Chullin Daf 80 (חולין דף פ׳)
Daf: 80 | Amudim: 80a – 80b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (80a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer to daf 79’s closing question: the dispute is over ‘a seh — even a partial seh’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּשֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה, רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״שֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: ״שֶׂה״ – וְלֹא מִקְצָת שֶׂה.
English Translation:
They disagree concerning whether the word “sheep” mentioned in the verses indicates that even if it is partially a sheep, it is considered a domesticated animal. The Rabbis hold that the word “sheep” indicates that even if it is partially a sheep it is considered a domesticated animal, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that the word “sheep” indicates that it must be descended entirely from sheep or other domesticated animals, but not partially descended from sheep.
קלאוד על הדף:
Daf 79 ended with both the Rabanan and Rabbi Eliezer in doubt about paternity, and asked what they actually disagree about. The answer opens our daf: the dispute is exegetical, not biological. The Rabanan hold that the word ‘seh’ in the Torah covers even a partial seh (miktzat seh) — an animal only half-descended from domesticated stock; Rabbi Eliezer holds ‘seh’ means a full seh and not a partial one. The doubt about paternity is common ground; the reach of the word ‘seh’ divides them.
Key Terms:
- שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה = ‘A seh — even a partial seh’ — the Rabanan’s expansive reading of the word
- שֶׂה וְלֹא מִקְצָת שֶׂה = ‘A seh — and not a partial seh’ — Rabbi Eliezer’s restrictive reading
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa begins mapping the cases: kisui hadam and matnot kehunah work only with a goat mother
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ, לְעִנְיַן כִּסּוּי הַדָּם וּמַתָּנוֹת, לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ אֶלָּא בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa says: Therefore, the cases relating to a koy must be interpreted in accordance with this understanding of the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. With regard to the matter of covering the blood of a koy, which the mishna indicates is performed due to uncertainty as to whether a koy is an undomesticated animal, and with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, which the Rabbis require to be given from a koy as from a domesticated animal, but Rabbi Eliezer does not, you find a way to interpret the cases only if they are referring to a koy resulting from a deer who mates with a female goat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa now systematically locates each koy ruling within the clarified framework. For covering the blood and for the priestly gifts, the disputed case can only be a deer who mated with a female goat: the mother is domesticated, the father wild, and every stringency and exemption in those areas flows from combining the paternity doubt with the partial-seh dispute.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכָּךְ = ‘Therefore’ — Rav Pappa’s summary drawing the practical map from the resolved analysis
- לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ אֶלָּא = ‘You find it only in…’ — the case-constraint that makes the rulings coherent
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The common ground: both camps are uncertain about paternity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּבֵין לְרַבָּנַן, וּבֵין לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ אִי חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב אוֹ לָא.
English Translation:
This is so because, according to the aforementioned conclusions about their opinions, both according to the opinion of the Rabbis and according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer it is uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with paternity, and the koy is considered partially an undomesticated animal, or one need not be concerned, and it is considered entirely domesticated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa makes the shared premise explicit: both the Rabanan and Rabbi Eliezer are in doubt whether one must be concerned with the father’s seed. If paternity counts, the goat-mothered koy is partially wild; if not, it is entirely domesticated. Neither side claims to know — which is why every ruling about the koy is built from the machinery of safek.
Key Terms:
- מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ = ‘It is uncertain to them’ — the paternity question is unresolved for both camps
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
The actual dispute applied: covering the blood out of doubt; half-gifts versus exemption
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״.
English Translation:
And they disagree as to whether the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep it is considered a domesticated animal. Therefore, the mishna, which requires one to cover the blood of a koy whose father is a deer due to uncertainty, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, because they, as opposed to Rabbi Eliezer, hold that if an animal has a domesticated component, it is considered a domesticated animal, and with regard to covering the blood if the animal has an undomesticated component, the animal is considered undomesticated. As for the gifts of the priesthood, the Rabbis require half of them to be given from this koy, as it has a domesticated component from its mother, while Rabbi Eliezer exempts one from giving them, as he holds that an animal’s parents must both be domesticated to qualify the animal as domesticated.
קלאוד על הדף:
With the doubt shared, the partial-seh dispute does the work. For kisui hadam: the Rabanan’s partial reading makes the goat-mothered koy possibly-partially-wild, so its blood is covered out of doubt (without a bracha). For the priestly gifts: the Rabanan obligate half — the certain maternal goat component — while Rabbi Eliezer, requiring full descent for the word ‘seh,’ exempts entirely: on his reading even a definite goat-component does not trigger a law written about a ‘seh.’
Key Terms:
- כִּסּוּי הַדָּם = Covering the blood — required for wild animals; performed for the koy out of doubt
- חֲצִי מַתָּנוֹת = Half the priestly gifts — the certain maternal share per the Rabanan
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
For oto v’et beno both parentages yield a dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעִנְיַן אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בֵּין בְּתַיִישׁ הַבָּא עַל הַצְּבִיָּיה, וּבֵין בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa continues: With regard to the matter of the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day, which the Rabbis hold applies to a koy but Rabbi Eliezer does not, you find such a case either with regard to a koy who is the daughter of a goat who mates with a doe, or with regard to a koy who is the daughter of a deer who mates with a female goat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa turns to oto v’et beno itself: here the dispute between the Rabanan and Rabbi Eliezer can be located in both parentages — a goat who mated with a doe (wild mother), and a deer who mated with a female goat (domesticated mother). Each configuration generates its own layer of the dispute: prohibition in the first case, lashes in the second, as the following segments spell out.
Key Terms:
- מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בֵּין… וּבֵין = ‘You find it both in… and in…’ — the dispute exists in both parental configurations
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Doe mother: the Rabanan forbid ab initio out of double doubt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּתַיִישׁ הַבָּא עַל הַצְּבִיָּיה, וּלְאִיסּוּרָא דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: דִּילְמָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ אָמְרִינַן, וְאָסוּר.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa explains: The case may be referring to a koy who is the daughter of a goat who mates with a doe, and it relates to a prohibition, i.e., whether slaughtering it and its offspring in one day is prohibited ab initio, as the Rabbis hold: Perhaps one needs to be concerned with its paternity, and this koy is therefore considered part domesticated, and we say that the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep this prohibition applies, and its slaughter on the same day as its daughter is prohibited ab initio, although one does not receive lashes for it as it is not a definite transgression.
קלאוד על הדף:
In the goat-father, doe-mother case, the dispute concerns the prohibition ab initio. The Rabanan reason: perhaps paternity counts, making the koy partially domesticated through its father — and since ‘seh’ includes even a partial seh, slaughtering the koy and its offspring on one day is forbidden. But no lashes are given: the liability rests on a doubt, and malkot require certainty.
Key Terms:
- לְאִיסּוּרָא = ‘Regarding the prohibition’ — forbidden ab initio, though without lashes
- דִּילְמָא = ‘Perhaps’ — the language of doubt on which the stringency rests
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Eliezer permits: even granting paternity, there is no partial-seh rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: נְהִי נָמֵי דְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Though one indeed needs to be concerned with its paternity, and this koy is considered partially domesticated, we do not say that the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep the prohibition applies. Therefore, its slaughter on the same day as its offspring is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer’s response in the same case: grant that paternity may count and the koy may be partially domesticated — it does not matter, because we do not say ‘a seh, even a partial seh.’ A partial seh is not a seh, so the prohibition never attaches, and slaughtering the doe-mothered koy with its offspring is permitted outright. The exegetical dispute alone separates permission from prohibition.
Key Terms:
- נְהִי נָמֵי = ‘Even granting that…’ — conceding the premise while denying the conclusion
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Goat mother: the dispute is about lashes — the Rabanan flog, Rabbi Eliezer forbids without lashes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה, וּלְמַלְקוּת. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: נְהִי נָמֵי דְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ אָמְרִינַן, וּמַלְקֵינַן לֵיהּ. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, מַלְקוּת לֵיכָּא.
English Translation:
Additionally, the case under dispute may be referring to a koy who is the daughter of a deer who mates with a female goat, and it relates to whether slaughtering it and its offspring in one day renders one liable to receive lashes. The Rabbis hold: Though one indeed needs to be concerned with its paternity, and this koy is considered partially undomesticated, we say that the word “sheep” means that the prohibition applies even if it is partially a sheep, such as this koy, and one who slaughters it and its offspring on one day is flogged. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: There is a prohibition against slaughtering this koy and its offspring on the same day, but if one slaughtered them there are no lashes.
קלאוד על הדף:
In the deer-father, goat-mother case the stakes rise to malkot. The Rabanan: even if paternity counts and the koy is partially wild, ‘seh — even a partial seh’ brings it within the verse, and the certain goat component suffices to flog the slaughterer. Rabbi Eliezer: there is a prohibition, but no lashes — the next segments unpack why each half of his position follows from the doubt.
Key Terms:
- לְמַלְקוּת = ‘Regarding lashes’ — the dispute here concerns malkot, not the prohibition itself
- אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, מַלְקוּת לֵיכָּא = ‘There is a prohibition, but no lashes’ — Rabbi Eliezer’s split ruling
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
The anatomy of Rabbi Eliezer’s split: forbidden because it may be a full seh; no lashes because it may be partial
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, דִּלְמָא אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, וְהַאי שֶׂה מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. מַלְקוּת לֵיכָּא, דִּלְמָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: There is a prohibition in the case of this koy that is itself a mother, since perhaps one need not be concerned with its paternity, and therefore this koy is a full-fledged sheep, like its mother. Due to uncertainty, there are no lashes for violating the prohibition because perhaps one needs to be concerned with its paternity, in which case this koy is only a partial sheep.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara dissects Rabbi Eliezer’s position. The prohibition exists: perhaps paternity does not count, and this goat-mothered koy is a full-fledged seh (seh me’alya) like its mother — a definite subject of the verse. Lashes are absent: perhaps paternity does count, making the koy only a partial seh — and on Rabbi Eliezer’s reading a partial seh is outside the verse. The doubt cuts both ways, mandating stringency in conduct and leniency in punishment.
Key Terms:
- שֶׂה מְעַלְּיָא = ‘A full-fledged seh’ — if paternity is ignored, the koy is simply its mother’s species
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The final clause: without the partial-seh rule, uncertain forewarning cannot generate lashes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
English Translation:
And according to Rabbi Eliezer, we do not say that the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep it is subject to the prohibition. Therefore, one is not flogged for slaughtering this koy on the same day as its offspring, as lashes are administered only when the witnesses give the transgressor a definite forewarning against violating the prohibition. Since the prohibition in this case is uncertain, any forewarning would be uncertain.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes Rabbi Eliezer’s logic: since he does not say ‘a seh, even a partial seh,’ the possibility that the koy is only partially domesticated removes lashes entirely — flogging requires definite forewarning (hatra’at vadai), and where the prohibition itself is contingent on an unresolved doubt, any warning given to the slaughterer is a doubtful warning. The framework of safek explains every gradation of the koy rulings.
Key Terms:
- הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק = Uncertain forewarning — a warning whose applicability depends on an unresolved doubt; insufficient for malkot
Segment 11
TYPE: שיטות אמוראים
What is a koy? Rav Yehuda: a distinct creature; Rav Nachman: the wild ram
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כּוֹי – בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הִיא, וְלֹא הִכְרִיעוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים אִם מִין בְּהֵמָה הִיא אִם מִין חַיָּה הִיא. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: כּוֹי – זֶה אֵיל הַבָּר.
English Translation:
Until this point, the Gemara considered the koy to be the result of interbreeding a deer and a goat. The Gemara now cites other opinions as to its identity: Rav Yehuda says: A koy is a distinct entity, and the Sages did not determine whether it is a species of domesticated animal or a species of undomesticated animal. Rav Naḥman says: The koy is the wild ram.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having exhausted the hybrid analysis, the Gemara steps back to ask what a koy actually is. Rav Yehuda holds it is a creature unto itself (beriyah bifnei atzmah) — not a hybrid at all, but a species the Sages could never classify as domesticated or wild. Rav Nachman identifies it concretely: the koy is the wild ram (ayil habar). The identity of the Mishnah’s most famous borderline animal is itself a machloket.
Key Terms:
- בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ = ‘A creature unto itself’ — an independent species that defies the beheimah/chayah classification
- אַיִל הַבָּר = The wild ram — Rav Nachman’s identification of the koy
Segment 12
TYPE: כתנאי
The tannaitic parallel: four views of the koy, including Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s domesticated flocks
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַנָּאֵי: כּוֹי – זֶה אַיִל הַבָּר, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: זֶה הַבָּא מִן הַתַּיִישׁ וּמִן הַצְּבִיָּיה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כּוֹי בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הִיא, וְלֹא הִכְרִיעוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים אִם מִין חַיָּה אִם מִין בְּהֵמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִין בְּהֵמָה הִיא, וְשֶׁל בֵּית דּוּשַׁאי הָיוּ מְגַדְּלִין מֵהֶן עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that this dispute is like a dispute between tanna’im cited in a baraita: The koy is the wild ram, and there are those who say: It is that which results from the mating of a goat with a doe. Rabbi Yosei says: A koy is a distinct entity, and the Sages did not determine whether it is a species of undomesticated animal or a species of domesticated animal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is a species of domesticated animal, and the members of the house of Dushai would raise flocks and flocks of them, as with other domesticated animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The amoraic dispute mirrors a baraita with four positions: the koy is the wild ram; some say it is the goat-doe hybrid (the assumption of our entire sugya until now); Rabbi Yosei says it is a distinct creature whose classification the Sages never determined; and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says it is a species of domesticated animal — the house of Dushai raised entire flocks of them. The baraita shows that the uncertainty about the koy begins at the level of identification itself.
Key Terms:
- כְּתַנָּאֵי = ‘As a dispute of tanna’im’ — the amoraic disagreement parallels an earlier tannaitic one
- בֵּית דּוּשַׁאי = The house of Dushai — who raised flocks of koy-like animals as livestock
Segment 13
TYPE: שמעתא
Rav Hamnuna: forest goats are fit for the altar — because the Torah’s list of ten is exhaustive
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הָנֵי עִזֵּי דְּבָאלָא כְּשֵׁרוֹת לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת מָנָה הַכָּתוּב, וְתוּ לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites a statement with regard to goats: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Safra says that Rav Hamnuna says that these forest goats, i.e., wild goats, are fit to be sacrificed on the altar, as they are considered a type of goat. The Gemara comments that Rav Hamnuna holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The verse lists ten kosher animals, and no more. He is referring to the verses: “These are the animals that you may eat: An ox, a seh of sheep, and a seh of goats, a deer, and a gazelle, and a fallow deer, and a wild goat, and an oryx, and an aurochs, and a wild sheep” (Deuteronomy 14:4-5). The first three are domesticated animals, while the other seven are undomesticated animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new discussion: Rav Hamnuna (via Rabbi Zeira and Rav Safra) rules that forest goats (izei devala) are kosher for the altar — they are true goats, a domesticated species. His reasoning follows Rabbi Yitzchak: the Torah enumerated exactly ten kosher animal types (Devarim 14:4-5) — three domesticated (ox, sheep, goat) and seven wild — and no more. Sacrifices may come only from domesticated species, so the classification is decisive for the altar.
Key Terms:
- עִזֵּי דְּבָאלָא = Forest goats — wild-living goats whose classification is at issue
- עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת מָנָה הַכָּתוּב = ‘Scripture enumerated ten animals’ — the exhaustive list of kosher species in Devarim 14:4-5
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
The inference — and Rav Acha bar Yaakov’s objection from perat u’chlal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָנֵי מִדְּלָא קָחָשֵׁיב לְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי חַיּוֹת – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּעֵז נִינְהוּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: וְאֵימָא ״אַיָּל וּצְבִי״ – פָּרַט, ״כׇּל בְּהֵמָה״ – כָּלַל.
English Translation:
And with regard to these forest goats, since they are not reckoned among the undomesticated animals, learn from it that they are a type of goat, as they are also called goats and have a goat-like appearance. Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov objects to this: Perhaps wild goats are a different species of undomesticated animal not explicitly mentioned in the verse, as the next verse provides a more general description, and I will say that the verse: “A deer and a gazelle, etc.,” is a list of undomesticated animals, each of which is a specific detail. The next verse: “And any animal,” is a generalization.
קלאוד על הדף:
The inference runs: since forest goats are not listed among the seven wild species, they must be a kind of goat — domesticated and altar-fit. Rav Acha bar Yaakov objects: perhaps the list is not exhaustive. The verse names specific wild animals (a detail, perat) and then says ‘every animal’ (a generalization, klal) — and by the hermeneutical rules, a detail followed by a generalization expands beyond the detail.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ = ‘He objects’ — the formula introducing an amoraic challenge
- פְּרָט וּכְלָל = A detail followed by a generalization — a hermeneutical pattern that broadens the law
Segment 15
TYPE: המשך הקושיא
If the generalization expands the list, there may be many more kosher wild species
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פָּרַט וְכָלַל – נַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל מוּסָף עַל הַפְּרָט, אִיכָּא טוּבָא.
English Translation:
According to the principles for explicating verses, when there is a detail and then a generalization, the generalization was made to expand beyond the detail. Therefore, there are more species of kosher undomesticated animals than the verse lists, one of which may be forest goats.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is spelled out: where a detail is followed by a generalization, the generalization becomes primary and adds to the detail — so there could be many kosher wild species beyond the seven named, and the forest goat might be one of them. If so, its absence from the list proves nothing about its classification, and Rav Hamnuna’s altar ruling loses its foundation.
Key Terms:
- נַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל מוּסָף עַל הַפְּרָט = ‘The generalization adds to the detail’ — the rule that expands beyond the enumerated cases
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא
The defense — why list ten? — and a new objection: perhaps they are a kind of akko
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן, כֹּל הָנֵי פְּרָטֵי לְמָה לִי? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: וְדִלְמָא מִינָא דְּאַקּוֹ נִינְהוּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need all of these details? The mention of a single undomesticated animal and then the generalization should suffice for applying the principle of: A detail and a generalization. Rather, these are the only kosher undomesticated animals, and the forest goat must therefore be a type of domesticated goat. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, objects to this: But even if forest goats are not a different type of undomesticated animal from those mentioned in the verse, perhaps they are a type of wild goat, one of the undomesticated animals mentioned in the verse, rather than a type of domesticated goat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The defense of Rav Hamnuna: if the generalization truly expanded the list, why would the Torah enumerate all these details? One detail plus the generalization would have sufficed. The full enumeration shows the list is exhaustive — and the forest goat, absent from it, must be a domesticated goat. But Rav Acha the son of Rav Ika objects from within the list itself: perhaps forest goats are a variety of the akko — the wild goat already named among the seven — and thus a wild species after all.
Key Terms:
- כֹּל הָנֵי פְּרָטֵי לְמָה לִי = ‘Why do I need all these details?’ — the argument that the enumeration is exhaustive
- אַקּוֹ = The wild goat (Devarim 14:5) — one of the seven kosher wild species
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיות
Further objections: perhaps a kind of te’o or zemer — and Ameimar permits their fat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: דִּלְמָא מִינָא דִּתְאוֹ אוֹ מִינָא דְּזֶמֶר נִינְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַמֵּימָר שָׁרֵי תַּרְבַּיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
With regard to this topic, Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi, and some say it was Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, who said to Rav Ashi: Perhaps they are a type of aurochs [te’o], or a type of wild sheep, which are also undomesticated animals. Rav Ḥanan said to Rav Ashi: Differing from Rav Hamnuna’s opinion, Ameimar deems the consumption of their fat permitted, which is prohibited with regard to domesticated animals, indicating that he considers forest goats a species of undomesticated animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objections multiply. Rav Acha the son of Rava (some say the son of Rav Avya) asks Rav Ashi: perhaps forest goats are a variety of the te’o (aurochs) or the zemer (wild sheep) — other named wild species. And Rav Chanan reports to Rav Ashi a practical counter-ruling: Ameimar permits the fat (chelev) of forest goats. Chelev is forbidden only in domesticated animals; permitting it means Ameimar classifies forest goats as wild — the direct opposite of Rav Hamnuna’s altar ruling.
Key Terms:
- תְּאוֹ / זֶמֶר = The aurochs / the wild sheep — named wild species the forest goat might belong to
- שָׁרֵי תַּרְבַּיְיהוּ = ‘Permits their fat’ — chelev is forbidden only in beheimot; permitting it classifies the animal as wild
Segment 18
TYPE: בעיא
The same question posed to Rav Huna bar Chiyya: forest goats for the altar?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מִנְיָמִין בַּר חִיָּיא מֵרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא: הָנֵי עִזֵּי דְּבָאלָא מַהוּ לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא בְּשׁוֹר הַבָּר.
English Translation:
Abba, son of Rav Minyamin bar Ḥiyya, inquired of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya: What is the halakha with regard to offering these forest goats [izei devala] on the altar? Are they domesticated animals that may be sacrificed? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him: Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the wild ox.
קלאוד על הדף:
The question is now put independently: Abba the son of Rav Minyamin bar Chiyya asked Rav Huna bar Chiyya — may forest goats be offered on the altar? He answered: the tannaitic dispute about borderline animals extends only to the wild ox (shor habar); about forest goats there is no dispute at all. The next segment supplies the mishna and the reasoning.
Key Terms:
- מַהוּ לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ = ‘What is the law regarding the altar?’ — may this species be brought as an offering?
Segment 19
TYPE: משנה וביאור
The shor habar dispute: Aramaic translation versus scriptural listing — but forest goats are goats by all opinions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן: שׁוֹר הַבָּר מִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִין חַיָּה. דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִדִּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן ״תּוֹרְבָּלָא״, מִינָא דִּבְהֵמָה הוּא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: מִדְּקָא חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ בַּהֲדֵי חַיּוֹת, מִינָא דְּחַיָּה הוּא. אֲבָל הָנֵי, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מִינָא דְּעֵז נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
As we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:6): The wild ox is a species of domesticated animal. Rabbi Yosei says: It is a species of undomesticated animal. As the Rabbis hold that from the fact that “aurochs” (Deuteronomy 14:5) is translated into Aramaic as: Forest ox [turbala], it can be understood that the wild ox is a species of domesticated animal, and Rabbi Yosei holds: From the fact that it is reckoned among the undomesticated animals, it can be derived that it is a species of undomesticated animal. But with regard to these forest goats, which are not reckoned among the undomesticated animals, all agree that they are a type of goat and are fit to be sacrificed upon the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna (Kilayim 8:6): the wild ox is a domesticated species; Rabbi Yosei says a wild species. The Rabanan reason from the Aramaic: the te’o is rendered ‘turbala’ — forest ox — so the wild ox is just an ox that lives in the forest; Rabbi Yosei reasons from the verse: the te’o is listed among the wild animals, so the wild ox is a chayah. But forest goats, says Rav Huna bar Chiyya, are not reckoned among the wild species at all — by all opinions they are a kind of goat, and fit for the altar.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹר הַבָּר = The wild ox — the borderline animal disputed by Rabbi Yosei and the Rabanan
- תּוֹרְבָּלָא = ‘Forest ox’ — the Aramaic rendering of te’o, suggesting the wild ox is a true ox
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיות
The same battery of objections returns — and Ameimar’s ruling again
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: וְדִלְמָא מִינָא דְּאַקּוֹ נִינְהוּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא מִינָא דְּתָאוֹ, אוֹ מִינָא דְּזֶמֶר נִינְהוּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַמֵּימָר שָׁרֵי תַּרְבַּיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, objects to this: But perhaps they are a type of wild goat. Similarly, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps they are a type of aurochs, or a type of wild sheep. Additionally, Rav Naḥman said to Rav Ashi: Ameimar deems the consumption of their fat permitted, which is prohibited with regard to domesticated animals, as he considers them undomesticated animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna bar Chiyya’s confident ‘all agree’ meets the same objections raised against Rav Hamnuna: Rav Acha the son of Rav Ika — perhaps they are a kind of akko; Ravina to Rav Ashi — perhaps a kind of te’o or zemer; and Rav Nachman to Rav Ashi — Ameimar permits their fat, treating them as wild. The classification of the forest goat, like that of the koy, ends in unresolved doubt — a fitting coda to a daf built on the limits of classification.
Key Terms:
- וְדִלְמָא = ‘But perhaps…’ — the recurring objection that keeps the classification open
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Oshaya: the entire mishna contradicts Rabbi Shimon — beginning with kodashim outside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כּוּלַּהּ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָא תָנֵי: קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב כָּרֵת, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִים, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם סוֹפְגִים אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. מִכְּדִי שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה – לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה,
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: How so? One who slaughters an animal itself and its offspring, etc. Rabbi Oshaya says: The entire mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. From where is this derived? It is derived from that which the mishna teaches: If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, then for slaughtering the first animal, one is liable to receive karet. And both animals are disqualified for use as offerings, and for the slaughter of both of them, one incurs forty lashes. Since we have heard that Rabbi Shimon says: An act of slaughter that is unfit to permit consumption of the meat is not considered to have the halakhic status of an act of slaughter,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna of the twelve cases (‘How so? One who slaughters…’). Rabbi Oshaya observes that the whole mishna runs against Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unfit slaughter is not called slaughter (shechitah she’einah re’uyah lo shemah shechitah). The demonstration begins from the case of two sacrificial animals slaughtered outside: the mishna imposes karet for the first and only lashes for the second — a distribution Rabbi Shimon could not accept, as the continuation on the next amud shows.
Key Terms:
- שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה = An unfit slaughter — one that does not permit the meat; per Rabbi Shimon, not a halachic slaughter at all
- כּוּלַּהּ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = ‘The entire mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon’
Amud Bet (80b)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך הקושיא
On Rabbi Shimon’s view the second slaughterer should incur karet, not lashes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קַמָּא מִיקְטָל קַטְלֵיהּ, שֵׁנִי מִתְקַבֵּל בִּפְנִים הוּא, כָּרֵת נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב.
English Translation:
Therefore, when one slaughters a mother and its offspring that are both sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard, with regard to the first, it is as if he has simply killed it without ritual slaughter, since being slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard renders it unfit. Accordingly, the second would have been fit to be accepted within the Temple, and there would have been no prohibition against slaughtering it on that day. If so, when he slaughtered it outside the courtyard, why is he liable only to receive lashes? Let him also be liable to receive karet.
קלאוד על הדף:
The argument is completed: on Rabbi Shimon’s principle, the first slaughter outside the courtyard is mere killing — not a halachic shechitah, since it renders the offering unfit. But then the second animal was never barred by oto v’et beno; it remained fully acceptable inside the Temple. Slaughtering it outside should therefore be full shechutei chutz — karet — not the mere lashes the mishna assigns. The mishna’s ruling presumes the first slaughter counts, against Rabbi Shimon.
Key Terms:
- מִיקְטָל קַטְלֵיהּ = ‘He merely killed it’ — on Rabbi Shimon’s view, an unfit slaughter is not shechitah at all
- מִתְקַבֵּל בִּפְנִים = ‘Acceptable inside’ — the second animal would have been fit for the altar, making its outside slaughter full shechutei chutz
Segment 2
TYPE: המשך הקושיא
The same problem from chullin inside: why lashes for the second?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוּלִּין בִּפְנִים – שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין, וְהַשֵּׁנִי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. מִכְּדֵי שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה – לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, קַמָּא מִיקְטָל קַטְלֵיהּ, שֵׁנִי אַמַּאי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים?
English Translation:
Likewise, the same question may be asked with regard to what is taught in the mishna: If both animals were non-sacred and they were slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, both of them are unfit for sacrifice. And for the slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes. Since we have heard that Rabbi Shimon says: An act of slaughter that is unfit is not considered to have the halakhic status of an act of slaughter, with regard to the first animal, it is as if he has simply killed it without ritual slaughter, since a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is rendered unfit, as deriving benefit from it is prohibited. If so, why, for the slaughter of the second animal, does one incur the forty lashes?
קלאוד על הדף:
The second proof: non-sacred animals slaughtered inside the courtyard. The mishna says both are unfit (chullin ba’azarah) and the second slaughterer is lashed for oto v’et beno. But on Rabbi Shimon’s view the first slaughter — which renders the animal prohibited for benefit — is not a shechitah; the first animal was ‘merely killed.’ The prohibition of oto v’et beno should then never attach to the second slaughter, and there should be no lashes.
Key Terms:
- חוּלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה = Non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard — unfit, and their benefit prohibited
Segment 3
TYPE: המשך הקושיא
The third case: kodashim inside — the first slaughter seems fit, but is it?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים – הָרִאשׁוֹן כָּשֵׁר וּפָטוּר, וְהַשֵּׁנִי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, וּפָסוּל.
English Translation:
Similarly, the mishna teaches: 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 the slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for the slaughter of an animal and its offspring on a single day, and it is unfit for sacrifice.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third case cited: two sacrificial animals slaughtered inside the courtyard — the first fit and its slaughterer exempt, the second lashed and unfit. Here the first slaughter appears perfectly fit: right animal, right place. The coming segment shows why even this case defies Rabbi Shimon — and why it is the crucial one.
Key Terms:
- קָדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים = Sacrificial animals slaughtered inside the courtyard — the seemingly fit case
Segment 4
TYPE: סיום הקושיא
Even kodashim inside is an ‘unfit slaughter’ — the meat is not permitted until the blood is sprinkled
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּדֵי שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, שְׁחִיטַת קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה הִיא, דְּכַמָּה דְּלָא זָרֵיק דָּם – לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי בָּשָׂר. שֵׁנִי אַמַּאי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, וּפָסוּל? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
English Translation:
Since we have heard that Rabbi Shimon says: An act of slaughter that is unfit to permit consumption of the animal is not considered to have the halakhic status of an act of slaughter. One can then raise the question: An act of slaughter of sacrificial animals is also considered an act of slaughter that is unfit, because as long as one has not sprinkled the blood, the meat is not permitted to be burned on the altar or eaten. Since slaughtering the first animal is not considered slaughtering, why, for slaughtering the second animal, does one incur the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day, and why is it unfit? Rather, conclude from this analysis that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
קלאוד על הדף:
The decisive move: even the slaughter of sacrificial animals in their proper place is, at the moment of slaughter, an unfit slaughter by Rabbi Shimon’s criterion — for as long as the blood has not been sprinkled on the altar, the meat is not permitted at all. If the first slaughter is not a shechitah, the second slaughterer should be neither lashed nor his animal disqualified. Conclude: the entire mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.
Key Terms:
- זְרִיקַת הַדָּם = Sprinkling the blood — the altar service that first permits the offering’s meat
- לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי בָּשָׂר = ‘The meat is not permitted’ — before sprinkling, even a proper Temple slaughter permits nothing
Segment 5
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Why spell it out? The chiddush is that even Temple slaughter counts as ‘unfit’ for Rabbi Shimon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּשִׁיטָא דְּהָכִי אִיתַהּ? שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים שְׁחִיטָה רְאוּיָה הִיא, דְּהָא אִי נָחַר וְזָרֵיק דָּם – לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי בָּשָׂר, וְכִי שָׁחַט – מִישְׁתְּרֵי בָּשָׂר, וּשְׁחִיטָה רְאוּיָה הִיא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that this is so? There is no need for this long analysis. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Oshaya to mention that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon due to the case of slaughtering an animal and its offspring that are sacrificial animals inside the Temple courtyard. This is because it may enter your mind to say that slaughtering sacrificial animals is considered an act of slaughtering that is fit, because if he stabbed the animal to death and sprinkled its blood, the meat is not permitted, but if he slaughtered it, the meat is permitted and it is considered slaughtering that is fit according to Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, he teaches us that it is not fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: is this conclusion not obvious? It answers: Rabbi Oshaya’s analysis was needed precisely for the kodashim-inside case. One might have thought Temple slaughter is the paradigm of a fit slaughter — after all, slaughter is the only path to permitting the meat (stabbing the animal and sprinkling its blood permits nothing, while slaughtering does). The chiddush: since at the moment of the act nothing is yet permitted, even this is an ‘unfit slaughter’ on Rabbi Shimon’s terms.
Key Terms:
- סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא = ‘It might enter your mind to say’ — the mistaken assumption the teaching comes to dispel
- נָחַר = Stabbing the animal — a non-shechitah killing that permits nothing even with sprinkling
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
A new question: let the second slaughterer also be flogged for mechusar zman
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם לָאו דִּמְחוּסַּר זְמַן, דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְכׇל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁבַּשּׁוֹר וְשֶׁבַּשֶּׂה שֶׁהוּא בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״?
English Translation:
With regard to the ruling that one who slaughters an animal and its offspring that are sacrificial animals inside the Temple courtyard receives lashes for violating the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, when slaughtering the second animal, the Gemara suggests: And let him be flogged also for violating the prohibition against sacrificing an animal whose time has not yet arrived, since it is forbidden to sacrifice it until the next day. As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to all of the disqualifications of the bull, i.e., any feature that disqualifies cattle brought as offerings, and of the lamb, i.e., sheep brought as offerings, that if one consecrates, slaughters, or burns on the altar an animal so disqualified, he violates the prohibition of: It shall not be accepted, and is flogged?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a new liability in the kodashim-inside case: the second animal is mechusar zman — its time to be offered has not arrived — and a baraita teaches that all the disqualified categories of the bull and the lamb stand under the prohibition ‘it shall not be accepted’ (lo yeratzeh), which carries lashes. Why then does the mishna assign the second slaughterer only the lashes of oto v’et beno?
Key Terms:
- מְחוּסַּר זְמַן = ‘Lacking time’ — an offering that may not be brought until its day arrives
- לֹא יֵרָצֶה = ‘It shall not be accepted’ (Vayikra 22:23) — the prohibition covering disqualified offerings
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
The source: ‘a bull or a lamb’ with a blemish teaches on all disqualifications
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט וְגוֹ׳״, לִימֵּד עַל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁבַּשּׁוֹר וְשֶׁבַּשֶּׂה, שֶׁהוּא בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״!
English Translation:
It is derived from the fact that, in the middle of the passage prohibiting blemished animals from being sacrificed upon the altar, the verse states: “Either a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short…but for a vow it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23). Since this passage is already discussing a bull and lamb, it is unnecessary to mention them. Rather, this verse taught about all of the disqualifications of the bull and of the lamb, including that of an animal whose time has not yet arrived, that if one offers an animal with one of those disqualifications, he violates the prohibition of: It shall not be accepted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s derivation: in the passage on blemished offerings the verse says ‘a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short… it shall not be accepted’ (Vayikra 22:23). The words ‘a bull or a lamb’ are superfluous — the passage already concerns them — so they come to extend ‘it shall not be accepted’ to all the disqualifications of the bull and the lamb, including mechusar zman. Offering any disqualified animal violates a Torah prohibition bearing lashes.
Key Terms:
- שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט = ‘Too long or too short’ — the blemishes named in the verse, the springboard for the wider rule
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer: the mishna counts only the prohibitions of oto v’et beno itself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי קָא חָשֵׁיב לָאוֵי דְּ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ – לָאוֵי נוּכְרָאֵי לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: He receives lashes for violating that prohibition as well, but when the mishna lists the prohibitions violated by the actions described, it lists only prohibitions related to the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, but it does not list unrelated prohibitions.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers: the second slaughterer is indeed flogged for mechusar zman as well — but the mishna’s silence is editorial, not legal. When the mishna enumerates the liabilities in each case, it counts only the prohibitions belonging to its own subject, oto v’et beno; foreign prohibitions (lavei nuchra’ei) are simply outside its scope.
Key Terms:
- לָאוֵי נוּכְרָאֵי = ‘Foreign prohibitions’ — liabilities unrelated to oto v’et beno, omitted from the mishna’s count
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
But the mishna does count a foreign prohibition — karet for shechutei chutz!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא? וְהָא קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, דְּלָאוֵי נוּכְרָאֵי נִינְהוּ, וְקָא חָשֵׁיב, דְּקָתָנֵי: קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ – הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב כָּרֵת, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם סוֹפְגִין אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And does the mishna not list unrelated prohibitions? But there are prohibitions with regard to sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, which are unrelated prohibitions, and it lists them. As it teaches: If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, then for slaughtering the first animal, one is liable to receive karet. And both animals are disqualified for use as offerings, and for the slaughter of both of them one incurs forty lashes apiece.
קלאוד על הדף:
The editorial answer is challenged from the mishna itself: in the case of two sacrificial animals outside, the mishna states that the first slaughterer is liable to karet and both are flogged. The karet and the first slaughterer’s lashes are pure shechutei chutz — foreign to oto v’et beno — and yet the mishna lists them. The claimed editorial principle seems refuted.
Key Terms:
- שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ = Sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the courtyard — a prohibition foreign to oto v’et beno, yet listed
Segment 10
TYPE: ביאור הקושיא
Parsing the case: the second’s lashes are oto v’et beno, but the first’s can only be shechutei chutz
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא שֵׁנִי, מִשּׁוּם לָאו דְּ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״, אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן אַמַּאי סוֹפֵג? לָאו מִשּׁוּם לָאו דִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ?
English Translation:
Granted, with regard to the second animal one is flogged due to the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. But with regard to the first animal, why does he incur the forty lashes? Isn’t it due to the prohibition of consecrated animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard? Therefore, with regard to the case of sacrificial animals slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the mishna should also have mentioned the unrelated prohibition of: It shall not be accepted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge is sharpened: in that case, the second animal’s lashes are indeed for oto v’et beno — but the first animal’s lashes have only one possible source, the prohibition of slaughtering kodashim outside. So the mishna does count a foreign prohibition when it lists the first slaughterer’s malkot, and by the same token it should have mentioned ‘lo yeratzeh’ for mechusar zman in the kodashim-inside case.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא… אֶלָּא = ‘Granted… but’ — the formula isolating the unanswerable half of the challenge
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
The refined principle: foreign prohibitions are counted only where oto v’et beno is absent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא לָאו דְּ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ – חָשֵׁיב לָאוֵי נוּכְרָאֵי, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לָאו דְּ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ – לָא חָשֵׁיב לָאוֵי נוּכְרָאֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Wherever there is no violation of the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, for slaughtering an animal, the mishna lists unrelated prohibitions, but wherever there is a violation of the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, the mishna does not list unrelated prohibitions, but only the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara refines the editorial rule: wherever a given slaughter involves no oto v’et beno liability — like the first animal in the kodashim-outside case — the mishna does list the foreign prohibitions, so that the slaughter not appear consequence-free. But wherever the slaughter does carry oto v’et beno — like the second animal in every case — the mishna lists only that, and omits accompanying foreign liabilities such as mechusar zman.
Key Terms:
- כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא / דְּלֵיכָּא = ‘Wherever there is / there is not’ — the refined editorial principle governing what the mishna lists
Segment 12
TYPE: שיטה אחרת
Rabbi Zeira’s alternative: leave mechusar zman aside — the verse itself treats it differently
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: הַנַּח לִמְחוּסַּר זְמַן, דְּהַכָּתוּב
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said: Leave the prohibition against sacrificing an animal whose time has not yet arrived, as the verse
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira offers a different resolution to the mechusar zman question: ‘Leave the prohibition of mechusar zman’ — for Scripture itself, he begins to argue, sets that prohibition apart. The amud ends mid-sentence, with Rabbi Zeira’s citation of the verse carrying into daf 81, where his distinction — and its consequences for the mishna’s rulings — will be completed.
Key Terms:
- הַנַּח = ‘Leave it’ — Rabbi Zeira’s move to exempt mechusar zman from the entire question
- דְּהַכָּתוּב… = ‘For the verse…’ — the derivation left hanging at the amud’s close, resumed on daf 81