Chullin 81 - Daf Yomi Shiur with Rabbanit Michelle Farber

Hadran - Advancing Talmud Study For Women
https://hadran.org.il/

Rav Hamnuna states in the name of Rabbi Shimon that the prohibition of oto v'et beno does not apply to consecrated animals (kodashim). This is based on Rabbi Shimon's principle that an invalid slaughter is not halakhically considered a slaughter (shechita she'eina reuya lo shema shechita), and since the meat of a sacrifice is not permitted for consumption until its blood is sprinkled, the slaughter itself is initially unfit. Rava challenges this using a text discussing various combinations of slaughtering consecutive sacrifices inside or outside the Temple courtyard (bifnim or bachutz), tracing the respective liabilities of karet and negative prohibitions under the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. To resolve the contradiction, Rava explains that Rabbi Shimon does acknowledge the prohibition for kodashim, but holds that one does not receive lashes for it because the warning given at the time of slaughter is a doubtful warning (hatra'at safek), as the validity of the slaughter depends on the future sprinkling of the blood, and a doubtful warning is legally invalid.

The Mishna states that if one slaughters an animal and it is found to be a treifa, or slaughters it for idolatry, as a Red Heifer, an ox convicted to be stoned, or a broken-necked heifer, Rabbi Shimon exempts him from the prohibition of oto v'et beno because the slaughter is invalid since the animal is not permitted for consumption, while the Rabbis declare him liable. However, if the slaughter itself is physically disqualified, such as if the animal becomes a carcass during the shechita process or if one stabbed the animal, all agree he is exempt. Reish Lakish establishes the Mishna's liability (according to the Rabbis' position) for idolatry only when the first animal was slaughtered for idolatry and the second for consumption. If the second was for idolatry, the rule of kim lei bidraba minei applies (one incurs the capital punishment for idolatry and is exempt from the lashes of oto v'et beno) as one only receives the harsher of the two punishments. Rabbi Yochanan counters that even if the second animal was for idolatry, one can still be liable for lashes for oto v'et beno if one was warned specifically for that prohibition and not for idolatry. Reish Lakish maintains that since one would be exempt if properly warned for the capital crime, one remains exempt even without that warning, and even without receiving the harsher punishment. They have the same dispute regarding the rule of kim lei bidraba minei even in cases of death/lashes and monetary liability when one was not warned for the death/lashes.

Hadran's Daf Yomi with Rabbanit Michelle Farber is available on
Zoom (Sun-Fri at 7:15am Israel)
Hadran's website
Podcast
YouTube
WhatsApp
To subscribe (free): https://hadran.org.il/subscribe/

Dedicate a daf: https://hadran.org.il/sponsor-a-daf/

Learn more with Hadran:
Learn Daf Yomi: https://hadran.org.il/todays-daf/
Weekly shiurim by women, for women: https://hadran.org.il/whats-new/
Learn a Masechet: https://hadran.org.il/talmud-by-daf/
or take a course: http://hadran.org.il/courses

Видео Chullin 81 - Daf Yomi Shiur with Rabbanit Michelle Farber канала Hadran הדרן