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.

Chullin 73: לָא שְׁנָא אֵבֶר דְּעוּבָּר וְלָא שְׁנָא אֵבֶר דִּבְהֵמָה

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 73

To download, click/tap here: PDF

By performing ritual slaughter on a kosher animal, its meat becomes permitted to eat. Such shechita also serves another purpose, as a properly slaughtered animal does not become tamei – it does not attain the ritual defilement of a neveilah – an animal that died on its own or was killed by a predator (see Vayikra 11:39). This is true even if the shechita does not accomplish its primary purpose. If an animal was found to be a treifah – an animal with a terminal condition that will die within a short amount of time – although shechita does not permit it to be eaten, nevertheless the animal does not become a neveilah, rather it remains ritually pure, since it was slaughtered properly.

According to the Mishnah on yesterday’s daf, a fetus in its mother’s womb does not become a neveilah if its mother is slaughtered, even though its exposed limb would become a neveilah if it was cut off before its mother’s slaughter. In a case where the exposed limb was not cut off and shechita was performed on the mother while the limb was hanging out, we find a disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim.

Our daf , is on its face concerned with something narrow and technical: whether the slaughter (sheḥitah) of a mother animal reaches a limb of the fetus that has emerged from the womb, and whether it reaches a limb that dangles, mostly severed, from the body of an animal.

But beneath the technicality lies a conceptual dispute of the first order, the sugya is one of the sharpest instruments the rabbinic tradition ever devised for thinking about a problem that modern jurisprudence has found itself unable to settle: the problem of the fetus as an entity that is at once part of another and, in some register, its own.

Chullin 72: אֵיזֶהוּ מֵת שֶׁבְּנֶפֶשׁ שֶׁל אָדָם? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה עוּבָּר שֶׁבִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 72

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If an animal was in difficult labor and the fetus put forth its foreleg, and one severed it, to ease the mother's pain and then, since it did not help, slaughtered the mother, the remaining flesh of the fetus is ritually pure, since it has been slaughtered together with its mother. The severed limb itself is impure: if the fetus was alive, the limb was severed from a live animal and has the impurity of a dead animal (nevelah); and if the fetus was dead, the limb is actual nevelah.

If one first slaughtered its mother and then severed the foreleg, then the flesh of the fetus is impure because it touched the limb - so says Rabbi Meir. However, the Sages say that flesh is impure with a special light impurity decreed by the Sages, which would only make a difference in the case of sacrifices.

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive that the grave cover and the grave walls render one who touches them impure? He learned this halakha through tradition, not from a verse. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, from where does hederive that a dead fetus in a woman’s womb is impure by Torah law? Rabbi Oshaya saidhe derives it from the verse that states:

“Whoever touches of a corpse, of the life of a person that died, he will be impure” (Numbers 19:13). The term “of the life” can also be interpreted as: Inside the life. What is the case of a corpse that is inside the life of a person? You must say that this is a dead fetus inside a woman’s womb.

We explore the theological implications of “inside the life.”

Chullin 71: שֶׁטּוּמְאָה בְּלוּעָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 71

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah on our daf turns its attention to a woman whose fetus dies in utero and the questions of ritual defilement that stem from that situation. According to the Mishnah, if the midwife reached into the womb and touched the dead fetus, she contracts ritual defilement of contact with the dead; the mother remains ritually pure until the fetus is delivered.

The Gemara explains that on a Torah level the dead fetus does not defile as long as it has not been delivered since this is a situation of tumah belu’ah – “swallowed defilement” – which does not ritually defile. The defilement contracted by the midwife is a rabbinic decree, lest the fetus’ head is delivered – which determines that the fetus defiles – and the midwife believes that it has not yet attained that status.

We explore the notion of postmortem fetal survival known as coffin deaths in history…

Chullin 70: חֲזִיר בִּמְעֵי חֲזִירְתָּא לָא לִיטַמֵּא

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 70

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishnah rules that an offspring acquires the sanctity of the firstborn only when the majority of its body, or the majority of its limbs, has emerged from the womb. If most of the body has not yet emerged, then the parts that have emerged do not possess the sanctity of the firstborn. Consequently, they do not require burial and may even be fed to dogs.

On our daf the Gemara presents a series of questions investigating the precise nature of the process by which the offspring becomes sanctified as a firstborn upon leaving the womb. It describes a number of unusual and even bizarre birth scenarios in order to determine whether firstborn sanctity is conferred in those cases. One of the Gemara’s questions clearly identifies the underlying issue:

“Rav Aḥa asked: What if the walls of the womb were opened? Is it the airspace of the womb that sanctifies—and that is present—or perhaps it is contact with the womb that sanctifies—and that is absent?”

In essence, the Gemara asks whether the fetus must come into direct physical contact with the cervix (or birth canal), or whether merely emerging from the womb—even without such contact—is sufficient to confer the sanctity of the firstborn.

Our daf offers two rival constructions of the uterine wall, and it is worth drawing them out with some precision, because the whole of what follows depends upon the distinction. On the first construction, the wall of the womb is a threshold and nothing more.

Its legal significance is exhausted by the act of passage: the fetus that traverses it has been born, and birth is what sanctifies. The wall, on this reading, is a boundary in the topological sense, a surface whose crossing is a legal event but whose substance carries no charge. We claim that sanctity is a function of location, not of touch; the operative category is peter rechem, the opening of the womb, understood as the fetus's own act of egress.

Chullin 69: הַמְקַשָּׁה לֵילֵד – מְחַתֵּךְ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 69

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a pregnant animal is slaughtered and a fetus is found inside it (whether alive or dead), the fetus is permitted for consumption without requiring its own ritual slaughter (sheḥitah). Two possible explanations may be suggested for this halakhic ruling:

The slaughter of the mother is regarded as if the fetus itself has also been slaughtered.

According to Rav, if a limb of the fetus protruded from the womb and later retracted, that limb is not rendered permissible through the slaughter of the mother. Rabbi Yoḥanan, however, maintains that a limb which protruded and then returned is rendered permissible by the mother’s slaughter.

Our sugya discusses a doubtful case involving a fetus that extended one of its limbs into the Temple courtyard (Azarah) before the mother was slaughtered:

“Rav Ḥananya asked: If the fetus extended its hand into the Temple courtyard, what is the law? Since the walls of the courtyard constitute a boundary with respect to sacrificial animals, do they also constitute a boundary for this limb? Or perhaps, with respect to this limb, they do not function as a boundary?”

We explore the notion of the azarah as a boundary space akin to the womb and the temple as axis Mundi…

Chullin 68: בְּהֵמָה הַמְקַשָּׁה לֵילֵד

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 68

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The fourth perek of Masechet Chullin begins on our daf. Entitled beheima ha-mekashe leiled – “an animal that encounters difficulty while giving birth” – its focus is on the laws relating to an unborn fetus in its mother’s womb at the time that the mother is slaughtered.

When an animal that is in labor encounters difficulty in delivery, and its owner suspects that it may die, one option is to slaughter the animal. Such a situation raises many questions – not about the animal itself, which can certainly be slaughtered and eaten – but with regard to its fetus. Generally speaking, we assume that ritual slaughter will permit the entire animal, together with everything inside it, to be eaten Just as all of the animal’s internal organs will become permitted by means of shechita, similarly the fetus, which at the moment of slaughter is part of the animal, will become permitted, as well.

If someone reaches into the mother and cuts off one of the fetus’s limbs and leaves the limb in the womb, when the mother is slaughtered, that limb may be eaten. This is not considered to be eating a limb from a living animal, which is prohibited, because this is a limb of an animal that has not yet come to life. In contrast, if he reaches in and cuts off an organ from the animal itself and leaves it in inside the animal and then slaughters the animal, that limb is prohibited because it is a limb from a living animal. Without this mishnah one might have thought that as long as the limb is inside the animal when the animal is slaughtered, it is permitted. The mishnah provides the general rule which explains this particular halakhah: if the limb is part of the animal’s body it is prohibited, but if it is not part of the animal’s body, because it is a fetus, it is permitted.

We explore the curious case of Ben Pakuah.

Chullin 67: וְאֶת נִבְלָתָם תְּשַׁקֵּצוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 67

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On the closing daf of Perek Eilu Tereifot, the Gemara turns its attention to the passage in Sefer Vayikra (11:42) that forbids eating a variety of different insects and creatures that crawl on the ground.

Pri Chadash states that the standard is not determined by what most people find disgusting, but rather by the subjective reaction of the individual eating the food.

There remains, however, an important question: Is the permission to eat the worms limited to when they are consumed together with the flesh of the fish, or may they even be eaten by themselves?

We explore the notion of the sacred and the disgusting with the meforshim on Vayikra 11:11.

Chullin 66: מִכָּאן תְּשׁוּבָה לָאוֹמֵר אֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf is the most important reflection on aggadic themes in the masechtah.

It begins with yesterday’s challenges given to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya from the Roman Emperor. When he wishes to see the Lord, Rabbi Yehoshua offers to look at the sun, which is impossible. That much more so to look at the master of the sun, he explains.

The Gemara then considers differences between bulls and donkeys. It also considers the prohibition against mixing species when referring to grass, which is already mixed.

The daf then discusses Adam harishon and the bull he offered with one horn.

We are told a story about the sun and the moon where Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi sees the moon in competition with the sun, offering that one should be less bright - but not the moon! Rabbi Shimon explains that the moon continues to beg for G-d's mercy and to allow it to be brighter. The moon understands that though people count our months with the moon, it is written in Genesis that we use the sun to count. G-d eventually convinces the moon that other creatures who are 'the lesser' are still great.

We explore these themes with reverence and a midrasnhic eye.