Chullin 93: בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה נֶאֱמָנִין

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 93

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Pappa thus distinguishes between a barley-sized amount of forbidden fat, which results only in the butcher’s removal from his position, and an olive-sized amount, which also results in flogging. The distinction between these two cases can be understood in two ways:

A. The severity of the result. When an olive-sized amount of forbidden fat remains on the animal’s meat, a more serious stumbling block has been created, since this is a substantial quantity of prohibited food, one whose consumption could even generate liability for a sin-offering.

B. The severity of the negligence. A butcher who leaves behind a barley-sized amount of forbidden fat is negligent and therefore unfit for his position. But a butcher who leaves behind an olive-sized amount is apparently someone who deliberately treats the prohibition of chelevwith contempt and consequently deserves flogging.

Our daf becomes much more interesting if read not merely as a technical discussion of chelev, but as a halakhic theory of professional ethics, deception, negligence, and sanctions.

The key distinction is between what kind of person/professional the butcher has shown himself to be and what harm or risk his conduct has actually created.

Chullin 92: הִגִּיעַ זְמַן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל לִיגָּאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 92

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis interpret Bereishit (40:10), "And in the vine were three bunches and as it was budding its blossoms shot forth and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes".

Rabbi Eliezer says that the vine is the world, the branches are our patriarchs, the blossoms the matriarchs and the ripe grapes were the twelve tribes. Rabbi Yehoshua says that dreams tell the future, and thus the vines the Torah, the branches are Moses Aaorn and Miriam, and the budding blossoms are the Sanhedrin.

The ripe grapes were the righteous of all generations. Rabbi Elazar HaModa'i says that the vine is Jerusalem, the branches are the Temple the King and the High Priest, blossoms are young priests, and the grapes are the libations.

We explore midrasnhic and literary themes of Israel’s comparison to a vine.

Chullin 91: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה? שֶׁנָּשָׁה מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וְעָלָה

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 91

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The source for the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve is the story related in Sefer Bereishit (32:33) that describes the wrestling match that took place between Ya’akov and the angel, where Ya’akov is injured in his thigh. The Gemara on today’s daf develops the story of the wrestling match further.

According to the Gemara, when the angel said “Let me go, for the dawn has risen,” (see Bereishit 32:37) Ya’akov said to him, “Are you a thief or a gambler who is afraid of the dawn?” He replied: “I am an angel, and from the day that I was created my time to recite a song before God had not arrived until now.”

We explore the struggles of Jacob.

Chullin 90: דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, דִּבְּרוּ נְבִיאִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 90

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah in Tamid (2:2) is cited which describes this pile of ashes, and it tells us that the pile sometimes grew to contain more than three hundred kor of ashes, which is more than nine thousand se’ah. This is a huge amount, and Rava states that it is actually an exaggerated number and does not have to be taken literally.

R’ Yitzchak b. Nachmeini, in the name of Shmuel, says that this description of the volume of ashes on the Altar is one of three places where our sages spoke in exaggerated terms. A second example is regarding the decorative display of golden grapes which adorned the entrance to the antechamber of the Sanctuary (Middos 3:8). One time it had to be moved, and we are told that it took more than three hundred kohanim to move it due to its massive weight.

We explore the notion of exaggeration in Talmud its use and its dangers.

Chullin 89: אַלְמָא אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין קָדֵים!

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 89

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishnah at the beginning of the perek states that the prohibition of eating the gid hanasheh applies both to unconsecrated and consecrated animals.[1]

The Gemara begins by noting that it would seem obvious that this prohibition would apply to consecrated animals, because there is no reason to think that the prohibition against eating the gid hanasheh should be cancelled by declaring an animal to be sanctified. Among the suggestions given by the Gemara to explain this halacha is that the author of the Mishnah might be of the opinion that a gid hanasheh has a taste and if cooked as part of the thigh it contributes a taste to the meat (Chachamim, 96b, 99b), and is not a just a tasteless nerve.

Accordingly, the gid of this animal was a prohibited item, and now that the animal has been consecrated there is an additional prohibition against eating and benefitting from consecrated meat.

Chullin 88: וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 88

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although the Torah clearly states that the blood must be covered with afar – with dirt – the Mishna on today’s daf offers a number of substances that will suffice for this mitzva, including lime, fine sand, fine granulated manure, or crushed potsherd, brick, or earthenware. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concludes by teaching that as long as plants can grow in it, it can be used for covering the blood. The Gemara teaches that ashes can be used, as well.

There are other mitzvot that also involve the use of dirt or ashes. Rava teaches –

As a reward for our father Abraham having said: “I am but dust and ashes” (see Bereishit 18:27) his children merited two commandments: the ashes of the Red Heifer, and the dust used in the ceremony of the sota.

The Gemara asks why Rava counts these two commandments and does not include also the dirt used for kisuy ha-dam.

We explore the humility of Avraham Avinu.

Chullin 87: עֲדַיִין יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפָּחָה בֵּין גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 87

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In our Daf a Sadducee challenged Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi’s belief in one God but could not answer Rabbi’s rebuttal and subsequently died. A member of his household brought Rabbi the news and was invited to dine with him. Offered either forty gold coins or the cup of blessing after the meal, he chose the blessing, whose value was affirmed by a heavenly voice. Rabbi Yitzḥak adds that his distinguished family still survived among Rome’s elite under the name “the family of Bar Luyyanus.”

Lieberman was fascinated by the appearance of Latin and Greek names in the Talmud. "בר לויאנוס" (Bar Luyyanus) is almost certainly a Latin name (from Lollianus, Luvianus, Lovianus, or another cognate), rather than a Hebrew or Aramaic one. He frequently analyzes exactly these kinds of names.

We explore the world of Rabbis in Rome.

Chullin 86: הוֹאִיל וְרוֹב מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן מְקוּלְקָלִים

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 86

To download, click/tap here: PDF

"It occurred that Rav Beruna and Rav Ḥananel, the students of Rav, were sitting together at a meal, and Rav Yeiva the Elder stood over them to serve them. They said to him: Give us a cup of wine over which to recite the blessings of Grace after Meals. They thenchanged their mind and said to him: Give us a cup of wine to drink. Rav Yeiva the Elder said to them that this is what Rav said: Once someone at a meal says: Give me a cup over which to recite the blessings of Grace after Meals, it is prohibited for him to drink any more wine, since he has expressed his desire to conclude his meal. If he now wishes to drink more wine, he must recite a blessing before drinking it. Ravina asks: Here too, since he is required to cover the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaughtering the bird, there is an interruption between the acts of slaughter, and he has therefore become obligated torecite a new blessing before slaughtering the bird.”

We explore the notion of hefsek as a halachic and possible theological category with reference to object indexed versus intended index theory.

Chullin 85: אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא. לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 85

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was one of the last of the Tanna’im – a pupil and colleague of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Originally from Babylonia, his family genealogy was linked to King David. His twin sons, Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, were known for their piety; his twin daughters, Pazi and Tavi, headed families of important scholars.

We learn of the importance of the family from the statement of Reish Lakish (see Sukka daf 20a) who taught that when Torah was forgotten in Israel, Ezra came from Babylon and reestablished it; when it was forgotten a second time, Hillel the Babylonian came and reestablished it; when it was forgotten a third time, Rabbi Ḥiyya came and reestablished it.

We explore this Rabbinic Character.

Chullin 84: מִי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לוֹ אָבִיו מָעוֹת וְרוֹצֶה לְאַבְּדָן

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 84

To download, click/tap here: PDF

After discussing the many differences between water and blood, the rabbis turn to the wisdom of Rabbi Yochanan. He teaches a number of different life lessons including if we wish to become wealthy, we should raise small livestock it is healthier to drink a cup of water from witches than a cup of lukewarm water -- but boiled water is fine if one wishes to lose his father's inheritance, he should wear white linen, drink from expensive glass, and eat separate from the labourers with oxen - all of these things will become ruined and his money will be lost. Rabbi Avira interpreted Psalms (112:5) in the name of Rabbi Ami or Rabbi Asi: "Good is the man who is gracious and lends, who orders his affairs with justice". This means that a person should eat and drink less than what is within his means. He should dress according to his means. Finally, he should honour his wife and children more than what is within his means. This is because they are dependent on him just as he is dependent upon "the One Who spoke and the world was created”.

We explore the talmudic views of accumulating wealth.

Chullin 83: הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 83

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In the Torah (Leviticus 17:13), we are commanded to cover the blood of kosher wild animals (ḥayyot) and birds after they have been slaughtered:

"And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who hunts any beast or bird that may be eaten, shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth."

This obligation does not apply to domesticated animals (behemah), but only to wild animals and birds.

The Sages and later commentators offered different explanations for this commandment.

We explore the parameters of this mitzvah.

Chullin 82: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת אִמּוֹ מִנַּיִן

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 82

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have learned above (see daf 78) that the Torah forbids the slaughter of an animal whose parent was killed on that day. Similarly, if the offspring was killed first, the parent cannot be slaughtered on that day (oto ve-et beno – see Vayikra 22:28).

The Mishna on our daf teaches that if mother and offspring were sold on the same day, the person who made the first purchase has the right to slaughter his animal first on that day, precluding the second from slaughtering. If, however, the person who made the second purchase went ahead and slaughtered his animal first, he has successfully claimed the right to do so and the other purchaser may not slaughter the animal that he purchased that day.

Chullin 81: אֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן יוֹדְעִין אוֹתָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 81

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have learned that the Torah forbids the slaughter of a parent and its offspring on the same day (oto ve-et beno –)

The Mishna on our daf discusses situations where the sheḥita has a problem attached to it.

What if the animal was a tereifa – it suffered from a terminal condition and was not kosher?

What if the animal was slaughtered for idol worship?

What if it was slaughtered as a para aduma – a Red Heifer – or for some other purpose that makes it forbidden for ordinary use?

In cases such as these, Rabbi Shimon rules that the laws of oto ve-et beno will not apply, since the slaughter that took place did not permit the animal to be eaten. The Ḥakhamim disagree and rule that we still consider this to be sheḥita, and the law of oto ve-et beno remains in effect.

We examine the celebrated dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish as it surfaces in our daf where the two Palestinian masters divide over whether a transgressor who could in principle have incurred the graver of two penalties may nonetheless be held liable for the lesser when no forewarning attached to the graver offence.

Chullin 80: שׁוֹר הַבָּר מִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 80

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The disagreement as to the koy’s identification began in the time of the Mishnah, when some of the Sages argued that it is the offspring of a deer or similar animal with a goat. Others claim that it is a unique type of animal – an Ayal ha-bar .

The Ayal ha-bar can be identified with the ovis musimon, which, according to many, is the forerunner of domesticated cattle. It is distinguished by its short hair and grey color, and it lives in mountainous regions, where it is a nimble climber – today mainly in uninhabited areas in Europe. It is likely that the clear similarities between a koy and a sheep, together with its being a wild animal, led to the Sages’ confusion about its classification .

We explore the shor habar and its connection to messianic end times.

Chullin 79: מִן הַכּוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 79

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Torah forbids many types of mixtures, among them is the prohibition against mating different species of animals together (see Vayikra 19:19).

With this in mind, we find on our daf that Rabbi Yehuda teaches: if a mule was in heat it may not be mated with a horse or a donkey, but only with one of its own kind. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda forbids mating it with any kind of horse or any kind of donkey, since we do not know the mule’s true species.

The Gemara then suggests that we should determine what “its kind” must be by examining it by means of specific signs taught by Abayye. These include: If its voice is harsh, it is the offspring of a female donkey; if its voice is shrill, it is the offspring of a mare. In addition we have the tradition of Rav Papa that if its ears are long and its tail short, it is the offspring of a female donkey; if its ears are short and its tail long, it is the offspring of a mare!

We explore once again the hybrid animal Koy and its Greek counterpart as liminal creature.

Chullin 78: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 78

To download, click/tap here: PDF

After dealing with the laws of ritual slaughter and related rules and regulations whose focus were the main concerns of shechita, the fifth perek of Masechet Chullin turns its attention to other laws related to ritual slaughter that stand as separate commandments. This chapter deals with the laws of oto ve’et beno – the rule that forbids the slaughter of a parent and its offspring on the same day (see Vayikra 22:28).

The language of the prohibition in the Torah makes it clear that it refers only to kosher, domesticated animals – not to birds or wild animals. All agree that the prohibition stands whether it is the parent or the offspring that is slaughtered first; similarly, all agree that it makes no difference whether the offspring is male or female. There is a difference of opinion, however, as to whether the parent mentioned refers only to the mother, or if slaughtering the father is included in this prohibition.

[The law of] “It and its young” applies both within the land of Israel and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated animals.

The prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day applies in all times and all places and to both consecrated (dedicated to the Temple) and non-consecrated (hullin) animals.

We explore the possible rationale for such a Mitzvah comparing it to shiluach Hakein based on the rishonim and modern sensibilities regarding humane treatment of animals.

Chullin 77: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רְפוּאָה – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 77

To download, click/tap here: PDF

This perek has focused on the rules and regulations that apply to an animal that was slaughtered and was discovered to have a developing fetus within it. The Mishna on today’s daf discusses the case of a shilya – a placenta – that was found in such an animal. A placenta is a large organ – filled with blood vessels – that connects the developing fetus to the uterine wall. By means of the placenta – and specifically the umbilical cord connected to it – the fetus “eats,” that is, ingests nutrients that allow it to develop. The presence of a placenta in an animal (or in a human) is a clear indication that a pregnancy began, although if no fetus is present then the pregnancy did not continue with its normal development.

While the focus of the Mishna is on the permissibility of the placenta – the Mishna rules that it can be eaten, even though it is not ordinarily considered to be food – it concludes that “it may not be buried at an intersection or hung on a tree, due to the ways of the Amorite.”

We explore ancient views of the placenta and modern claims to medicinal properties.

Chullin 76: אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 76

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Which joint is the one that serves as the “cut-off point” for this law?

The Gemara brings a difference of opinion with regard to this question. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav who reported it in the name of Rabbi Hiyya, “below” means below the joint, and “above” means above the joint, and the joint referred to is the joint which is sold together with the head. Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: It is that joint which is clearly distinguishable in the camel.

An animal’s leg is made up of three main bones (aside from the smaller bones around the hoof that are comparable to a human foot). They are:

The lower leg, which traditionally was sold by butchers together with the animal’s head. This bone is referred to by many rishonim as the regel.

The middle bone, the shank bone, called the shok.

The upper bone, which would be the thighbone, called the yerekh or kulit.

Between each of these bones there is a joint called an arkuvah; the upper arkuvah can be seen clearly in a camel, although in a cow it is difficult to discern since it is close to the cows belly and it is covered with muscle and skin. The discussion in the Gemara is which arkuvah is referred to in the Mishnah when it teaches that an animal becomes a treifah if the hind legs of an animal were cut off “below the joint.”

We explore the history of dissection.

Chullin 75: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 75

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, there is a difference of opinion regarding the status of a viable fetus that was in utero at the time that its mother was slaughtered. Rabbi Meir rules that in such a case it would need its own shechita. The Chachamim disagree, arguing that the mother’s slaughter permits the fetus.

What if the mother was a treifah – an animal with a terminal condition that will not allow it to survive? The slaughter of a treifah does not render the mother kosher, although it does affect the mother’s status with regard to laws of ritual purity (see above daf 73).

This question is discussed in the Gemara where we find Rabbi Ammi teaching that if a person slaughtered a treifah animal and found in it a viable fetus, then the positions are switched.

We continue our review of embryos infants and childrearing in antiquity.

Chullin 74: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר בְּחֶלְבּוֹ – מַתִּיר בְּדָמוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 74

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In the Mishnah on our daf we find that although Rabbi Meir rules that an animal that dies in its mother’s womb (or is not fully developed) becomes permitted by means of shechita performed on its mother, if it is fully developed then it would need its own shechita. The Chachamim disagree, arguing that the mother’s slaughter permits the fetus. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri goes so far as to state “even if it is five years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted.”

We explore the history of abortion in antiquity.