Episode
Chullin 78 - July 17, 3 Av
- Podcast
- Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
- Published
- Jul 17, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 2822
- Processing state
not_requested- Canonical source
- https://hadran.org.il/daf/chullin-78/
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/daf-yomi-for-women-hadran-638456/episodes/chullin-78-july-17-3-av/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/daf-yomi-for-women-hadran-638456/chullin-78-july-17-3-av.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
The Gemara discusses the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day ( oto v'et beno ). The Mishna presents various permutations of non-sacred animals ( chullin ) and consecrated sacrifices slaughtered either inside or outside the Temple courtyard, outlining the respective punishments incurred and the halakhic status of the meat. A braita derives from biblical verses that this prohibition applies to consecrated animals, and the Gemara subsequently demonstrates that it applies to non-consecrated animals as well. Since the laws of oto v'et beno are learned from consecrated animals, the Gemara questions why the prohibition also applies to crossbreeds ( kilayim ), which are unfit for the Altar. This is resolved by explaining that the word "or" ( o ) in the verse serves to include crossbreeds. This explanation raises a difficulty, as the word "or" should be needed to teach that one is liable for slaughtering either an ox or a sheep with its offspring, rather than needing to slaughter both to violate the prohibition. The Gemara resolves this by pointing to the singular word "its" ( oto ), which teaches individual liability. Alternatively, according to Chananya - who uses the word "its" to include male parents in the prohibition - it is already self-evident that one is liable for either animal individually, in accordance with Rabbi Yonatan's interpretive principle regarding the biblical prohibition of cursing one's parents. This discussion leads to a discussion about the dispute between Chananya and the Rabbis r regarding whether the prohibition of oto v'et beno applies to both the father and mother, or exclusively to the mother.