Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Rava establishes further laws regarding physical anomalies that render a lung a treifa . If cysts appear on the lung, a single cyst does not disqualify the animal, whereas two distinct cysts render it a treifa. Rava provides a method to inspect an ambiguous cyst to determine whether it is a single divided structure or two separate entities. Regarding the lobes of the lung - which normally consist...

What is the minimal remnant required to remain of the liver to keep the animal kosher when it is damaged or partially missing? Although our Mishna implies that any minimal amount is sufficient, another Mishna explicitly requires an olive-bulk. Rav Yosef resolves the contradiction by explaining that each Mishna reflects a different Tannaitic position. The established halakha dictates that a size of...

Pictures Under what conditions do perforations, cracks, or missing fragments in the windpipe render an animal or bird a  treifa ? How do perforations add up to the requisite amount needed to determine the animal is a treifa ? The Sages delineate specific measurements for damage to the windpipe, depending on the type of perforation . For a crack along its length , the organ remains kosher provided...

What are the primary categories of treifot ? Ulla states that eight categories that were transmitted as halakha to Moshe from Sinai: perforated ( nekuva ), severed ( pesuka ), removed ( netula ), deficient ( chasura ), torn ( kru'a ), clawed ( drusa ), fallen ( nefula ), and broken ( shevura ). Chiya bar Rav said there are eight cases in the category of perforated, and this excludes the gall bladd...

Study Guide Picture What are the defects and traumas that render an animal a treifa ? The Mishna lists various categories, such as a perforated gullet , a severed windpipe, a perforated brain membrane, a perforated heart chamber, a broken spine and a severed spinal cord, a completely removed liver, as well as various perforations or tears to the lungs, stomach, gallbladder, small intestines, and r...

Three difficulties are raised from tannaitic sources against the opinion of Rav Nachman, Rav Avram, and Rav Yitzchak that a person cannot forbid property that is not theirs ( ein adam oser davar she'eino shelo ), and they are resolved. The first difficulty is from the braita regarding a sin offering slaughtered outside the Temple for idol worship, which the Gemara resolves by explaining that since...

What is the status of an animal slaughtered to items connected to the ground, like mountains, seas, rivers or deserts ? The Mishna rules that the shechita is invalid , but the assumption from the Mishna is that it is not prohibited for benefit . The Gemara challenges this from a braita which states that such slaughter renders the animal an idolatrous sacrifice ( zivchei meitim ), which is forbidde...

What is the default assumption regarding a gentile's intent when an animal is slaughtered? The rabbis hold that we do not automatically assume a gentile intends it for idol worship unless he explicitly says so, while Rabbi Eliezer holds a gentile's default intent is for idol worship. Rabbi Yosi argues that even if he does intend it for idol worship, we do not say that one person's intent affects a...

What types of signs of life does one need to observe when performing shechita on an animal that is on the verge of death? Rav, Shmuel, and Rava each bring different actions that serve as indicators that would then permit this animal to be eaten, as it is clear the animal was still alive enough at the time of the shechita . At what point of the slaughtering process does one need to see these signs...

Study Guide

A braita states that if blood spurts onto a gourd during slaughter, Rebbi holds it is susceptible to impurity, while Rabbi Chiya holds we suspend judgment ( tolin ). Rabbi Oshaya says that since they argue, we should rely on Rabbi Shimon's view that shechita makes an animal susceptible, not blood. Two different explanations are brought by Rav Papa and Rav Ashi to explain Rabbi Chiya's position, th...

Rabbi Yonatan says in the name of Rabbi that someone who eats a shelishi (third degree) of actual teruma is forbidden to eat teruma but is allowed to touch it. Ulla had said the same thing regarding one who eats a shelishi of chullin that was treated like teruma . The Gemara explains why both statements were needed and could not have necessarily been derived one from the other. Rav Yitzchak bar Sh...

Reish Lakish rules that if the windpipe is cut during slaughter and the lung is subsequently punctured before the gullet is cut, the animal remains kosher because the lung is already considered to have lost its life through the cutting of the windpipe. Rava qualifies that this principle applies exclusively to the lung, which is structurally dependent on the windpipe, but not to the inner digestive...

The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding whether a secular slaughter requires intent has ramifications in the case of one who slaughters an additional animal during the slaughter of a para aduma (engaging in an extraneous activity). If slaughter does not require intent, the cutting of the second animal's simanim is considered a completed act of slaughter, and consequently, the para...

The Gemara continues the debate over whether shechita takes effect continuously from the beginning of the act until the end ( yeshna l'shechita mitchila ve'ad sof ), or if it only takes effect at the very final moment ( eina l'shechita ela basof ). Two further difficulties are raised against the latter opinion and are resolved. There is a debate about whether the shechita needs to be done in a sin...

The Gemara continues evaluating the position that exactly half of a siman is considered like a majority ( mechtza kerov ). Two difficulties are raised from brai t ot concerning pausing after slaughtering half a siman , or a siman that was pre-damaged. Ultimately, the Gemara rejects the initial understanding of Rav's statement regarding shechita and concludes that everyone agrees 50% is not a major...

The Gemara asks whether the requirement to slaughter birds is a Torah law or a rabbinic law. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Pinchas rules that it is only a rabbinic law. The Gemara raises three difficulties against his position but resolves them. The final difficulty is resolved by pointing out that this matter is subject to a Tanna it ic debate, and the Gemara brings both positions. Although only one siman n...

The Mishna states that slaughtering ( shechita ) is performed by cutting the two simanim (the windpipe and gullet ) or the majority of each of the two simanim for an animal, and one siman or the majority of one siman for a bird. The Gemara asks for the source in the Torah for slaughtering an animal at the neck, meaning by cutting the simanim . The Gemara brings five different answers to this quest...

Study Guide The Gemara clarifies which Tanna the Mishna follows regarding temed (grape-seed water). Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avahu explains that the dispute in the Mishna in Ma'asrot between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages applies after it ferments, so our Mishna can align with the view of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabba bar Avahu that if a person bought temed with s eco...

The braita continues with the analysis of the unique laws governing earthenware vessels. Through a series of suggested logical kal v ' chomer arguments, the y demonstrate how scriptural verses restrict the ways these vessels contract and protect against ritual impurity , each in their own unique manner . Specifically, the verses dictate that an earthenware vessel can only contract impurity through...

The Mishna states that the method of slaughtering a red heifer ( para aduma ) is not the same method used for breaking the back of the neck of a decapitated heifer ( egla arufa ), and vice-versa. A braita brings a source demonstrating that one cannot break the back of the neck of th e para aduma and that one cannot slaughter the egla arufa . Both laws are derived from verses found within the passa...