomesticated animals and birds. This prohibition applies to all types of meat except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, which are not prohibited, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law.
וְאָסוּר לְהַעֲלוֹת [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּשַׂר עוֹף בְּחָלָב דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן – אֲכִילָה גּוּפַהּ גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נִגְזַר הַעֲלָאָה אַטּוּ אֲכִילָה?
§ The mishna teaches further: And it is prohibited to place any meat with cheese on one table. Rav Yosef said: Conclude from this clause that eating the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind that the prohibition against eating it applies merely by rabbinic law, this would be because the consumption of the meat of birds cooked in milk is itself a rabbinic decree, lest one come to eat the meat of an animal in milk. And would we decree against placing birds together with cheese on one table due to the possibility of consumption, which is itself a decree? The Sages do not enact one decree to prevent the violation of another decree.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּלָא גָּזְרִינַן גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה? דִּתְנַן: חַלַּת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not issue one rabbinic decree to prevent violation of another rabbinic decree? The source is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 4:8): Ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, which must be eaten by a priest,
נֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְנִיתֶּנֶת לְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה.
may be eaten with a non-priest present at the same table. The Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting this lest the non-priest partake of the ḥalla, as the separation of ḥalla outside of Eretz Yisrael is itself a rabbinic decree. This proves that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree. And similarly, ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael may be given to any priest that one wishes, even an uneducated priest who would not guard its state of ritual purity. This is in contrast to ḥalla from Eretz Yisrael, which may be given only to priests who observe the halakhot of ritual purity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן חַלַּת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בָּאָרֶץ, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם חַלַּת הָאָרֶץ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְלָא גָּזְרִינַן – אִיכָּא לְמִשְׁמָע מִינַּהּ.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, your inference would be valid if the mishna in tractate Ḥalla had taught us this with regard to ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that had been brought into Eretz Yisrael. As in that case, there could be reason to decree against eating it while a non-priest is at the same table, despite the fact that the non-priest eating it is prohibited only by rabbinic law, due to the concern that one might come to eat ḥalla from Eretz Yisrael, which is prohibited to the non-priest by Torah law, at the same table as a non-priest; and yet we do not decree against this practice. If so, there would be grounds to learn from this mishna that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree.
אֶלָּא חוּצָה לְאָרֶץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר הוּא. אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי שָׁרֵית לֵיהּ לְאַסּוֹקֵי עוֹף וּגְבִינָה, אָתֵי לְאַסּוֹקֵי בָּשָׂר וּגְבִינָה, וּמֵיכַל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
But the mishna actually teaches this halakha with regard to ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that remains there. It therefore proves nothing about compound decrees, as it can be claimed that the practice is permitted only because there is no reason to decree. Since by Torah law the obligation of ḥalla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, there is no chance that such behavior will lead to transgression of Torah law. But here, if you permit one to place the meat of birds and cheese on the same table, some might come to place the meat of domesticated animals and cheese on a single table and to eat this meat cooked in milk, thereby transgressing a prohibition by Torah law.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: סוֹף סוֹף צוֹנֵן בְּצוֹנֵן הוּא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה בְּאִילְפָּס רוֹתֵחַ.
Rav Sheshet objects to the premise of Rav Yosef’s inference: Even if one were to posit that the meat of birds in milk is prohibited by Torah law, ultimately this is still a decree issued due to another decree, as it is a case of cold food in another cold food, consumption of which is itself prohibited by rabbinic law. Abaye said: It is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a boiling stewpot, which is a manner of cooking and therefore prohibited by Torah law.
סוֹף סוֹף, כְּלִי שֵׁנִי הוּא, וּכְלִי שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ מְבַשֵּׁל! אֶלָּא גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה בְּאִילְפָּס רִאשׁוֹן.
The Gemara counters: Ultimately, even a stewpot is only a secondary vessel, i.e., not the vessel that was on the fire, and as a rule, a secondary vessel does not cook. Rather, one must say that it is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a stewpot that is a primary vessel, i.e., that was on the fire. This is certainly cooking meat in milk, and it is prohibited by Torah law.
מַתְנִי׳ הָעוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא עוֹלֶה וְלֹא נֶאֱכָל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: זוֹ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
MISHNA: The meat of birds may be placed with cheese on one table but may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Rabbi Yosei said: This is one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.
בְּאֵיזֶה שׁוּלְחָן אָמְרוּ? בְּשׁוּלְחָן שֶׁאוֹכֵל עָלָיו, אֲבָל בְּשׁוּלְחָן שֶׁסּוֹדֵר עָלָיו אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל – נוֹתֵן זֶה בְּצַד זֶה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
The mishna elaborates: With regard to which table are these halakhot stated? It is with regard to a table upon which one eats. But on a table upon which one prepares the cooked food, one may place this meat alongside that cheese or vice versa, and need not be concerned that perhaps they will be mixed and one will come to eat them together.
גְּמָ׳ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? וְכִי תֵּימָא: אֲכִילָה גּוּפַהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: בְּהַעֲלָאָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, בַּאֲכִילָה לָא פְּלִיגִי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲכִילָה גּוּפַהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
GEMARA: The Gemara challenges: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to that of the first tanna. And if you would say that there is a difference between them with regard to the permissibility of eating itself, as the first tanna says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to placing meat of birds with cheese on one table, which indicates that with regard to eating they do not disagree, and Rabbi Yosei said in response to this that they also disagree with regard to the permissibility of eating meat of birds in milk, and this is itself one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, one can refute this claim.
וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְזוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן – עוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא עוֹלֶה וְלֹא נֶאֱכָל!
The refutation is as follows: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says that six matters are included as the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and this is one of them: The meat of birds is placed with cheese on one table, but it may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei agrees that even according to Beit Shammai the meat of birds may not be eaten with cheese.
אֶלָּא, הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן: מַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר דָּבָר בְּשֵׁם אוֹמְרוֹ מֵבִיא גְּאוּלָּה לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּשֵׁם מׇרְדֳּכָי״.
Rather, this is what the mishna teaches us: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei. The identification is important, since whoever reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated with respect to the incident of Bigthan and Teresh: “And Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordecai” (Esther 2:22), and Mordecai was later rewarded for saving the king’s life, paving the way for the miraculous salvation.
תְּנָא אַגְרָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא: עוֹף וּגְבִינָה נֶאֱכָלִין בְּאַפִּיקוֹרַן. הוּא תָנֵי לַהּ, וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: בְּלֹא נְטִילַת יָדַיִם וּבְלֹא קִינּוּחַ הַפֶּה.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the consumption of poultry cooked in milk. The Sage Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely [apikoren], i.e., there is no need to be strict in this matter. The Gemara notes: He, Agra, teaches it and he says it, i.e., explains his statement: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten without washing one’s hands and without wiping the mouth between the consumption of each.
רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי, אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ גְּבִינָה – אֲכַל, אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ בִּשְׂרָא – אֲכַל, וְלָא מְשָׁא יְדֵיהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא תָּאנֵי אַגְרָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא: עוֹף וּגְבִינָה נֶאֱכָלִין בְּאֶפִּיקוֹרֶן, עוֹף וּגְבִינָה – אִין, בָּשָׂר וּגְבִינָה – לָא!
The Gemara relates: Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. They brought him cheese, and he ate it. Next they brought him meat, and he ate it without first washing his hands. The members of Rav Ashi’s household said to him: But didn’t Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, teach only that the meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely? One can infer that with regard to the meat of birds and cheese, yes, one may eat them without washing one’s hands in between, but with regard to the meat of domesticated animals and cheese, no, one may not.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּלֵילְיָא, אֲבָל בִּימָמָא הָא חָזֵינָא.
Rav Yitzḥak said to them: This statement of Agra applies only if one eats them at night, as one cannot see whether some of the food of the previous dish still remains on his hands, and he must therefore wash them. But if one eats by day, I can see that no food remains on his hands, and consequently there is no need to wash them.
תַּנְיָא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַנֵּחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מֵדִיחַ. מַאי ״מְקַנֵּחַ״ וּמַאי ״מֵדִיחַ״?
It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: Between the consumption of meat and milk one must wipe out his mouth, and Beit Hillel say that he must rinse his mouth. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word: Wipe [mekane’aḥ], and what is the meaning of the word: Rinse [mediaḥ]?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
See video
Raanana, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Chullin 104
הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר מוּתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים.
And one who takes a vow that meat is prohibited to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers.
גְּמָ׳ הָא עוֹף אָסוּר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָאָמַר: חַיָּה וָעוֹף אֵינוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
GEMARA: Since the mishna does not distinguish between the meat of animals and that of birds, it may consequently be inferred that the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law, just like the meat of animals. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t he say that the prohibition of the meat of undomesticated animals and birds cooked in milk is not by Torah law?
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר – מוּתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים, הָא עוֹף אָסוּר, אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: כֹּל מִילֵּי דְּמִימְּלִיךְ עֲלֵיהּ שָׁלִיחַ – בַּר מִינֵיהּ הוּא.
The Gemara continues: But say the latter clause of the mishna: One who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is permitted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers. It may consequently be inferred that it is prohibited for him to eat birds. If so, here we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Anything about which an agent sent to purchase a given item would inquire, being unsure whether it qualifies as that type of item, is considered its type.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיָּרָק, מוּתָּר בַּדִּלּוּעִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וַהֲלֹא אוֹמֵר אָדָם לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״קַח לָנוּ יָרָק״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא דִּלּוּעִין״!
As it is taught in a mishna (Nedarim 54a): One who takes a vow that vegetables are forbidden to him is permitted to eat gourds, as people do not typically consider gourds a type of vegetable, but Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: But it is a common occurrence that a person says to his agent: Purchase vegetables for us, and the agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns and says: I found only gourds. This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.
אָמַר לָהֶן: כֵּן הַדָּבָר, כְּלוּם אוֹמֵר ״לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא קִטְנִית״?! אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּלּוּעִין בִּכְלַל יָרָק, וְאֵין קִטְנִית בִּכְלַל יָרָק. רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!
Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves that my opinion is correct. Does the agent return and say: I found only legumes? Rather, it is evident that gourds are included in the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vegetables, and therefore, the agent explains that he found only gourds, and asks whether he should purchase them. But legumes are not included in the category of vegetables, and that is why an agent would not even ask about them. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva should also hold that one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him is prohibited from eating birds. And if so, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי הִיא, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְתַנָּאֵי, בִּנְדָרִים סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בְּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן.
Rav Yosef said: That is not difficult. The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna according to the opinions of different tanna’im. In the latter clause, with regard to vows, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas in the first clause, with regard to meat cooked in milk, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הַבָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב, מֵהֶן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וּמֵהֶן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים, שֶׁאֵינָם לֹא מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְלֹא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
Rav Ashi said a different explanation: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as indicated by the latter clause, concerning vows. And as for the first part of the mishna, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to cook any meat in milk, some types of meat by Torah law, i.e., that of domesticated animals, and some types of meat by rabbinic law, i.e., that of undomesticated animals and birds. This prohibition applies to all types of meat except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, which are not prohibited, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law.
וְאָסוּר לְהַעֲלוֹת [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּשַׂר עוֹף בְּחָלָב דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן – אֲכִילָה גּוּפַהּ גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נִגְזַר הַעֲלָאָה אַטּוּ אֲכִילָה?
§ The mishna teaches further: And it is prohibited to place any meat with cheese on one table. Rav Yosef said: Conclude from this clause that eating the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohibited by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind that the prohibition against eating it applies merely by rabbinic law, this would be because the consumption of the meat of birds cooked in milk is itself a rabbinic decree, lest one come to eat the meat of an animal in milk. And would we decree against placing birds together with cheese on one table due to the possibility of consumption, which is itself a decree? The Sages do not enact one decree to prevent the violation of another decree.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּלָא גָּזְרִינַן גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה? דִּתְנַן: חַלַּת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not issue one rabbinic decree to prevent violation of another rabbinic decree? The source is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 4:8): Ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, which must be eaten by a priest,
נֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְנִיתֶּנֶת לְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה.
may be eaten with a non-priest present at the same table. The Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting this lest the non-priest partake of the ḥalla, as the separation of ḥalla outside of Eretz Yisrael is itself a rabbinic decree. This proves that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree. And similarly, ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael may be given to any priest that one wishes, even an uneducated priest who would not guard its state of ritual purity. This is in contrast to ḥalla from Eretz Yisrael, which may be given only to priests who observe the halakhot of ritual purity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן חַלַּת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בָּאָרֶץ, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם חַלַּת הָאָרֶץ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְלָא גָּזְרִינַן – אִיכָּא לְמִשְׁמָע מִינַּהּ.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, your inference would be valid if the mishna in tractate Ḥalla had taught us this with regard to ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that had been brought into Eretz Yisrael. As in that case, there could be reason to decree against eating it while a non-priest is at the same table, despite the fact that the non-priest eating it is prohibited only by rabbinic law, due to the concern that one might come to eat ḥalla from Eretz Yisrael, which is prohibited to the non-priest by Torah law, at the same table as a non-priest; and yet we do not decree against this practice. If so, there would be grounds to learn from this mishna that the Sages do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree.
אֶלָּא חוּצָה לְאָרֶץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר הוּא. אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי שָׁרֵית לֵיהּ לְאַסּוֹקֵי עוֹף וּגְבִינָה, אָתֵי לְאַסּוֹקֵי בָּשָׂר וּגְבִינָה, וּמֵיכַל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
But the mishna actually teaches this halakha with regard to ḥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael that remains there. It therefore proves nothing about compound decrees, as it can be claimed that the practice is permitted only because there is no reason to decree. Since by Torah law the obligation of ḥalla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, there is no chance that such behavior will lead to transgression of Torah law. But here, if you permit one to place the meat of birds and cheese on the same table, some might come to place the meat of domesticated animals and cheese on a single table and to eat this meat cooked in milk, thereby transgressing a prohibition by Torah law.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: סוֹף סוֹף צוֹנֵן בְּצוֹנֵן הוּא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה בְּאִילְפָּס רוֹתֵחַ.
Rav Sheshet objects to the premise of Rav Yosef’s inference: Even if one were to posit that the meat of birds in milk is prohibited by Torah law, ultimately this is still a decree issued due to another decree, as it is a case of cold food in another cold food, consumption of which is itself prohibited by rabbinic law. Abaye said: It is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a boiling stewpot, which is a manner of cooking and therefore prohibited by Torah law.
סוֹף סוֹף, כְּלִי שֵׁנִי הוּא, וּכְלִי שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ מְבַשֵּׁל! אֶלָּא גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה בְּאִילְפָּס רִאשׁוֹן.
The Gemara counters: Ultimately, even a stewpot is only a secondary vessel, i.e., not the vessel that was on the fire, and as a rule, a secondary vessel does not cook. Rather, one must say that it is a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a stewpot that is a primary vessel, i.e., that was on the fire. This is certainly cooking meat in milk, and it is prohibited by Torah law.
מַתְנִי׳ הָעוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא עוֹלֶה וְלֹא נֶאֱכָל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: זוֹ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
MISHNA: The meat of birds may be placed with cheese on one table but may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Rabbi Yosei said: This is one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.
בְּאֵיזֶה שׁוּלְחָן אָמְרוּ? בְּשׁוּלְחָן שֶׁאוֹכֵל עָלָיו, אֲבָל בְּשׁוּלְחָן שֶׁסּוֹדֵר עָלָיו אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל – נוֹתֵן זֶה בְּצַד זֶה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
The mishna elaborates: With regard to which table are these halakhot stated? It is with regard to a table upon which one eats. But on a table upon which one prepares the cooked food, one may place this meat alongside that cheese or vice versa, and need not be concerned that perhaps they will be mixed and one will come to eat them together.
גְּמָ׳ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? וְכִי תֵּימָא: אֲכִילָה גּוּפַהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: בְּהַעֲלָאָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, בַּאֲכִילָה לָא פְּלִיגִי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲכִילָה גּוּפַהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
GEMARA: The Gemara challenges: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to that of the first tanna. And if you would say that there is a difference between them with regard to the permissibility of eating itself, as the first tanna says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to placing meat of birds with cheese on one table, which indicates that with regard to eating they do not disagree, and Rabbi Yosei said in response to this that they also disagree with regard to the permissibility of eating meat of birds in milk, and this is itself one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, one can refute this claim.
וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְזוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן – עוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא עוֹלֶה וְלֹא נֶאֱכָל!
The refutation is as follows: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says that six matters are included as the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and this is one of them: The meat of birds is placed with cheese on one table, but it may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei agrees that even according to Beit Shammai the meat of birds may not be eaten with cheese.
אֶלָּא, הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן: מַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר דָּבָר בְּשֵׁם אוֹמְרוֹ מֵבִיא גְּאוּלָּה לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּשֵׁם מׇרְדֳּכָי״.
Rather, this is what the mishna teaches us: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei. The identification is important, since whoever reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated with respect to the incident of Bigthan and Teresh: “And Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordecai” (Esther 2:22), and Mordecai was later rewarded for saving the king’s life, paving the way for the miraculous salvation.
תְּנָא אַגְרָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא: עוֹף וּגְבִינָה נֶאֱכָלִין בְּאַפִּיקוֹרַן. הוּא תָנֵי לַהּ, וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: בְּלֹא נְטִילַת יָדַיִם וּבְלֹא קִינּוּחַ הַפֶּה.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the consumption of poultry cooked in milk. The Sage Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely [apikoren], i.e., there is no need to be strict in this matter. The Gemara notes: He, Agra, teaches it and he says it, i.e., explains his statement: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten without washing one’s hands and without wiping the mouth between the consumption of each.
רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי, אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ גְּבִינָה – אֲכַל, אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ בִּשְׂרָא – אֲכַל, וְלָא מְשָׁא יְדֵיהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא תָּאנֵי אַגְרָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא: עוֹף וּגְבִינָה נֶאֱכָלִין בְּאֶפִּיקוֹרֶן, עוֹף וּגְבִינָה – אִין, בָּשָׂר וּגְבִינָה – לָא!
The Gemara relates: Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. They brought him cheese, and he ate it. Next they brought him meat, and he ate it without first washing his hands. The members of Rav Ashi’s household said to him: But didn’t Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, teach only that the meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely? One can infer that with regard to the meat of birds and cheese, yes, one may eat them without washing one’s hands in between, but with regard to the meat of domesticated animals and cheese, no, one may not.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּלֵילְיָא, אֲבָל בִּימָמָא הָא חָזֵינָא.
Rav Yitzḥak said to them: This statement of Agra applies only if one eats them at night, as one cannot see whether some of the food of the previous dish still remains on his hands, and he must therefore wash them. But if one eats by day, I can see that no food remains on his hands, and consequently there is no need to wash them.
תַּנְיָא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַנֵּחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מֵדִיחַ. מַאי ״מְקַנֵּחַ״ וּמַאי ״מֵדִיחַ״?
It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: Between the consumption of meat and milk one must wipe out his mouth, and Beit Hillel say that he must rinse his mouth. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word: Wipe [mekane’aḥ], and what is the meaning of the word: Rinse [mediaḥ]?
