POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
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 V'ES BENO *****
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.
2) "OSO V'ES BENO" APPLIES TO "KODSHIM" AND TO "KIL'AYIM"
(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
(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
(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"!
3) THE FATHER AND THE SON
1. (Rava): Wherever the Torah says "Seh", this excludes
(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
(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.
(m) Answer: No, this is learned from "Oso".
2. Suggestion: The word "O" teaches that all three are
(n) (Below, Chachamim and Chananyah argue about how to
(o) Question: Chachamim can learn like this, for they don't
learn anything else from "Oso" - but how can Chananyah
(p) Answer: He holds like R. Yonason, whenever the Torah says
"and", it means "or" unless it specifically says
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
(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
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.
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
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
iv. Answer: "Oso" is masculine, denoting the