Previous daf

(a) Our Mishnah teaches us that the prohibition of 'Oso ve'es B'no' (Shechting a mother and its baby) applies 'bein ba'Aretz bein be'Chutz la'Aretz, bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis, be'Chulin u've'Mukdashin'. The first statement is obvious - because it is a 'Chovas ha'Guf' (a personal Mitzvah that has nothing to do with the land).

(b) The Tana nevertheless sees fit to mention it - because he needs to mention ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz (as we shall see in the Sugya [whereas 'bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis' will be explained in the last Perek).

(c) It make no difference ...

1. ... in which order one Shechts them in order to transgress.
2. ... whether a different person Shechts the second animal or the same one.

(d) If someone Shechts 'Oso ve'es B'no Chulin ba'Chutz' (outside the Azarah), the second person receives Malkos - but this does not disqualify the second animal from being eaten.

(a) In a case where they Shechted Oso ve'es B'no Kodshim ba'Chutz, both animals are Pasul because of Shechutei Chutz, and the first sinner is Chayav Kareis for performing such a Shechitah. The second one - is Chayav for 'Oso ve'es B'no', but not for Shechutei Chutz, since it is not fit to be brought bi'Fenim.

(b) The second animal is not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach - because it is considered 'Mechusar Z'man' (premature, like an animal that is less than eight days old).

(c) The Tana nevertheless rules that they both receive Malkos (even the first one) - because whoever is Chayav Kareis is subject to Malkos (upon which he is Patur from Kareis).

(d) If they both Shecht Chulin bi'Fenim, both animals are Pasul (because of 'Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah'), and the second Shochet receives Malkos (for transgressing 'Oso ve'es B'no'). The first one does not receive Malkos for Shechting Chulin in the Azarah - because Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah is not a La'av, only an Asei ("Ki Yirchak mi'Mecha ha'Makom Ve'zavachta" [Re'ei], 'be'Richuk Makom Atah Zove'ach ... ' ).

(a) In a case where they Shechted ...

1. ... the two animals Kodshim bi'Fenim - the first Korban is Kasher and the Shochet, Patur, the second one Pasul (because it is Mechusar Z'man), and the Shochet Chayav Malkos (because of 'Oso ve'es B'no').
2. ... Chulin and Kodshim ba'Chutz (in that order) - the first Shochet has done nothing wrong, the second one receives Malkos (for Oso ve'es B'no), and the Korban is Pasul.
3. ... Kodshim and Chulin ba'Chutz - the first Shochet is Chayav Kareis (for Shechutei Chutz) and the Korban is Pasul, whereas for the second Shechitah, they both receive Malkos (for their respective sins) and the animal is Kasher.

(b) And in a case where they Shechted ...

1. ... Chulin ba'Chutz and bi'Fenim - the first Shochet is Patur and the animal is Kasher, whereas the second animal is Pasul (because it is Mechusar Z'man), and the second Shochet receives Malkos (for 'Oso ve'es B'no').
2. ... Kodshim ba'Chutz and 'bi'Fenim - the first Shochet is Chayav Kareis and the Korban is Pasul, for the second one, both Shochtim receive Malkos (for their respective sins) and the Korban is Pasul.
3. ... Chulin bi'Fenim and ba'Chutz - the first animal is Pasul, and the Shochet, Patur, and the second one Kasher, but the Shochet receives Malkos (because of 'Oso ve'es B'no').
4. ... Kodshim bi'Fenim and ba'Chutz - the first Korban is Kasher and the Shochet Kasher, whereas the second Korban is Pasul and the Shochet receives Malkos (for Shechutei Chutz).

(a) We learn from ...

1. ... the juxtaposition of the Pasuk (in connection with Kodshim before the eighth day) "Shor O Kesev O Eiz ki Yivaled" and that of "ve'Shor O Seh Oso ve'es B'no Lo Sishchatu be'Yom Echad - that 'Oso ve'es B'no' applies to Kodshim.
2. ... "(ve')Shor" in the second Pasuk - that it applies to Chulin.
3. ... the "Vav" in "ve'Shor" - that it applies to Mukdashin, too.

(b) Based on what we just learned, we think that 'Oso ve'es B'no' ought not to apply to Kila'yim (a baby born from a ewe whose father is a goat, or vice-versa) - since it does not apply to Kodshim.

(c) And we add a second reason in that - the Torah writes "Seh" in connection with it, and Rava learns from "Sei Kevasim ve'Sei Izim" (in Re'ei, in connection with the Tahor species of animals [see also Tosfos DH 'Zeh Banah Av') that "Seh" generally precludes 'Kil'ayim'.

(d) The Torah therefore writes "O" - to include Kil'ayim in the Din of 'Oso ve'es B'no'.

5)

(a) We query our use of "O" to include Kil'ayim with regard to 'Oso ve'es B'no', on the grounds that - we need it to divide "Shor" from "Seh" (to preclude the need to Shecht both of them with their children on the same day in order to be Chayav).

(b) And we answer - that we can learn that from "B'no" (which is in the singular).

(a) According to the Beraisa, had the Torah written "Shor va'Seh u'B'no", we would have learned - that one is only Chayav if one Shechts both mothers and one of the children (Shor, va'Seh u'B'no).

(b) So the Torah writes "ve'Shor O Seh, Oso ve'es B'no", to teach us that one is Chayav for Shechting just one of the mothers and her son - a Kashya on our current Limud from "O", since we initially think that this Limud is from "O".

(c) And we answer - that it is not from "O" that we learn it, bit from "Oso".

(a) The problem we still have according to Chananya (whom we have already discussed earlier) is - that according to him, "Oso" comes to teach us that 'Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av' (so from where does he learn that one does not require both mothers plus one of the children in order to be Chayav)?

(b) We answer that Chananya learns that from "O", since he holds like Rebbi Yonasan - who does not require "O" Lechalek, on principle (as we shall see shortly).

(c) Whereas the Rabbanan (of Chananya) hold - like Rebbi Yashiyah.

(a) Rebbi Yashiyah learns from the fact that, after writing "Ish Asher Yekalel es Aviv ve'es Imo" (Kedoshim), the Torah adds "Aviv ve'Imo Killel" - that one is Chayav for cursing either one's father or one's mother (which is why the Pasuk first places 'K'lalah' next to "Aviv", and then next to "Imo"), and not only if he curses them both.

(b) Rebbi Yonasan disagrees with Rebbi Yashiyah, because he holds - that wherever the Torah does not insert "Yachdav" (like it does by Kil'ayim) it automatically divides (as if it had written "O").

(c) And from "Aviv ve'Imo Killel" he learns - that one is Chayav for cursing one's parents even after they are no longer alive.

(a) Chananya in a Beraisa learns that 'Oso ve'es B'no' applies even to a father and his son (or daughter). According to the Rabbanan - it is restricted to a mother ...

(b) ... and they derive this - from the Mitzvah of 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein', which applies specifically to a mother and her young.

(c) We ask on the Rabbanan's 'Mah Matzinu' however - that we cannot learn 'Oso ve'es B'no' (which applies to all animals, even if they have been designated in advance), from 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein' (which only applies to birds that one comes across), in which case it ought to apply to the father as well.

(d) The Rabbanan refute this Kashya however, from "Oso" - which teaches us that it only applies to one of the parents (leaving us with the source from 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein, indicating that it rather applies to the mother than to the father [which in itself, is neither a 'Kula' or a 'Chumra').

(a) The Rabbanan finally learn from "B'no" - that if the Pasuk is restricted to only one of the parents, then it must be the mother, whose child resembles a baby son (or a daughter), in that the baby follows her around everywhere (which is not the case by the father).

(b) In spite of having already learned their Din from the combination of "Oso" and 'Eim al ha'Banim', they need the D'rashah of "B'no" - to counter the claim that "Oso" (masculine) overrides the Limud from 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein'.

(c) Chananya learns from "Oso" and "B'no" - that one is Chayav in both cases (for Shechting either a mother and her child or a father and his child, on the same day).