ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 78
CHULIN 76-78 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
***** Perek Oso ve'es B'no *****
(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
(c) It make no difference ...
1. ... in which order one Shechts them in order to transgress.
(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.
2. ... whether a different person Shechts the second animal or the same one.
(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
(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').
(b) And in a case where they Shechted ...
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
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
(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.
2. ... "(ve')Shor" in the second Pasuk - that it applies to Chulin.
3. ... the "Vav" in "ve'Shor" - that it applies to Mukdashin, too.
(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
(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
(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
(c) And we answer - that it is not from "O" that we learn it, bit from
(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
(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
(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
(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).