Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 13, 2019 | 讞壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 78

The law forbidding slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day is discussed. What are the different聽approaches regarding the reasons behind the mitzva (Rambam, Ramban and Sefer HaChinuch).聽The mishna聽brings various permutations regarding chullin聽and sacrifices, slaughtered inside the mikdash or outside and discusses what punishments one would receive and what would be the status of the meat. The gemara聽brings a braita聽that brings the sources why it’s relevant for chullin and sacrifices and also relevant for crossbred animals. The gemara聽challenges the drasha regarding the crossbreeds.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚谞讬讻讞讜砖 讞讬诇讬讛 讗诇讗 住讜拽专讜 讘住讬拽专讗 讗诪讗讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讞讝讬讜讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诇讬讘注讬 专讞诪讬 注讬诇讜讬讛

that the tree鈥檚 strength will lessen. It is possible that the tree shed its fruits prematurely due to excessive blossoming. It taxes the tree to sustain these blossoms, and this may render the tree incapable of sustaining the fruits that subsequently grow from the blossoms. Stones were used to weaken the tree during blossoming, thereby reducing the number of blossoms that it needed to nourish. But with regard to painting it with red paint, for what benefit is it performed that makes it permitted despite the fact that this was the practice of the Amorites? The Gemara explains: One does so in order that people will see the tree and pray for it.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讟诪讗 讟诪讗 讬拽专讗 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诇专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬诐 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖讗讬专注 讘讜 讚讘专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诇专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬诐 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he will cry: Impure, impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), that a leper must publicize the fact that he is ritually impure. He must announce his pain to the masses, and the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf. And likewise, one to whom any unfortunate matter happens must announce it to the masses, and then the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻诪讗谉 转诇讬谞谉 讻讜讘住讗 讘讚讬拽诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗

Ravina said: In accordance with whose opinion do we hang bunches of unripe dates on a palm tree that casts off its dates, despite the fact that this is the practice of the Amorites? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna of the baraita just cited, who states that one must announce such occurrences to the masses so that they will pray for mercy.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讛诪讛 讛诪拽砖讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉

MISHNA: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, both in the presence, i.e., the time, of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and it applies with regard to non-sacred animals and with regard to sacrificial animals.

讻讬爪讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讞讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜抓 砖谞讬讛诐 讻砖专讬诐 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

How so? In the case of one who slaughters an animal itself and its offspring, both of which are non-sacred, and slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard, both of the animals are fit for consumption, but for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs [sofeg] the forty lashes for violating the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day鈥 (Leviticus 22:28).

拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讻专转 讜砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 住讜驻讙讬诐 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, then for slaughtering the first animal, one is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. For slaughtering the second animal one is not liable to receive karet. The second animal was not fit for sacrifice, since one may not slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day. And both animals are disqualified for use as offerings, and for the slaughter of both of them, one incurs forty lashes apiece: The first being a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the courtyard and the second being the offspring of an animal slaughtered that day.

讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If both animals were non-sacred and slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, both of them are unfit to be sacrificed, being non-sacred animals slaughtered in the courtyard. And for slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day. If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for sacrifice, and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. But for slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day, and it is unfit for sacrifice, because one was not allowed to slaughter it on that day.

讞讜诇讬谉 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If the first animal was non-sacred and the second a sacrificial animal, and both were slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for consumption and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. But for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice.

拽讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讻专转 讜驻住讜诇 讜讛砖谞讬 讻砖专 讜砖谞讬讛诐 住讜驻讙讬诐 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

If the first animal was a sacrificial animal and the second was non-sacred and both were slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, for the first animal, one is liable to receive karet for slaughtering a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice. And the second is fit for consumption; and for the slaughter of both of them one incurs forty lashes apiece: The first being a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the courtyard and the second being the offspring of an animal slaughtered that day.

讞讜诇讬谉 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If the first animal was non-sacred and the second was a sacrificial animal and both were slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, both of them are unfit for sacrifice. And for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes. If the first animal was a sacrificial animal and the second was non-sacred and both were slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for sacrifice and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. And for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice, as it is non-sacred.

讞讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讘驻谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If both animals were non-sacred, and one slaughters them, the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for consumption and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. And for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice as it is non-sacred.

拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜讘驻谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讻专转 讜砖谞讬讛诐 住讜驻讙讬诐 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬诐

If both animals were sacrificial animals, and one slaughters them, the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside the Temple courtyard, for slaughtering the first animal one is liable to receive karet, and for slaughtering both of them one incurs forty lashes apiece. One set of lashes is given because the first was a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the courtyard, and the second set of lashes is given because the second animal is the offspring of an animal slaughtered that day. And both of them are unfit for sacrifice.

讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 驻住讜诇 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜讻砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If both animals were non-sacred, and one slaughters them, the first inside the Temple courtyard and the second outside the Temple courtyard, the first is unfit for sacrifice, as it is non-sacred, and the one who slaughters it is exempt. And for the second, one incurs the forty lashes and the animal is fit for consumption. If both animals were sacrificial animals, and one slaughters them, the first inside the Temple courtyard and the second outside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for sacrifice and one who slaughters it is exempt. And for the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice because its requisite time has not yet arrived.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖谞讜讛讙 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讜专 讗讜 讻砖讘 讗讜 注讝 讻讬 讬讜诇讚 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讜砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 讗转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖谞讜讛讙 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring in a single day applies to sacrificial animals? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淲hen a bull, or a sheep, or a goat, is born鈥ut from the eighth day and forward it may be accepted for an offering鈥o the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:27), and it is written in the following verse: 鈥淎nd whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day.鈥 The juxtaposition of the verses teaches with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring that it applies to sacrificial animals as well.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 砖讜专 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara challenges: But since this prohibition is taught in the context of other halakhot of consecrated animals, perhaps I will say: Yes, it applies to sacrificial animals, but it does not apply to non-sacred animals. The Gemara explains: The repetitive phrase 鈥渁nd whether it be a bull or a sheep鈥 in the second verse, when those types of animals, i.e., bulls and sheep, were already mentioned in the first verse, interrupted the topic, clarifying that the second verse is not referring to sacrificial animals.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜砖讜专 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara challenges: But if so, I will say: Yes, the prohibition applies to non-sacred animals, but it does not apply to sacrificial animals. The Gemara explains: Since in that verse it is written: 鈥淎nd whether it be a bull鈥ou shall not slaughter it and its offspring,鈥 the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 adds the prohibition stated in the second verse to the first matter, including sacrificial animals as well.

讗讬 诪讛 拽讚砖讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讗祝 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讜讘讻讜讬

The Gemara challenges: If this prohibition also applies to sacrificial animals, perhaps just as with regard to sacrificial animals, the offspring of diverse kinds is not included, e.g., the offspring of a ewe and a goat is unfit to be an offering, so too with regard to the prohibition of: A mother and its offspring, the offspring of diverse kinds should not be included, so that in the case of the offspring of a ewe and a goat, it would be permitted to slaughter the mother and offspring on the same day. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 5:1): The prohibition of: A mother and its offspring, applies to the offspring of diverse kinds and to a koy, a kosher animal with characteristics of both domesticated and undomesticated animals?

讜注讜讚 砖讛 讻转讬讘 讜讗诪专 专讘讗

And additionally, why should the prohibition of: A mother and its offspring, apply to the offspring of diverse kinds? 鈥淎 sheep,鈥 is written in the verse with regard to that prohibition, and Rava said

讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讻诇讗讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻诇讗讬诐

concerning the verse: 鈥淭hese are the animals that you may eat: An ox, a seh of sheep, and a seh of goats鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:4), that this verse establishes a paradigm for other cases: Wherever the word seh is stated in the Torah, it serves only to exclude an animal of diverse kinds. The Hebrew word seh denotes either a sheep or a goat. The offspring of diverse kinds, which is neither a sheep nor a goat, does not qualify as a seh. The Gemara answers that with regard to a mother and its offspring, the verse states: 鈥淲hether it be a bull or a sheep鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), and the 鈥渙r鈥 is superfluous there and serves to include the offspring of diverse kinds.

讛讗讬 讗讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚砖讞讬讟 砖讜专 讜讘谞讜 砖讛 讜讘谞讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讞诇拽 诪讘谞讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara challenges: This word 鈥渙r鈥 is necessary to separate the prohibitions, as it might enter your mind to say: One is not liable unless he slaughters both a bull and its offspring and a sheep and its offspring in a single day. Therefore, the word 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that one is liable for slaughtering either type of animal with its offspring. The Gemara responds: Separating the prohibitions is derived from the use of the words 鈥渋ts offspring鈥 instead of their offspring.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讜讘谞讜 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讜讘谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讗讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讗讜转讜

The Gemara challenges: But the word 鈥渙r鈥 is still necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: If it were stated: A bull, and a sheep, and its offspring you shall not slaughter in one day, I would say: One is not liable unless he slaughters a bull, and a sheep, and the offspring of one of them in a single day. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 bull or a sheep鈥t and its offspring鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), to teach that one is liable even for slaughtering either of them and its offspring. What, is it not from the word 鈥渙r鈥 that the baraita derives this halakha? The Gemara responds: No, it is derived from the word 鈥渋t,鈥 and the offspring of diverse kinds are included in the prohibition due to the word 鈥渙r.鈥

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讬讬转专 诇讛讜 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 诇讞谞谞讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转专 诇讬讛 讗讜转讜 诇讞诇拽 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, cited further in the discussion, for whom the word 鈥渋t鈥 is superfluous and can be used for this derivation, leaving the word 鈥渙r鈥 available to include the offspring of diverse kinds; but according to the opinion of 岣nanya, for whom the word 鈥渋t鈥 is not superfluous, from where does he derive that one is to separate into two prohibitions slaughtering either a bull with its offspring or a sheep with its offspring? The Gemara answers that there is no need for a verse to separate them into two prohibitions, as 岣nanya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬拽诇诇 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗转 讗诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讗诪讜 讜讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讗讘讬讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 拽诇诇 讗讘讬讜 拽诇诇 讗诪讜 拽诇诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

As it is taught in a baraita: From the verse: 鈥淎 man who curses his father and his mother shall die鈥 (Leviticus 20:9), I have derived only that one is liable if he curses both his father and his mother. From where do I derive that if one curses his father but not his mother, or his mother but not his father, he is liable? The continuation of the verse states: 鈥淗is father and his mother he has cursed, his blood is upon him.鈥 In the first part of the verse, the word 鈥渃urses鈥 is in proximity to 鈥渉is father,鈥 and in the last part of the verse, 鈥渃ursed鈥 is in proximity to 鈥渉is mother.鈥 This teaches that the verse is referring to both a case where he cursed only his father and a case where he cursed only his mother; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yoshiya maintains that conjunctions are interpreted strictly unless the verse indicates otherwise.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖诪注 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚 讜诪砖诪注 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讬讞讚讜

Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation, because the phrase 鈥渉is father and his mother鈥 indicates that one is liable if he curses both of them together, and it also indicates that he is liable if he curses either one of them on their own, unless the verse specifies that one is liable only if he curses both together. An example of a verse where the Torah specifies that the halakha applies only to the two elements in conjunction is: 鈥淵ou shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:10). According to Rabbi Yonatan, had the verse stated with regard to a mother and its offspring: A bull and a sheep, and not: A bull or a sheep, one would still be liable for slaughtering each with its own offspring independently. Therefore, the word 鈥渙r鈥 is superfluous, and is utilized by 岣nanya, who agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, to include the offspring of diverse kinds in this prohibition.

诪讗讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讜诪讗讬 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讝讻专讬诐 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转

The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of 岣nanya, and what is the opinion of the Rabbis that were mentioned earlier? Their opinions are elucidated as it is taught in a baraita: Despite the fact that the verse is written in the masculine form, the prohibition against slaughtering itself and its offspring in a single day applies to females, i.e., to a mother and its offspring, but it does not apply to males, i.e., a male animal and its offspring. 岣nanya says: It applies both to males and to females.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讻讗谉 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 诪讛 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讻讗谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna? Their reasoning is as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring would apply both to males and to females. But could one not derive this by logical inference, reaching the opposite conclusion: The Torah rendered one obligated here not to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, and the Torah rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks not to seize them together, but to dispatch the mother. Just as when it rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks, the obligation applies to female birds but not to males, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the mother sitting on the chicks鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), so too, when it rendered one obligated here, with regard to an animal and its offspring, the obligation should apply to female animals, but not to males.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 砖讻谉 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讝讜诪谉 讻砖讗讬谞讜 诪讝讜诪谉 转讗诪专 讘讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖注砖讛 讘讜 诪讝讜诪谉 讻砖讗讬谞讜 诪讝讜诪谉

One may respond: No, if you say that this is so with regard to a mother bird with its chicks, for which the Torah did not render prepared ones equivalent to unprepared ones, as the obligation to dispatch the mother bird applies only where one happens to encounter a mother bird with its chicks spontaneously, but not to ones that he keeps in his property, shall you also say that this is so with regard to the prohibition of an animal itself and its offspring, for which the Torah rendered prepared ones equivalent to unprepared ones, prohibiting an animal and its offspring even if they are prepared? If so, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring should apply to both males and females.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讗讞专 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讝讻讬转讬 诇讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讻讗谉 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 诪讛 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讻讗谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 bull or a sheep, it and its offspring鈥 (Leviticus 22:28). The superfluous word 鈥渋t鈥 indicates that this applies to only one parent, but not to two. The baraita continues: After the verse separated the parents, rendering the prohibition applicable to only one of them, I merited returning to the logical inference mentioned earlier: The Torah rendered one obligated here not to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, and the Torah rendered one obligated to dispatch the mother with regard to a mother bird with its chicks. Just as when it rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks, the obligation applies to females but not to males, so too, when it rendered one obligated here, the obligation applies to females but not to males.

讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讘谞讜 诪讬 砖讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜 讬爪讗 讝讻专 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜

And if it is your wish to say that one can refute this, that refutation can be countered by the following derivation: The verse states: 鈥淚t and its offspring鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that this applies to that parent whose offspring clings to it. This serves to exclude the male parent, whose offspring does not cling to it.

诪讛 讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讜转讜 讝讻专 诪砖诪注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘谞讜 诪讬 砖讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜 讬爪讗 讝讻专 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara asks: To what possible refutation is the expression: If it is your wish to say, referring? The Gemara explains that the possible refutation is: And if you would say that the word 鈥渋t,鈥 in the verse denotes a male, as it is expressed in the masculine gender in the Hebrew, the response is that the verse also states 鈥渋ts offspring鈥 in that verse, indicating that this applies to that parent whose offspring clings to it. This serves to exclude the male parent, whose offspring does not cling to it.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 78

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 78

讚谞讬讻讞讜砖 讞讬诇讬讛 讗诇讗 住讜拽专讜 讘住讬拽专讗 讗诪讗讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讞讝讬讜讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诇讬讘注讬 专讞诪讬 注讬诇讜讬讛

that the tree鈥檚 strength will lessen. It is possible that the tree shed its fruits prematurely due to excessive blossoming. It taxes the tree to sustain these blossoms, and this may render the tree incapable of sustaining the fruits that subsequently grow from the blossoms. Stones were used to weaken the tree during blossoming, thereby reducing the number of blossoms that it needed to nourish. But with regard to painting it with red paint, for what benefit is it performed that makes it permitted despite the fact that this was the practice of the Amorites? The Gemara explains: One does so in order that people will see the tree and pray for it.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讟诪讗 讟诪讗 讬拽专讗 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诇专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬诐 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖讗讬专注 讘讜 讚讘专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诇专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬诐 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he will cry: Impure, impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), that a leper must publicize the fact that he is ritually impure. He must announce his pain to the masses, and the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf. And likewise, one to whom any unfortunate matter happens must announce it to the masses, and then the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻诪讗谉 转诇讬谞谉 讻讜讘住讗 讘讚讬拽诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗

Ravina said: In accordance with whose opinion do we hang bunches of unripe dates on a palm tree that casts off its dates, despite the fact that this is the practice of the Amorites? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna of the baraita just cited, who states that one must announce such occurrences to the masses so that they will pray for mercy.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讛诪讛 讛诪拽砖讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉

MISHNA: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, both in the presence, i.e., the time, of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and it applies with regard to non-sacred animals and with regard to sacrificial animals.

讻讬爪讚 讛砖讜讞讟 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讞讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜抓 砖谞讬讛诐 讻砖专讬诐 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

How so? In the case of one who slaughters an animal itself and its offspring, both of which are non-sacred, and slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard, both of the animals are fit for consumption, but for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs [sofeg] the forty lashes for violating the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day鈥 (Leviticus 22:28).

拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讻专转 讜砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 住讜驻讙讬诐 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, then for slaughtering the first animal, one is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. For slaughtering the second animal one is not liable to receive karet. The second animal was not fit for sacrifice, since one may not slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day. And both animals are disqualified for use as offerings, and for the slaughter of both of them, one incurs forty lashes apiece: The first being a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the courtyard and the second being the offspring of an animal slaughtered that day.

讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If both animals were non-sacred and slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, both of them are unfit to be sacrificed, being non-sacred animals slaughtered in the courtyard. And for slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day. If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for sacrifice, and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. But for slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day, and it is unfit for sacrifice, because one was not allowed to slaughter it on that day.

讞讜诇讬谉 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If the first animal was non-sacred and the second a sacrificial animal, and both were slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for consumption and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. But for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice.

拽讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讻专转 讜驻住讜诇 讜讛砖谞讬 讻砖专 讜砖谞讬讛诐 住讜驻讙讬诐 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

If the first animal was a sacrificial animal and the second was non-sacred and both were slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, for the first animal, one is liable to receive karet for slaughtering a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice. And the second is fit for consumption; and for the slaughter of both of them one incurs forty lashes apiece: The first being a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the courtyard and the second being the offspring of an animal slaughtered that day.

讞讜诇讬谉 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If the first animal was non-sacred and the second was a sacrificial animal and both were slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, both of them are unfit for sacrifice. And for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes. If the first animal was a sacrificial animal and the second was non-sacred and both were slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for sacrifice and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. And for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice, as it is non-sacred.

讞讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讘驻谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If both animals were non-sacred, and one slaughters them, the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for consumption and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. And for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice as it is non-sacred.

拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜讘驻谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讻专转 讜砖谞讬讛诐 住讜驻讙讬诐 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬诐

If both animals were sacrificial animals, and one slaughters them, the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside the Temple courtyard, for slaughtering the first animal one is liable to receive karet, and for slaughtering both of them one incurs forty lashes apiece. One set of lashes is given because the first was a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the courtyard, and the second set of lashes is given because the second animal is the offspring of an animal slaughtered that day. And both of them are unfit for sacrifice.

讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 驻住讜诇 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜讻砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讞讜抓 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖专 讜驻讟讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讜驻住讜诇

If both animals were non-sacred, and one slaughters them, the first inside the Temple courtyard and the second outside the Temple courtyard, the first is unfit for sacrifice, as it is non-sacred, and the one who slaughters it is exempt. And for the second, one incurs the forty lashes and the animal is fit for consumption. If both animals were sacrificial animals, and one slaughters them, the first inside the Temple courtyard and the second outside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for sacrifice and one who slaughters it is exempt. And for the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice because its requisite time has not yet arrived.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖谞讜讛讙 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讜专 讗讜 讻砖讘 讗讜 注讝 讻讬 讬讜诇讚 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讜砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 讗转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖谞讜讛讙 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring in a single day applies to sacrificial animals? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淲hen a bull, or a sheep, or a goat, is born鈥ut from the eighth day and forward it may be accepted for an offering鈥o the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:27), and it is written in the following verse: 鈥淎nd whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day.鈥 The juxtaposition of the verses teaches with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring that it applies to sacrificial animals as well.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 砖讜专 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara challenges: But since this prohibition is taught in the context of other halakhot of consecrated animals, perhaps I will say: Yes, it applies to sacrificial animals, but it does not apply to non-sacred animals. The Gemara explains: The repetitive phrase 鈥渁nd whether it be a bull or a sheep鈥 in the second verse, when those types of animals, i.e., bulls and sheep, were already mentioned in the first verse, interrupted the topic, clarifying that the second verse is not referring to sacrificial animals.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜砖讜专 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara challenges: But if so, I will say: Yes, the prohibition applies to non-sacred animals, but it does not apply to sacrificial animals. The Gemara explains: Since in that verse it is written: 鈥淎nd whether it be a bull鈥ou shall not slaughter it and its offspring,鈥 the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 adds the prohibition stated in the second verse to the first matter, including sacrificial animals as well.

讗讬 诪讛 拽讚砖讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讗祝 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讜讘讻讜讬

The Gemara challenges: If this prohibition also applies to sacrificial animals, perhaps just as with regard to sacrificial animals, the offspring of diverse kinds is not included, e.g., the offspring of a ewe and a goat is unfit to be an offering, so too with regard to the prohibition of: A mother and its offspring, the offspring of diverse kinds should not be included, so that in the case of the offspring of a ewe and a goat, it would be permitted to slaughter the mother and offspring on the same day. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 5:1): The prohibition of: A mother and its offspring, applies to the offspring of diverse kinds and to a koy, a kosher animal with characteristics of both domesticated and undomesticated animals?

讜注讜讚 砖讛 讻转讬讘 讜讗诪专 专讘讗

And additionally, why should the prohibition of: A mother and its offspring, apply to the offspring of diverse kinds? 鈥淎 sheep,鈥 is written in the verse with regard to that prohibition, and Rava said

讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讻诇讗讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻诇讗讬诐

concerning the verse: 鈥淭hese are the animals that you may eat: An ox, a seh of sheep, and a seh of goats鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:4), that this verse establishes a paradigm for other cases: Wherever the word seh is stated in the Torah, it serves only to exclude an animal of diverse kinds. The Hebrew word seh denotes either a sheep or a goat. The offspring of diverse kinds, which is neither a sheep nor a goat, does not qualify as a seh. The Gemara answers that with regard to a mother and its offspring, the verse states: 鈥淲hether it be a bull or a sheep鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), and the 鈥渙r鈥 is superfluous there and serves to include the offspring of diverse kinds.

讛讗讬 讗讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚砖讞讬讟 砖讜专 讜讘谞讜 砖讛 讜讘谞讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讞诇拽 诪讘谞讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara challenges: This word 鈥渙r鈥 is necessary to separate the prohibitions, as it might enter your mind to say: One is not liable unless he slaughters both a bull and its offspring and a sheep and its offspring in a single day. Therefore, the word 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that one is liable for slaughtering either type of animal with its offspring. The Gemara responds: Separating the prohibitions is derived from the use of the words 鈥渋ts offspring鈥 instead of their offspring.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讜讘谞讜 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讜讘谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讗讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讗讜转讜

The Gemara challenges: But the word 鈥渙r鈥 is still necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: If it were stated: A bull, and a sheep, and its offspring you shall not slaughter in one day, I would say: One is not liable unless he slaughters a bull, and a sheep, and the offspring of one of them in a single day. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 bull or a sheep鈥t and its offspring鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), to teach that one is liable even for slaughtering either of them and its offspring. What, is it not from the word 鈥渙r鈥 that the baraita derives this halakha? The Gemara responds: No, it is derived from the word 鈥渋t,鈥 and the offspring of diverse kinds are included in the prohibition due to the word 鈥渙r.鈥

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讬讬转专 诇讛讜 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 诇讞谞谞讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转专 诇讬讛 讗讜转讜 诇讞诇拽 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, cited further in the discussion, for whom the word 鈥渋t鈥 is superfluous and can be used for this derivation, leaving the word 鈥渙r鈥 available to include the offspring of diverse kinds; but according to the opinion of 岣nanya, for whom the word 鈥渋t鈥 is not superfluous, from where does he derive that one is to separate into two prohibitions slaughtering either a bull with its offspring or a sheep with its offspring? The Gemara answers that there is no need for a verse to separate them into two prohibitions, as 岣nanya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬拽诇诇 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗转 讗诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讗诪讜 讜讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讗讘讬讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 拽诇诇 讗讘讬讜 拽诇诇 讗诪讜 拽诇诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

As it is taught in a baraita: From the verse: 鈥淎 man who curses his father and his mother shall die鈥 (Leviticus 20:9), I have derived only that one is liable if he curses both his father and his mother. From where do I derive that if one curses his father but not his mother, or his mother but not his father, he is liable? The continuation of the verse states: 鈥淗is father and his mother he has cursed, his blood is upon him.鈥 In the first part of the verse, the word 鈥渃urses鈥 is in proximity to 鈥渉is father,鈥 and in the last part of the verse, 鈥渃ursed鈥 is in proximity to 鈥渉is mother.鈥 This teaches that the verse is referring to both a case where he cursed only his father and a case where he cursed only his mother; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yoshiya maintains that conjunctions are interpreted strictly unless the verse indicates otherwise.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖诪注 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚 讜诪砖诪注 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讬讞讚讜

Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation, because the phrase 鈥渉is father and his mother鈥 indicates that one is liable if he curses both of them together, and it also indicates that he is liable if he curses either one of them on their own, unless the verse specifies that one is liable only if he curses both together. An example of a verse where the Torah specifies that the halakha applies only to the two elements in conjunction is: 鈥淵ou shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:10). According to Rabbi Yonatan, had the verse stated with regard to a mother and its offspring: A bull and a sheep, and not: A bull or a sheep, one would still be liable for slaughtering each with its own offspring independently. Therefore, the word 鈥渙r鈥 is superfluous, and is utilized by 岣nanya, who agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, to include the offspring of diverse kinds in this prohibition.

诪讗讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讜诪讗讬 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讝讻专讬诐 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转

The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of 岣nanya, and what is the opinion of the Rabbis that were mentioned earlier? Their opinions are elucidated as it is taught in a baraita: Despite the fact that the verse is written in the masculine form, the prohibition against slaughtering itself and its offspring in a single day applies to females, i.e., to a mother and its offspring, but it does not apply to males, i.e., a male animal and its offspring. 岣nanya says: It applies both to males and to females.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讻讗谉 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 诪讛 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讻讗谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna? Their reasoning is as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring would apply both to males and to females. But could one not derive this by logical inference, reaching the opposite conclusion: The Torah rendered one obligated here not to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, and the Torah rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks not to seize them together, but to dispatch the mother. Just as when it rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks, the obligation applies to female birds but not to males, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the mother sitting on the chicks鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6), so too, when it rendered one obligated here, with regard to an animal and its offspring, the obligation should apply to female animals, but not to males.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 砖讻谉 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讝讜诪谉 讻砖讗讬谞讜 诪讝讜诪谉 转讗诪专 讘讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖注砖讛 讘讜 诪讝讜诪谉 讻砖讗讬谞讜 诪讝讜诪谉

One may respond: No, if you say that this is so with regard to a mother bird with its chicks, for which the Torah did not render prepared ones equivalent to unprepared ones, as the obligation to dispatch the mother bird applies only where one happens to encounter a mother bird with its chicks spontaneously, but not to ones that he keeps in his property, shall you also say that this is so with regard to the prohibition of an animal itself and its offspring, for which the Torah rendered prepared ones equivalent to unprepared ones, prohibiting an animal and its offspring even if they are prepared? If so, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring should apply to both males and females.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讗讞专 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讝讻讬转讬 诇讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讻讗谉 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 诪讛 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 讻讗谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 bull or a sheep, it and its offspring鈥 (Leviticus 22:28). The superfluous word 鈥渋t鈥 indicates that this applies to only one parent, but not to two. The baraita continues: After the verse separated the parents, rendering the prohibition applicable to only one of them, I merited returning to the logical inference mentioned earlier: The Torah rendered one obligated here not to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, and the Torah rendered one obligated to dispatch the mother with regard to a mother bird with its chicks. Just as when it rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks, the obligation applies to females but not to males, so too, when it rendered one obligated here, the obligation applies to females but not to males.

讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讘谞讜 诪讬 砖讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜 讬爪讗 讝讻专 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜

And if it is your wish to say that one can refute this, that refutation can be countered by the following derivation: The verse states: 鈥淚t and its offspring鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that this applies to that parent whose offspring clings to it. This serves to exclude the male parent, whose offspring does not cling to it.

诪讛 讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讜转讜 讝讻专 诪砖诪注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘谞讜 诪讬 砖讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜 讬爪讗 讝讻专 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara asks: To what possible refutation is the expression: If it is your wish to say, referring? The Gemara explains that the possible refutation is: And if you would say that the word 鈥渋t,鈥 in the verse denotes a male, as it is expressed in the masculine gender in the Hebrew, the response is that the verse also states 鈥渋ts offspring鈥 in that verse, indicating that this applies to that parent whose offspring clings to it. This serves to exclude the male parent, whose offspring does not cling to it.

Scroll To Top