Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Chullin 94 - August 2, 19 Av

Study Guide

Chullin 93 - Shabbat August 1, 18 Av

Chullin 92 - July 31, 17 Av

Chullin 91 - July 30, 16 Av

Chullin 90 - July 29, 15 Av

Chullin 89 - July 28, 14 Av

Chullin 88 - July 27, 13 Av

Chullin 87 - July 26, 12 Av

Chullin 86 - Shabbat July 25, 11 Av

Chullin 85 - July 24, 10 Av

Chullin 84 - Tisha b'Av - July 23, 9 Av

Chullin 83 - July 22, 8 Av

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

Chullin 82 - July 21, 7 Av

Chullin 81 - July 20, 6 Av

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

Chullin 80 - July 19, 5 Av

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

Chullin 79 - Shabbat July 18, 4 Av

Chullin 78 - July 17, 3 Av

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

Chullin 77 - July 16, 2 Av

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

Chullin 76 - Rosh Chodesh Av - July 15, 1 Av

Chullin 75 - July 14, 29 Tamuz

Study Guide