Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE PROHIBITION OF "OSO V'ES BENO"

(a) (Mishnah): Oso v'Es Beno (the Isur to slaughter a mother and her child on the same day) applies both in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz La'aretz, whether or not the Mikdash stands, to Chulin and to Kodshim.
(b) If a mother and her child were slaughtered on the same day, both animals are Kosher; the one who slaughtered last receives 40 lashes. (In all the cases below, the second slaughterer is lashed.)
(c) If both animals were Kodshim (Korbanos) and they were slaughtered outside (the Mikdash), the first slaughterer is Chayav Kares and is also lashed (for Shechutei Chutz); both animals are forbidden (they are Pasul Korbanos);
(d) If both were Chulin and they were slaughtered inside (the Mikdash), both are forbidden (they are Chulin b'Azarah);
(e) If both were Kodshim and they were slaughtered inside, they are Kosher and Pasul (the first is Kosher, the second is Pasul - we will always describe the animals and their status in the order they were slaughtered.)
(f) If they were Chulin and Kodshim and both were slaughtered outside, they are permitted and Pasul;
(g) If they were Kodshim and Chulin and they were slaughtered outside, the first slaughterer is Chayav Kares and is lashed, they are Pasul and Kosher;
(h) If they were Chulin and Kodshim and both were slaughtered inside, both are forbidden;
(i) If they were Kodshim and Chulin and they were slaughtered inside, they are Kosher and forbidden;
(j) If both were Chulin and they were slaughtered outside and inside, they are permitted and forbidden;
(k) If both were Kodshim and they were slaughtered outside and inside, the first slaughterer is Chayav Kares and is lashed, both Korbanos are Pesulim;
(l) If both were Chulin and they were slaughtered inside and outside, they are forbidden and permitted;
(m) If both were Kodshim and they were slaughtered inside and outside, they are Kosher and Pasul.

(a) (Gemara - Beraisa) Question: What is the source that Oso v'Es Beno applies to Kodshim?
(b) Answer: "An ox, sheep or goat that will give birth...(may be offered like a Korban)... v'Shor O Seh Oso v'Es Beno you will not slaughter on one day" teaches that Oso v'Es Beno applies to Kodshim.
(c) Suggestion: We should learn that it applies only to Kodshim!
(d) Rejection: "*V'*Shor" is extra, it separates the verses (teaching that Oso v'Es Beno is not limited to Kodshim.)
(e) Suggestion: We should learn that it applies only to Chulin!
(f) Rejection: It says "*v*'Shor", connecting Oso v'Es Beno to the previous matter (Kodshim.)
(g) Question #1: If we connect it to Kodshim, we should say that it does not apply to Kil'ayim (a crossbreed, since it cannot be a Korban!)

1. (Beraisa): Oso v'Es Beno applies to Kil'ayim and to a Koy (we will explain below what a Koy is.)

(h) Question #2: Oso v'Es Beno should not apply to Kil'ayim because it says "O Seh"!

1. (Rava): Wherever the Torah says "Seh", this excludes Kil'ayim.

(i) Answer (to both questions): "O" includes Kil'ayim.
(j) Question: "O" is not extra - if it was not written, we would think that one transgresses Oso v'Es Beno only if he slaughters a mother and child of cattle *and* of flock!
(k) Answer: Since "Beno (its child)" is singular, we would not make that mistake (and indeed, "O" is extra.)
(l) Question: But "O" is needed for the following!

1. (Beraisa): Had the Torah said 'Shor v'Seh u'Veno', one might have thought that one transgresses only if he slaughters all three - "Shor O Seh Oso v'Es Beno" teaches that this is not so.
2. Suggestion: The word "O" teaches that all three are not acquired.

(m) Answer: No, this is learned from "Oso".
(n) (Below, Chachamim and Chananyah argue about how to expound "Oso".)
(o) Question: Chachamim can learn like this, for they don't learn anything else from "Oso" - but how can Chananyah answer?
(p) Answer: He holds like R. Yonason, whenever the Torah says "and", it means "or" unless it specifically says "together".

1. (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah) Question: "A man that will curse his mother and father" - how do we know that he is liable if he curses only one?
2. Answer: "His father and his mother he cursed".
3. R. Yonason says, ("and") connotes both or only one, unless the Torah specifies "together".

(a) Question: What are the opinions of Chananyah and Chachamim?
(b) Answer (Beraisa): Oso v'Es Beno applies to a mother (and her child), not to a father;
(c) Chananyah says, it applies to mothers and fathers.
(d) Question: What is Chachamim's reason?
(e) Answer (Beraisa): One might have thought that Oso v'Es Beno should apply to mothers and fathers - the Torah teaches that it does not:

1. Shilu'ach ha'Ken (the Mitzvah to send away a bird sitting on its eggs or chicks before taking them) applies only to a mother, not to a father;
2. Also Oso v'Es Beno applies only to mothers!
3. Objection: But Oso v'Es Beno applies in more cases than sending the mother bird, e.g. it applies to a person's own animals - perhaps it also applies to fathers!
4. Answer: "Oso" - one parent, not both.

i. Having learned this, we may now learn from Shilu'ach ha'Ken - just like that applies only to the mother, also Oso v'Es Beno.
ii. If you prefer, you can learn from "Beno" - the parent that a child follows around - this does not apply to a father.
iii. Question: What objection might one have to the previous explanation?
iv. Answer: "Oso" is masculine, denoting the father.

5. Chananyah explains, "Oso" is masculine, denoting the father; "Its son" denotes the parent that a child follows around, i.e. the mother - therefore, both are included.