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 Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
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 Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Chullin 23
כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי נִרְבָּע וְנֶעֱבָד.
The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הַשְׁחָתָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ״;
As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: “Because their corruption [moshḥatam] is in them, there is a blemish in them” (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hashḥata] is stated, it is referring to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship. The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption is referring to matters of licentiousness, as it is written: “For all flesh had corrupted [hishḥit] their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12); the word “way” alludes to sexual intercourse.
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּן תַּשְׁחִתוּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָכֶם פֶּסֶל״, כֹּל שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – אֵין דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ. וְהָנֵי עוֹפוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְלָא פָּסֵיל בְּהוּ מוּמָא, דְּאָמַר מָר: תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת, אֵימָא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי לָא לִפְסוֹל בְּהוּ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly [tashḥitun], and make you a graven image” (Deuteronomy 4:16); one might have thought: Any type of offering that a blemish disqualifies, matters of licentiousness and idol worship disqualify it, and any type of offering that a blemish does not disqualify, matters of licentiousness and idol worship do not disqualify it. And with regard to these birds, since blemishes do not disqualify them, as the Master says: There is a requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in a sacrificial animal and there is no requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in sacrificial birds, say that matters of licentiousness and idol worship should also not disqualify the birds. Therefore, the tanna teaches us from the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה מִן הָאַיִל אוֹ מִן הַכֶּבֶשׂ״, וְהֵבִיא פַּלְגָּס, מַהוּ?
§ Apropos the discussion of the beginning of the yellowing of the neck plumage, the Gemara cites another matter where there is uncertainty as to whether an animal of a particular age is of uncertain status or an entity in and of itself. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal burnt offering of a ram, which is a sheep that is at least thirteen months old, or of a lamb, which is up to one year old, and he brought a palges, which is between one year and thirteen months old, what is the halakha?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּאָמַר בְּרִיָּה הָוֵי, דִּתְנַן: הִקְרִיבוֹ – מֵבִיא עָלָיו נִסְכֵּי אַיִל, וְאֵין עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִזִּבְחוֹ.
The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do not raise a dilemma, as he says that a palges is an entity in and of itself, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): If one was obligated to bring a ram or lamb as an offering, and he sacrificed a palges, he brings with it the meal offering and the libations of a ram offering, namely, a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with four log of oil, and a libation of four log of wine, but it does not fulfill his obligation to bring his offering.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אוֹ לָאַיִל״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפַּלְגָּס.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the requirement to bring the meal offering and libations of a ram offering is derived from the verse in the portion of the libations: “Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a hin of oil” (Numbers 15:6); that serves to include the palges, whose meal offering and libations are like that of a ram. Based on that derivation, there is no uncertainty with regard to the status of the palges.
כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּבַר פְּדָא,
When you raise a dilemma, it is according to the opinion of bar Padda, who holds that it is a case of uncertainty,
דְּאָמַר מַיְיתֵי וּמַתְנֵי.
as he says that one who sacrifices a palges brings the meal offering and the libation of a ram and stipulates: If it is a ram, this is its meal offering and libation, and if it is a lamb, whose meal offering and libation are less than that of the ram, then the remainder will be a gift offering.
מִי אָמְרִינַן: אַיִל וָכֶבֶשׂ מַתְנֵה, בִּבְרִיָּה לָא מַתְנֵה, אוֹ דִלְמָא בִּבְרִיָּה נָמֵי מַתְנֵה, דְּאָמַר: אִי בְּרִיָּה הָוֵה – לֶיהֱוֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ נְדָבָה? תֵּיקוּ.
The dilemma is: Do we say that he stipulates only if it is a ram or if it is a lamb, but he does not stipulate the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, as bar Padda does not accept such a possibility? If so, bar Padda holds that one who vowed to bring a ram or a lamb can fulfill his obligation by bringing a palges and stipulating accordingly. Or perhaps bar Padda holds that he also stipulates the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, and in that case he says: If it is an entity, let the entire libation be a gift offering. According to that possibility, even according to bar Padda, if one vowed to bring a ram or a lamb and brought a palges, due to the uncertainty he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה מִן הֶחָמֵץ אוֹ מִן הַמַּצָּה״, וְהֵבִיא שִׂיאוּר, מַהוּ?
§ The concept of an entity in and of itself is mentioned with regard to a thanks offering, with which one must bring twenty tenths of an ephah for the accompanying loaves: Ten tenths of an ephah for matza and ten for leavened bread. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering of leavened bread or of matza, and he brought leavening dough [siur], what is the halakha?
שִׂיאוּר דְּמַאן? אִי שִׂיאוּר דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַצָּה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא.
The Gemara asks: Siur according to whose opinion? If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir, who says that it is dough at the stage when its surface pales, according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not leavened bread at all; it is full-fledged matza and one fulfills his vow to bring matza.
אִי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – חָמֵץ הוּא.
If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is dough at the stage when it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Meir holds that it is full-fledged leavened bread, and one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.
וְאִי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִדְּלָקֵי עֲלֵיהּ – חָמֵץ הוּא.
And if the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, although one is not liable to receive karet for eating it on Passover, from the halakha that one is flogged for eating it on Passover it is clearly leavened bread, with which one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.
אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאי? סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי, וְנָפֵיק מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּרִיָּה הוּא, וְלָא נָפֵיק?
Rather, the dilemma is with regard to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that although one is obligated to destroy it before Passover, one is not liable to receive lashes for eating it on Passover. It is unclear whether this is due to uncertainty or due to siur having a unique status. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira raises the dilemma: What is its status? Is it a case of uncertainty, and consequently one who vowed to bring loaves of matza or leavened bread and brings siur fulfills his obligation whichever way you look at it, because if it is matza, he fulfills his vow to bring matza, and if it is leavened bread, he fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread? Or perhaps siur is an entity in and of itself, neither matza nor leavened bread, and he does not fulfill his obligation at all.
וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״ – מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּתוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ!
The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that siur? But doesn’t Rav Huna say that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, twenty tenths of an ephah, ten for matza and ten for leavened bread? And since he is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, but this man does not know whether the siur that he brought is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that he brought is matza so that he will bring leavened bread, so how can he fulfill his vow? In any case, the only way that he could fulfill his vow would be to bring an additional twenty tenths of an ephah.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי חַלָּה לִפְטוֹר תּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״.
The Gemara answers: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaf element of the thanks offering to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so from the obligation to bring loaves, as in that case he can fulfill his vow because he did not obligate himself to bring a thanks offering.
סוֹף סוֹף הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא, אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלָא אָמַר ״לִפְטוֹר״, מִיפָּק גַּבְרָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ נָפֵיק אוֹ לָא נָפֵיק? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara objects: Ultimately, this man who brings the thanks offering does not know whether the siur that the other contributed is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that the other contributed is matza so that he will bring leavened bread. Therefore, the man bringing the thanks offering must bring both matza and unleavened bread in addition to the siur, and the one who vowed has then not exempted him from any obligation by contributing the siur. The Gemara responds: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of leavened bread or matza for the thanks offering of so-and-so, but did not say: To exempt his thanks offering. In that case, he is not obligated to fulfill the other’s obligation, and the dilemma is: Does the man fulfill his vow by bringing the loaves of siur or does he not fulfill his vow? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.
MISHNA: That which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בַּעֲרִיפָה פְּסוּלָה; עֶגְלָה בַּעֲרִיפָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בִּשְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה; (נמצאת) [נִמְצָא] כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: With regard to the red heifer, with slaughter it is fit; with breaking the neck it is unfit. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, with breaking the neck it is fit; with slaughter it is unfit. Consequently, that which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.
וּתְהֵא פָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עֶגְלָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה, פָּרָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אֵינָהּ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה?
The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that the red heifer is fit with breaking the neck by means of an a fortiori inference: If a heifer whose neck is broken, which is not rendered fit with slaughter, is rendered fit with breaking the neck, then with regard to a red heifer, which is rendered fit with slaughter, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?
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.
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, 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
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, 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
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Chullin 23
כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי נִרְבָּע וְנֶעֱבָד.
The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הַשְׁחָתָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ״;
As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: “Because their corruption [moshḥatam] is in them, there is a blemish in them” (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hashḥata] is stated, it is referring to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship. The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption is referring to matters of licentiousness, as it is written: “For all flesh had corrupted [hishḥit] their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12); the word “way” alludes to sexual intercourse.
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּן תַּשְׁחִתוּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָכֶם פֶּסֶל״, כֹּל שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – אֵין דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ. וְהָנֵי עוֹפוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְלָא פָּסֵיל בְּהוּ מוּמָא, דְּאָמַר מָר: תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת, אֵימָא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי לָא לִפְסוֹל בְּהוּ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly [tashḥitun], and make you a graven image” (Deuteronomy 4:16); one might have thought: Any type of offering that a blemish disqualifies, matters of licentiousness and idol worship disqualify it, and any type of offering that a blemish does not disqualify, matters of licentiousness and idol worship do not disqualify it. And with regard to these birds, since blemishes do not disqualify them, as the Master says: There is a requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in a sacrificial animal and there is no requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in sacrificial birds, say that matters of licentiousness and idol worship should also not disqualify the birds. Therefore, the tanna teaches us from the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה מִן הָאַיִל אוֹ מִן הַכֶּבֶשׂ״, וְהֵבִיא פַּלְגָּס, מַהוּ?
§ Apropos the discussion of the beginning of the yellowing of the neck plumage, the Gemara cites another matter where there is uncertainty as to whether an animal of a particular age is of uncertain status or an entity in and of itself. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal burnt offering of a ram, which is a sheep that is at least thirteen months old, or of a lamb, which is up to one year old, and he brought a palges, which is between one year and thirteen months old, what is the halakha?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּאָמַר בְּרִיָּה הָוֵי, דִּתְנַן: הִקְרִיבוֹ – מֵבִיא עָלָיו נִסְכֵּי אַיִל, וְאֵין עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִזִּבְחוֹ.
The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do not raise a dilemma, as he says that a palges is an entity in and of itself, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): If one was obligated to bring a ram or lamb as an offering, and he sacrificed a palges, he brings with it the meal offering and the libations of a ram offering, namely, a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with four log of oil, and a libation of four log of wine, but it does not fulfill his obligation to bring his offering.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אוֹ לָאַיִל״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפַּלְגָּס.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the requirement to bring the meal offering and libations of a ram offering is derived from the verse in the portion of the libations: “Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a hin of oil” (Numbers 15:6); that serves to include the palges, whose meal offering and libations are like that of a ram. Based on that derivation, there is no uncertainty with regard to the status of the palges.
כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּבַר פְּדָא,
When you raise a dilemma, it is according to the opinion of bar Padda, who holds that it is a case of uncertainty,
דְּאָמַר מַיְיתֵי וּמַתְנֵי.
as he says that one who sacrifices a palges brings the meal offering and the libation of a ram and stipulates: If it is a ram, this is its meal offering and libation, and if it is a lamb, whose meal offering and libation are less than that of the ram, then the remainder will be a gift offering.
מִי אָמְרִינַן: אַיִל וָכֶבֶשׂ מַתְנֵה, בִּבְרִיָּה לָא מַתְנֵה, אוֹ דִלְמָא בִּבְרִיָּה נָמֵי מַתְנֵה, דְּאָמַר: אִי בְּרִיָּה הָוֵה – לֶיהֱוֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ נְדָבָה? תֵּיקוּ.
The dilemma is: Do we say that he stipulates only if it is a ram or if it is a lamb, but he does not stipulate the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, as bar Padda does not accept such a possibility? If so, bar Padda holds that one who vowed to bring a ram or a lamb can fulfill his obligation by bringing a palges and stipulating accordingly. Or perhaps bar Padda holds that he also stipulates the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, and in that case he says: If it is an entity, let the entire libation be a gift offering. According to that possibility, even according to bar Padda, if one vowed to bring a ram or a lamb and brought a palges, due to the uncertainty he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה מִן הֶחָמֵץ אוֹ מִן הַמַּצָּה״, וְהֵבִיא שִׂיאוּר, מַהוּ?
§ The concept of an entity in and of itself is mentioned with regard to a thanks offering, with which one must bring twenty tenths of an ephah for the accompanying loaves: Ten tenths of an ephah for matza and ten for leavened bread. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering of leavened bread or of matza, and he brought leavening dough [siur], what is the halakha?
שִׂיאוּר דְּמַאן? אִי שִׂיאוּר דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַצָּה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא.
The Gemara asks: Siur according to whose opinion? If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir, who says that it is dough at the stage when its surface pales, according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not leavened bread at all; it is full-fledged matza and one fulfills his vow to bring matza.
אִי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – חָמֵץ הוּא.
If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is dough at the stage when it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Meir holds that it is full-fledged leavened bread, and one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.
וְאִי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִדְּלָקֵי עֲלֵיהּ – חָמֵץ הוּא.
And if the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, although one is not liable to receive karet for eating it on Passover, from the halakha that one is flogged for eating it on Passover it is clearly leavened bread, with which one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.
אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאי? סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי, וְנָפֵיק מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּרִיָּה הוּא, וְלָא נָפֵיק?
Rather, the dilemma is with regard to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that although one is obligated to destroy it before Passover, one is not liable to receive lashes for eating it on Passover. It is unclear whether this is due to uncertainty or due to siur having a unique status. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira raises the dilemma: What is its status? Is it a case of uncertainty, and consequently one who vowed to bring loaves of matza or leavened bread and brings siur fulfills his obligation whichever way you look at it, because if it is matza, he fulfills his vow to bring matza, and if it is leavened bread, he fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread? Or perhaps siur is an entity in and of itself, neither matza nor leavened bread, and he does not fulfill his obligation at all.
וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״ – מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּתוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ!
The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that siur? But doesn’t Rav Huna say that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, twenty tenths of an ephah, ten for matza and ten for leavened bread? And since he is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, but this man does not know whether the siur that he brought is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that he brought is matza so that he will bring leavened bread, so how can he fulfill his vow? In any case, the only way that he could fulfill his vow would be to bring an additional twenty tenths of an ephah.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי חַלָּה לִפְטוֹר תּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״.
The Gemara answers: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaf element of the thanks offering to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so from the obligation to bring loaves, as in that case he can fulfill his vow because he did not obligate himself to bring a thanks offering.
סוֹף סוֹף הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא, אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלָא אָמַר ״לִפְטוֹר״, מִיפָּק גַּבְרָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ נָפֵיק אוֹ לָא נָפֵיק? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara objects: Ultimately, this man who brings the thanks offering does not know whether the siur that the other contributed is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that the other contributed is matza so that he will bring leavened bread. Therefore, the man bringing the thanks offering must bring both matza and unleavened bread in addition to the siur, and the one who vowed has then not exempted him from any obligation by contributing the siur. The Gemara responds: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of leavened bread or matza for the thanks offering of so-and-so, but did not say: To exempt his thanks offering. In that case, he is not obligated to fulfill the other’s obligation, and the dilemma is: Does the man fulfill his vow by bringing the loaves of siur or does he not fulfill his vow? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.
MISHNA: That which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בַּעֲרִיפָה פְּסוּלָה; עֶגְלָה בַּעֲרִיפָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בִּשְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה; (נמצאת) [נִמְצָא] כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: With regard to the red heifer, with slaughter it is fit; with breaking the neck it is unfit. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, with breaking the neck it is fit; with slaughter it is unfit. Consequently, that which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.
וּתְהֵא פָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עֶגְלָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה, פָּרָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אֵינָהּ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה?
The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that the red heifer is fit with breaking the neck by means of an a fortiori inference: If a heifer whose neck is broken, which is not rendered fit with slaughter, is rendered fit with breaking the neck, then with regard to a red heifer, which is rendered fit with slaughter, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?
