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 75
בִּשְׁחִיטָה יַבִּישְׁתָּא, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the slaughter of the mother was dry, i.e., where no blood was emitted, and therefore, even the mother was not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. And the baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the flesh of a slaughtered animal is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by virtue of the fact that it is permitted for consumption, regardless of whether or not it came into contact with blood or other liquids.
מַאן תַּנָּא עָבַר בְּנָהָר הוּכְשַׁר, הָלַךְ לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת נִטְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִים, וְצָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חַי, וְכׇל שֶׁהוּא חַי אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this baraita: If a ben pekua grew up and passed through a river, it was thereby rendered susceptible to impurity, and therefore if it went from there to a cemetery, it is rendered impure? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: The flesh of a ben pekua can become impure with the ritual impurity of food, but it first needs to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by coming in contact with liquid. But the Rabbis say: It cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food because it is alive, and any live animal cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food, even if it is permitted for consumption.
וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.
The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Beit Shammai said the same thing, i.e., they both hold that even a live animal can become impure with the ritual impurity of food.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, דִּתְנַן: דָּגִים, מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁיִּצּוֹדוּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁיָּמוּתוּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לִחְיוֹת.
The opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is that which we stated in the baraita. The opinion of Beit Shammai is as we learned in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): With regard to fish, from when are they susceptible to impurity as food? Beit Shammai say: From when they are caught in a trap, as at this point they are considered food, since they do not require slaughter. And Beit Hillel say: From when they die. Rabbi Akiva says: From when they are no longer able to live.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דָּג מְקַרְטֵעַ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara analyzes that mishna: What is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Beit Hillel? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The difference between them is the case of a convulsing fish. Rabbi Akiva holds that such a fish can already become ritually impure, while Beit Hillel require it to have actually died.
בָּעֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: נוֹלְדוּ בְּדָגִים סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה, מַהוּ? תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, וְתִיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה.
Rav Ḥisda raises a dilemma: According to Rabbi Akiva, if symptoms of a tereifa developed in a fish, e.g., a perforation in the intestines, which will certainly result in the animal’s death (see 42a), what is the halakha? Can it already be rendered ritually impure as if it were now dead? The Gemara clarifies: One can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that an animal that is a tereifa can live, i.e., it will not necessarily die within a year, and one can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, but will die within a year.
תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, בְּהֵמָה הוּא דִּנְפִישָׁא חַיּוּתַהּ, אֲבָל דָּגִים דְּלָא נְפִישָׁא חַיּוּתַיְיהוּ – לָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּהֵמָה דְּיֵשׁ בְּמִינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל דָּגִים דְּאֵין בְּמִינָן שְׁחִיטָה – אֵימָא לָא. תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara elaborates: One can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that a tereifa can live, as perhaps that opinion is limited to an animal, as an animal has a strong life force, and it could live despite such symptoms. But with regard to a fish, whose life force is not strong, all would agree that it will not survive. Or perhaps, even according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, it is possible that this matter, that a tereifa is regarded as dead, applies only to an animal, as the requirement to slaughter it in order to permit it for consumption applies to this type of creature, i.e., to animals, and so to invalidate its slaughter, the Torah classifies an animal that is a tereifa as though it is dead. But with regard to fish, where the requirement to slaughter it in order to permit it does not apply to this type of creature, I would say that a fish with symptoms of a tereifa is not considered as though it were dead. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
הֵטִילָה נֵפֶל, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב חַיָּה.
§ The Rabbis state in the mishna that a nine-month-old fetus is considered to be part of its mother. Therefore, when the mother is slaughtered, the entire fetus is permitted, including all its fats. The Gemara asks: If an animal expelled a non-viable newborn, what is the status of the fetus’s fat? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, and one is liable to receive karet if he eats it. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, which is not prohibited.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה – אַוֵּירָא גָּרֵים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב חַיָּה – חֳדָשִׁים גָּרְמִי.
The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, as he maintains that the exit of a fetus through the airspace of the opening of the womb causes it to be regarded as an independent animal. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, as he maintains that the completion of the months of gestation causes a fetus to be regarded as an independent animal, and this stillborn did not reach this stage.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֹא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו – לָא כְּלוּם הוּא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – הֵיכָא דְּהוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה, וְתָלַשׁ חֵלֶב שֶׁל בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי וְאָכַל. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה, חֳדָשִׁים גָּרְמִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב חַיָּה, חֳדָשִׁים וְאַוֵּירָא גָּרְמִי.
Some say that there is another explanation of this dispute: In any case where its months of gestation were not completed, everyone agrees that it is nothing, i.e., it is not an independent animal and its fat is not included in the prohibition of forbidden fats. When they disagree it is with regard to a case where one inserted his hand into the womb of an animal and removed the fat of a live nine-month-old fetus and ate it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, as the months of gestation alone cause it to be regarded as an independent animal. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, as it is the months of gestation and its exit through the airspace of the opening of the womb that together cause it to be regarded as an independent animal. Since this fetus was not yet born, it is not subject to the prohibition of forbidden fats.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מָה חֵלֶב וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּאָשָׁם – מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל, אַף כֹּל – מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita that discusses the sacrifice of the fat surrounding a fetus inside a pregnant animal: Just as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice the fat and two kidneys (see Leviticus 7:3–4), which is stated with regard to a guilt offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice because a guilt offering is always a male, so too, with regard to every offering, even in the case of a female offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, אַמַּאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טַעְמָא דִּידִי נָמֵי מֵהָכָא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains his objection: Granted, according to my opinion that the fat of a fetus is forbidden for consumption, this is why a verse was necessary to exclude it from being sacrificed on the altar. But according to your opinion that it is not forbidden, why is a verse necessary to exclude it? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: My explanation is also derived from the verse here, which serves as the source for the fact that the fat of a fetus is not forbidden.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָה חֵלֶב וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּאָשָׁם מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל, אַף כֹּל – מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל.
And some say that there is another version of this objection in which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from that baraita: Just as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice “the fat and two kidneys” that is stated with regard to a guilt offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice, so too, with regard to every offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מַיעֲטֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ – לִיקְרַב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמְּחוּסַּר זְמַן.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains the objection: Granted, according to my opinion that the fat of the fetus is not prohibited like the other fats, it is due to that reason that the Merciful One excludes it from the requirement of being sacrificed. But according to your opinion, that the fat of the fetus is considered one of the forbidden fats, let it also be sacrificed. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The reason that this fat is not sacrificed is just as it is with regard to an offering whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., it is not yet seven days old, which may not be sacrificed (see Leviticus 22:27) despite being of a species of animal that may be sacrificed. Similarly, with regard to the fat of the fetus, despite being included among those fats that are prohibited, it may not be sacrificed.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹסֵר – מַתִּיר, לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר – אוֹסֵר.
§ The Gemara returns to the dispute in the mishna with regard to a nine-month-old fetus found alive inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir holds that the fetus itself must be slaughtered in order to permit it, whereas the Rabbis hold that it is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. Rabbi Ami said: With regard to one who slaughtered a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, who prohibits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal until it is slaughtered itself, if it is found inside a tereifa he permits the fetus once it is slaughtered itself. But according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, referred to as the Rabbis in the mishna, who permits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, if it is found inside a tereifa he prohibits it, even if it is slaughtered itself.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר נָמֵי מוּתָּר, אַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין אַכְשַׁר בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.
Rava said: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, he also permits it if it is found inside a tereifa, once the fetus itself is slaughtered. The reason is that the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and gullet of the mother and those of the fetus, with the fetus being permitted by the cutting of either pair.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה, וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי –
Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to one who slaughtered a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus,
טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, וְחַיָּיב בִּזְרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה, וְאִם מֵת – טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.
the fetus requires its own slaughter to permit its consumption, and it is subject to the obligation to give the foreleg and the jaw and the maw to a priest, as is required for a non-sacred animal that is slaughtered. But nevertheless, if it dies, the fact that its mother was slaughtered serves to render it pure with regard to imparting impurity to people through their carrying of it, as it does not impart the impurity of a carcass.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה – כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאִם מֵת טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא – כְּמַאן? כְּרַבָּנַן.
Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: Your ruling is inconsistent. When you say it requires slaughter, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that a live nine-month-old fetus is not permitted by virtue of its mother’s slaughter. But when you say that if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי – טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, וְחַיָּיב בִּזְרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה, וְאִם מֵת – טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא. טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאִם מֵת – טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא, כְּרַבָּנַן.
Rav Ḥisda replied: And according to your reasoning, the same difficulty arises with that which Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughtered an animal that is a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus, it requires its own slaughter, and it is subject to the obligation to give the foreleg and the jaw and the maw to a priest. But nevertheless, if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying. When he says that it requires slaughter, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But when he says that if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, רַבִּי חִיָּיא אִם כְּבָר מְצָאוֹ מֵת קָאָמַר, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא!
Rava responded: That is not difficult, as it is possible that Rabbi Ḥiyya was speaking about if one found that the fetus had already died inside the mother. In such a case, Rabbi Meir concedes that its mother’s slaughter renders it pure, as stated in the mishna. Accordingly, the baraita is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But according to your opinion, that even if it was found alive and died later it is pure from the impurity of a carcass, it is difficult.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְדִידִי נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, אַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִים אַכְשַׁר בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.
Rav Ḥisda said to Rava: According to my opinion also it is not difficult, as I claim that the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and although the slaughter of its mother permits the fetus, its own slaughter can also permit it, as the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter, two of the mother and two of the fetus, the fetus being permitted through the cutting of either pair.
כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב אַסִּי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִישַׁר, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ?
The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, Rav Asi found him sitting and saying this halakha of Rav Ḥisda, i.e., that the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter. Rav Asi said to him: That is correct, and so says Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Zeira asked him: Can I conclude by inference from your statement that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s colleague, disagrees with him?
מִשְׁהָא הֲוָה שָׁהֵי לֵיהּ וְשָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִשְׁתָּא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי וְשָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ.
Rav Asi answered: I do not know, as after Rabbi Yoḥanan made his statement, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was waiting for him to see if he would retract, and he therefore remained silent about whether or not he disagreed. But it is possible that after I left, he disagreed. And some say that Rav Asi said: At that time, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was drinking, and that is why he remained silent. Therefore, I do not know whether or not he disagreed.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ וְכוּ׳. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: הִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if a nine-month-old fetus emerged alive and is now five years old and plowing in the field it does not require slaughter. The Gemara asks: This opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri is identical to that of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis. What difference is there between them? Rav Kahana said: The difference between them is a case where the fetus stood upon the ground. According to the opinion of the first tanna, once the fetus walks on the ground there is a rabbinic decree requiring that it be slaughtered before it is consumed, lest people mistakenly permit other animals without slaughter. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri disagrees and holds that it does not require slaughter.
אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, בֶּן פְּקוּעָה הַבָּא עַל בְּהֵמָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא – הַוָּלָד אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה.
Rav Mesharshiyya said: According to the statement of the one who says that when defining the status of an animal one needs to be concerned with its paternity, if a ben pekua copulated with a full-fledged animal, the offspring has no rectification. Although when the mother and father are each a ben pekua the offspring is permitted without ritual slaughter, if the father is a ben pekua but the mother is not, the offspring is simultaneously defined as requiring slaughter, based on the mother, and being excluded from the requirement for slaughter, based on the father. Therefore, no act of slaughter can permit it.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּקָלוּט בֶּן פְּקוּעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר, מַאי טַעְמָא? כֹּל מִלְּתָא דִּתְמִיהָא מִידְכָּר דְּכִירִי לַהּ אִינָשֵׁי. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּקָלוּט בֶּן קְלוּטָה בֶּן פְּקוּעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר, מַאי טַעְמָא? תְּרֵי תְּמִיהֵי מִידְכָּר דְּכִירִי אִינָשֵׁי.
Abaye says: Everyone, i.e., even the first tanna, who requires the slaughter of a ben pekua that stood upon the ground, agrees with regard to a ben pekua with non-cloven hooves that was found inside a kosher animal, that it is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. What is the reason for this? It is that people remember any bizarre matter, and there is no concern that if it is permitted without slaughter, people will mistakenly permit regular animals without slaughter. Some say that Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to a ben pekua with non-cloven hooves found inside an animal with non-cloven hooves that was itself born to a kosher animal, that the fetus is permitted without slaughter even if it stood on the ground. What is the reason? It is that people remember two bizarre matters.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי מַתִּיר בִּבְנוֹ וּבֶן בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוּא מוּתָּר, וּבְנוֹ אָסוּר.
Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri that a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter even if it stood upon the ground. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri would permit without slaughter the offspring of a ben pekua and the offspring of its offspring, and so on to the end of all future generations. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It, the ben pekua itself, is permitted, but its offspring is prohibited unless it is slaughtered.
אַדָּא בַּר חָבוּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ בֶּן פְּקוּעָה דִּנְפַל דֵּיבָא עֲלֵיהּ, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שַׁחְטֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָאָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי מַתִּיר בִּבְנוֹ וּבֶן בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בְּנוֹ, אֲבָל אִיהוּ לָא!
The Gemara relates: Adda bar Ḥavu had a ben pekua that was attacked by a bear and was about to die. He came before Rav Ashi to inquire what to do. Rav Ashi said to him: Go and slaughter it before it dies so that you can eat it, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that if a ben pekua stood upon the ground it requires slaughter. Adda bar Ḥavu said to Rav Ashi: But doesn’t Ze’eiri say that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri that a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter even if it stood upon the ground, and similarly, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri would permit without slaughter the offspring of a ben pekua and the offspring of its offspring, and so on to the end of all future generations? And even Rabbi Yoḥanan, who disagreed, said his dissenting opinion only with regard to its offspring, but with regard to a ben pekua itself, he did not disagree that it is permitted.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי קָאָמַר.
Rav Ashi said to Adda bar Ḥavu: Rabbi Yoḥanan was speaking according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, i.e., he said that even Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits only a ben pekua itself, but not its offspring. But Rabbi Yoḥanan himself agrees with the first tanna that a ben pekua that stood upon the ground is prohibited without slaughter.
וְהָאָמַר רָבִין בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי בְּמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ – הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ!
Adda bar Ḥavu persisted: But didn’t Ravin bar Ḥanina say that Ulla says that Rabbi Ḥanina says with regard to a different issue: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri; and moreover, not only is the halakha in accordance with his opinion with regard to this matter, but in any place where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא כִּי הָא סְבִירָא לִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי בִּמְסוּכָּן, וּבִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי.
Rav Ashi said to Adda bar Ḥavu: I hold in accordance with this statement of Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Yonatan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in the case of one who is dangerously ill, and in the case of teruma of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], but not in other cases, e.g., in the case of his disagreement with the first tanna concerning a ben pekua.
מְסוּכָּן, דִּתְנַן: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים, הַיּוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְפָרֵשׁ וְהַיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁיָירָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְסוּכָּן.
The Gemara now elaborates on these two cases. The case of one who is dangerously ill is as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 65b): Initially, the Sages would say that in the case of one who is taken out in a neck chain [bekolar] to be executed and who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people who hear should write the document and give it to her. Although there was no explicit instruction to give it to her, this is understood to have been his intention, in order to release her from the obligation to perform levirate marriage or the ritual through which she becomes free of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza]. They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs in a caravan to a distant place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said only: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife.
תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי, דִּתְנַן: תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי שֶׁחָזְרָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּחוֹל שׁוֹאֲלוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹ עַל פִּיו.
The case of teruma of the tithe of demai is as we learned in a mishna (Demai 4:1): With regard to teruma of the tithe of demai, i.e., teruma of the tithe that was separated from the produce of an am ha’aretz, who is suspected of not separating tithes properly, that fell and returned to its original place, becoming mingled with the rest of produce from which it had been separated, Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri says: Even on a weekday one may ask the am ha’aretz whether or not he separated the necessary tithes and then eat based on his statement.
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.
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
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 heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
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 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 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 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 began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
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
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
Phoenix, AZ, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Chullin 75
בִּשְׁחִיטָה יַבִּישְׁתָּא, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the slaughter of the mother was dry, i.e., where no blood was emitted, and therefore, even the mother was not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. And the baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the flesh of a slaughtered animal is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by virtue of the fact that it is permitted for consumption, regardless of whether or not it came into contact with blood or other liquids.
מַאן תַּנָּא עָבַר בְּנָהָר הוּכְשַׁר, הָלַךְ לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת נִטְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִים, וְצָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חַי, וְכׇל שֶׁהוּא חַי אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this baraita: If a ben pekua grew up and passed through a river, it was thereby rendered susceptible to impurity, and therefore if it went from there to a cemetery, it is rendered impure? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: The flesh of a ben pekua can become impure with the ritual impurity of food, but it first needs to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by coming in contact with liquid. But the Rabbis say: It cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food because it is alive, and any live animal cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food, even if it is permitted for consumption.
וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.
The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Beit Shammai said the same thing, i.e., they both hold that even a live animal can become impure with the ritual impurity of food.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, דִּתְנַן: דָּגִים, מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁיִּצּוֹדוּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁיָּמוּתוּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לִחְיוֹת.
The opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is that which we stated in the baraita. The opinion of Beit Shammai is as we learned in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): With regard to fish, from when are they susceptible to impurity as food? Beit Shammai say: From when they are caught in a trap, as at this point they are considered food, since they do not require slaughter. And Beit Hillel say: From when they die. Rabbi Akiva says: From when they are no longer able to live.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דָּג מְקַרְטֵעַ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara analyzes that mishna: What is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Beit Hillel? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The difference between them is the case of a convulsing fish. Rabbi Akiva holds that such a fish can already become ritually impure, while Beit Hillel require it to have actually died.
בָּעֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: נוֹלְדוּ בְּדָגִים סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה, מַהוּ? תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, וְתִיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה.
Rav Ḥisda raises a dilemma: According to Rabbi Akiva, if symptoms of a tereifa developed in a fish, e.g., a perforation in the intestines, which will certainly result in the animal’s death (see 42a), what is the halakha? Can it already be rendered ritually impure as if it were now dead? The Gemara clarifies: One can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that an animal that is a tereifa can live, i.e., it will not necessarily die within a year, and one can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, but will die within a year.
תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, בְּהֵמָה הוּא דִּנְפִישָׁא חַיּוּתַהּ, אֲבָל דָּגִים דְּלָא נְפִישָׁא חַיּוּתַיְיהוּ – לָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּהֵמָה דְּיֵשׁ בְּמִינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל דָּגִים דְּאֵין בְּמִינָן שְׁחִיטָה – אֵימָא לָא. תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara elaborates: One can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that a tereifa can live, as perhaps that opinion is limited to an animal, as an animal has a strong life force, and it could live despite such symptoms. But with regard to a fish, whose life force is not strong, all would agree that it will not survive. Or perhaps, even according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, it is possible that this matter, that a tereifa is regarded as dead, applies only to an animal, as the requirement to slaughter it in order to permit it for consumption applies to this type of creature, i.e., to animals, and so to invalidate its slaughter, the Torah classifies an animal that is a tereifa as though it is dead. But with regard to fish, where the requirement to slaughter it in order to permit it does not apply to this type of creature, I would say that a fish with symptoms of a tereifa is not considered as though it were dead. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
הֵטִילָה נֵפֶל, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב חַיָּה.
§ The Rabbis state in the mishna that a nine-month-old fetus is considered to be part of its mother. Therefore, when the mother is slaughtered, the entire fetus is permitted, including all its fats. The Gemara asks: If an animal expelled a non-viable newborn, what is the status of the fetus’s fat? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, and one is liable to receive karet if he eats it. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, which is not prohibited.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה – אַוֵּירָא גָּרֵים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב חַיָּה – חֳדָשִׁים גָּרְמִי.
The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, as he maintains that the exit of a fetus through the airspace of the opening of the womb causes it to be regarded as an independent animal. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, as he maintains that the completion of the months of gestation causes a fetus to be regarded as an independent animal, and this stillborn did not reach this stage.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֹא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו – לָא כְּלוּם הוּא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – הֵיכָא דְּהוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה, וְתָלַשׁ חֵלֶב שֶׁל בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי וְאָכַל. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה, חֳדָשִׁים גָּרְמִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב חַיָּה, חֳדָשִׁים וְאַוֵּירָא גָּרְמִי.
Some say that there is another explanation of this dispute: In any case where its months of gestation were not completed, everyone agrees that it is nothing, i.e., it is not an independent animal and its fat is not included in the prohibition of forbidden fats. When they disagree it is with regard to a case where one inserted his hand into the womb of an animal and removed the fat of a live nine-month-old fetus and ate it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, as the months of gestation alone cause it to be regarded as an independent animal. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, as it is the months of gestation and its exit through the airspace of the opening of the womb that together cause it to be regarded as an independent animal. Since this fetus was not yet born, it is not subject to the prohibition of forbidden fats.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מָה חֵלֶב וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּאָשָׁם – מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל, אַף כֹּל – מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita that discusses the sacrifice of the fat surrounding a fetus inside a pregnant animal: Just as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice the fat and two kidneys (see Leviticus 7:3–4), which is stated with regard to a guilt offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice because a guilt offering is always a male, so too, with regard to every offering, even in the case of a female offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, אַמַּאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טַעְמָא דִּידִי נָמֵי מֵהָכָא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains his objection: Granted, according to my opinion that the fat of a fetus is forbidden for consumption, this is why a verse was necessary to exclude it from being sacrificed on the altar. But according to your opinion that it is not forbidden, why is a verse necessary to exclude it? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: My explanation is also derived from the verse here, which serves as the source for the fact that the fat of a fetus is not forbidden.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָה חֵלֶב וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּאָשָׁם מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל, אַף כֹּל – מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל.
And some say that there is another version of this objection in which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from that baraita: Just as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice “the fat and two kidneys” that is stated with regard to a guilt offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice, so too, with regard to every offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מַיעֲטֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ – לִיקְרַב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמְּחוּסַּר זְמַן.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains the objection: Granted, according to my opinion that the fat of the fetus is not prohibited like the other fats, it is due to that reason that the Merciful One excludes it from the requirement of being sacrificed. But according to your opinion, that the fat of the fetus is considered one of the forbidden fats, let it also be sacrificed. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The reason that this fat is not sacrificed is just as it is with regard to an offering whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., it is not yet seven days old, which may not be sacrificed (see Leviticus 22:27) despite being of a species of animal that may be sacrificed. Similarly, with regard to the fat of the fetus, despite being included among those fats that are prohibited, it may not be sacrificed.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹסֵר – מַתִּיר, לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר – אוֹסֵר.
§ The Gemara returns to the dispute in the mishna with regard to a nine-month-old fetus found alive inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir holds that the fetus itself must be slaughtered in order to permit it, whereas the Rabbis hold that it is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. Rabbi Ami said: With regard to one who slaughtered a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, who prohibits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal until it is slaughtered itself, if it is found inside a tereifa he permits the fetus once it is slaughtered itself. But according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, referred to as the Rabbis in the mishna, who permits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, if it is found inside a tereifa he prohibits it, even if it is slaughtered itself.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר נָמֵי מוּתָּר, אַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין אַכְשַׁר בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.
Rava said: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, he also permits it if it is found inside a tereifa, once the fetus itself is slaughtered. The reason is that the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and gullet of the mother and those of the fetus, with the fetus being permitted by the cutting of either pair.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה, וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי –
Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to one who slaughtered a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus,
טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, וְחַיָּיב בִּזְרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה, וְאִם מֵת – טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.
the fetus requires its own slaughter to permit its consumption, and it is subject to the obligation to give the foreleg and the jaw and the maw to a priest, as is required for a non-sacred animal that is slaughtered. But nevertheless, if it dies, the fact that its mother was slaughtered serves to render it pure with regard to imparting impurity to people through their carrying of it, as it does not impart the impurity of a carcass.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה – כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאִם מֵת טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא – כְּמַאן? כְּרַבָּנַן.
Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: Your ruling is inconsistent. When you say it requires slaughter, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that a live nine-month-old fetus is not permitted by virtue of its mother’s slaughter. But when you say that if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי – טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, וְחַיָּיב בִּזְרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה, וְאִם מֵת – טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא. טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאִם מֵת – טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא, כְּרַבָּנַן.
Rav Ḥisda replied: And according to your reasoning, the same difficulty arises with that which Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughtered an animal that is a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus, it requires its own slaughter, and it is subject to the obligation to give the foreleg and the jaw and the maw to a priest. But nevertheless, if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying. When he says that it requires slaughter, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But when he says that if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, רַבִּי חִיָּיא אִם כְּבָר מְצָאוֹ מֵת קָאָמַר, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא!
Rava responded: That is not difficult, as it is possible that Rabbi Ḥiyya was speaking about if one found that the fetus had already died inside the mother. In such a case, Rabbi Meir concedes that its mother’s slaughter renders it pure, as stated in the mishna. Accordingly, the baraita is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But according to your opinion, that even if it was found alive and died later it is pure from the impurity of a carcass, it is difficult.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְדִידִי נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, אַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִים אַכְשַׁר בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.
Rav Ḥisda said to Rava: According to my opinion also it is not difficult, as I claim that the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and although the slaughter of its mother permits the fetus, its own slaughter can also permit it, as the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter, two of the mother and two of the fetus, the fetus being permitted through the cutting of either pair.
כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב אַסִּי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִישַׁר, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ?
The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, Rav Asi found him sitting and saying this halakha of Rav Ḥisda, i.e., that the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter. Rav Asi said to him: That is correct, and so says Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Zeira asked him: Can I conclude by inference from your statement that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s colleague, disagrees with him?
מִשְׁהָא הֲוָה שָׁהֵי לֵיהּ וְשָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִשְׁתָּא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי וְשָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ.
Rav Asi answered: I do not know, as after Rabbi Yoḥanan made his statement, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was waiting for him to see if he would retract, and he therefore remained silent about whether or not he disagreed. But it is possible that after I left, he disagreed. And some say that Rav Asi said: At that time, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was drinking, and that is why he remained silent. Therefore, I do not know whether or not he disagreed.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ וְכוּ׳. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: הִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if a nine-month-old fetus emerged alive and is now five years old and plowing in the field it does not require slaughter. The Gemara asks: This opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri is identical to that of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis. What difference is there between them? Rav Kahana said: The difference between them is a case where the fetus stood upon the ground. According to the opinion of the first tanna, once the fetus walks on the ground there is a rabbinic decree requiring that it be slaughtered before it is consumed, lest people mistakenly permit other animals without slaughter. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri disagrees and holds that it does not require slaughter.
אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, בֶּן פְּקוּעָה הַבָּא עַל בְּהֵמָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא – הַוָּלָד אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה.
Rav Mesharshiyya said: According to the statement of the one who says that when defining the status of an animal one needs to be concerned with its paternity, if a ben pekua copulated with a full-fledged animal, the offspring has no rectification. Although when the mother and father are each a ben pekua the offspring is permitted without ritual slaughter, if the father is a ben pekua but the mother is not, the offspring is simultaneously defined as requiring slaughter, based on the mother, and being excluded from the requirement for slaughter, based on the father. Therefore, no act of slaughter can permit it.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּקָלוּט בֶּן פְּקוּעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר, מַאי טַעְמָא? כֹּל מִלְּתָא דִּתְמִיהָא מִידְכָּר דְּכִירִי לַהּ אִינָשֵׁי. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּקָלוּט בֶּן קְלוּטָה בֶּן פְּקוּעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר, מַאי טַעְמָא? תְּרֵי תְּמִיהֵי מִידְכָּר דְּכִירִי אִינָשֵׁי.
Abaye says: Everyone, i.e., even the first tanna, who requires the slaughter of a ben pekua that stood upon the ground, agrees with regard to a ben pekua with non-cloven hooves that was found inside a kosher animal, that it is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. What is the reason for this? It is that people remember any bizarre matter, and there is no concern that if it is permitted without slaughter, people will mistakenly permit regular animals without slaughter. Some say that Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to a ben pekua with non-cloven hooves found inside an animal with non-cloven hooves that was itself born to a kosher animal, that the fetus is permitted without slaughter even if it stood on the ground. What is the reason? It is that people remember two bizarre matters.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי מַתִּיר בִּבְנוֹ וּבֶן בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוּא מוּתָּר, וּבְנוֹ אָסוּר.
Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri that a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter even if it stood upon the ground. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri would permit without slaughter the offspring of a ben pekua and the offspring of its offspring, and so on to the end of all future generations. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It, the ben pekua itself, is permitted, but its offspring is prohibited unless it is slaughtered.
אַדָּא בַּר חָבוּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ בֶּן פְּקוּעָה דִּנְפַל דֵּיבָא עֲלֵיהּ, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שַׁחְטֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָאָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי מַתִּיר בִּבְנוֹ וּבֶן בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בְּנוֹ, אֲבָל אִיהוּ לָא!
The Gemara relates: Adda bar Ḥavu had a ben pekua that was attacked by a bear and was about to die. He came before Rav Ashi to inquire what to do. Rav Ashi said to him: Go and slaughter it before it dies so that you can eat it, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that if a ben pekua stood upon the ground it requires slaughter. Adda bar Ḥavu said to Rav Ashi: But doesn’t Ze’eiri say that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri that a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter even if it stood upon the ground, and similarly, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri would permit without slaughter the offspring of a ben pekua and the offspring of its offspring, and so on to the end of all future generations? And even Rabbi Yoḥanan, who disagreed, said his dissenting opinion only with regard to its offspring, but with regard to a ben pekua itself, he did not disagree that it is permitted.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי קָאָמַר.
Rav Ashi said to Adda bar Ḥavu: Rabbi Yoḥanan was speaking according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, i.e., he said that even Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits only a ben pekua itself, but not its offspring. But Rabbi Yoḥanan himself agrees with the first tanna that a ben pekua that stood upon the ground is prohibited without slaughter.
וְהָאָמַר רָבִין בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי בְּמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ – הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ!
Adda bar Ḥavu persisted: But didn’t Ravin bar Ḥanina say that Ulla says that Rabbi Ḥanina says with regard to a different issue: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri; and moreover, not only is the halakha in accordance with his opinion with regard to this matter, but in any place where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא כִּי הָא סְבִירָא לִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי בִּמְסוּכָּן, וּבִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי.
Rav Ashi said to Adda bar Ḥavu: I hold in accordance with this statement of Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Yonatan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in the case of one who is dangerously ill, and in the case of teruma of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], but not in other cases, e.g., in the case of his disagreement with the first tanna concerning a ben pekua.
מְסוּכָּן, דִּתְנַן: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים, הַיּוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְפָרֵשׁ וְהַיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁיָירָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְסוּכָּן.
The Gemara now elaborates on these two cases. The case of one who is dangerously ill is as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 65b): Initially, the Sages would say that in the case of one who is taken out in a neck chain [bekolar] to be executed and who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people who hear should write the document and give it to her. Although there was no explicit instruction to give it to her, this is understood to have been his intention, in order to release her from the obligation to perform levirate marriage or the ritual through which she becomes free of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza]. They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs in a caravan to a distant place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said only: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife.
תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי, דִּתְנַן: תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי שֶׁחָזְרָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּחוֹל שׁוֹאֲלוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹ עַל פִּיו.
The case of teruma of the tithe of demai is as we learned in a mishna (Demai 4:1): With regard to teruma of the tithe of demai, i.e., teruma of the tithe that was separated from the produce of an am ha’aretz, who is suspected of not separating tithes properly, that fell and returned to its original place, becoming mingled with the rest of produce from which it had been separated, Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri says: Even on a weekday one may ask the am ha’aretz whether or not he separated the necessary tithes and then eat based on his statement.
