daf yomi arcade · chullin 85 · 2026-07-24
וּשְׁנָאוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים
"...and he taught it in the language of the Rabbis" — Chullin 85a:9
Two mishnayot in this tractate rule on the same dispute — whether an invalid act of slaughter still counts as "slaughter." Both times the Mishnah writes the anonymous plural "the Rabbis." Both times the Gemara reveals that Rebbi, the redactor, tucked one individual sage's opinion behind that word — and it isn't the same sage twice. Open the case files. Read the evidence. Name the name.
before you open the file
🔪 shechita she'eina re'uya
"Slaughter that isn't fit" — cutting an animal's throat properly, but for a reason that makes the meat forbidden anyway (it's a tereifa, it was meant for idol worship, etc). The whole question: does that still count as an act of "slaughter" for other halakhot?
🩸 kisui hadam
The mitzva to cover the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or bird (Leviticus 17:13). Chullin 85's own mishna asks: does it apply after an unfit slaughter?
🐐 oto v'et beno
"It and its offspring you shall not slaughter in one day" (Leviticus 22:28). Chullin 81b asks the identical question about the same phrase: unfit shechita — slaughter or not?
🖋️ "the Rabbis"
When a mishna rules anonymously in the name of "the Rabbis," it usually means a majority. Rebbi's trick here: sometimes it's cover for a single Tanna's view he happened to like better (85a:9).
case file 01 · Chullin 81b:4
OPENOne slaughters an animal, then its offspring, on the same day — but the first slaughter turns out to be invalid (it's found to be a tereifa, or was done for idol worship, or was the red heifer, or a beast condemned to be stoned). Does the prohibition of oto v'et beno still apply to the second animal?
Rabbi Shimon rules exempt — an unfit slaughter isn't "slaughter," so the prohibition never triggered.
▓ REDACTED ▓ — hiding behind "the Rabbis" — rules liable. Who is it?
case file 02 · Chullin 85a:7 (this daf's own mishna)
OPENSame fact pattern, different mitzva: one slaughters an undomesticated animal or bird and it turns out to be invalid (tereifa, idol worship, chullin in the Temple courtyard, or something condemned to be stoned). Is one obligated to cover its blood?
Rabbi Meir rules obligated — named right in the mishna this time.
▓ REDACTED ▓ — hiding behind "the Rabbis" — rules exempt. Same two suspects. Who is it this time?
the loophole test — Rabbi Abba, Chullin 85b:1
Neither sage is consistent across every halakha. Rabbi Abba names one crack in each position. True or false?
"Rabbi Meir says an unfit slaughter counts as slaughter for every halakha it touches."
"Rabbi Shimon says an unfit slaughter is never considered an act of slaughter, for any halakha."
bonus case — Rabbi Chiyya's moths, Chullin 85b:12–16
Moths infested Rabbi Chiyya's flax. Rebbi's fix: slaughter a bird over the tub where the flax was soaked — the moths smell the blood and flee. One problem: a baraita says that if you slaughter a bird and you actually need the blood for something else, you're still obligated to cover it and forbidden to reuse it. So how did Rabbi Chiyya get away with it? Two sages, both arriving from Eretz Yisrael, report two different things Rebbi told him. Tap each option below.
learn the real daf
Chullin 85 opens by finishing what 84b started: Rabbi Yosei's attempt to prove, from the shofar blown by an intersex tumtum, that covering a koy's blood overrides a Festival. Ravina and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished each refute the comparison — first from circumcision, then by noting circumcision never applies on Festival nights at all — and Rabbi Abba confirms this is one of the arguments Rabbi Chiyya says has no comeback (85a:1–6).
Then the mishna this game is built from: four cases of unfit slaughter, with Rabbi Meir and "the Rabbis" split on covering the blood, plus universal agreement that a botched slaughter, a stabbing, or a torn-out windpipe never obligates covering at all (85a:7–8). The Gemara then unmasks both this mishna and the parallel one at 81b as Rebbi's editorial handiwork — each anonymous ruling is really one Tanna's opinion, traced back through gezeirot shavot to the verses of offerings slaughtered outside the Temple, Joseph's steward, and the phrase "that may be eaten" (85a:9–20).
Amud b opens with Rabbi Abba's two carve-outs — the ben tesha chai fetus case and the carcass-purity concession — then a detour into whether slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard is forbidden by Torah or rabbinic law (85b:1–11). The daf closes on Rabbi Chiyya's moth-eaten flax and the two conflicting reports of Rebbi's advice — an argument the Gemara carries, unresolved, into 86a (85b:12–16).