Chullin 86

On today’s daf, a new mishnah presents a dispute between the rabbis and Rabbi Meir:

With regard to the matter of slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day, if a deaf person, an imbecile or a minor slaughtered an undomesticated mother animal and others saw them, it is prohibited to slaughter its offspring after them. If they slaughtered the mother animal among themselves, Rabbi Meir deems it permitted to slaughter its offspring after them and the rabbis deem it prohibited. And the rabbis concede that if one slaughtered the offspring thereafter that he does not incur the 40 lashes.

At the very beginning of our tractate, the rabbis stated that when a fully competent adult observes a deaf-mute person (who, given the lack of sign language at the time, was not able to be fully educated and socialized), an imbecile or a minor performing slaughter and confirms that it’s done properly, the slaughter is kosher. And we’ve since learned that the prohibition on slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day applies only when a valid slaughter is performed.

When one of these not-fully-competent parties performs the slaughter without observation, disagreement arises. Everyone agrees that such slaughter isn’t unambiguously kosher. But is it likely enough to be kosher that the obligation not to slaughter a mother and her calf on the same day applies? According to the rabbis, this is a safek (uncertainty), and so we should forbid slaughtering the animal’s offspring that day in order to be careful not to violate the biblical precept. Rabbi Meir, by contrast, thinks the likelihood of slaughter being performed improperly is so high we can treat it as certain, and therefore it is acceptable to slaughter the animal’s offspring on the same day.

So how do we rule? Do we rule like the rabbis, who err on the side of caution? Or like Rabbi Meir, who relies on what is most probable?

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also ruled in accordance with the opinion of the rabbis. Which of these two rulings is the later?

Apparently there are traditions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruling in accordance with both of these opinions! The assumption is that at some point he changed his mind, and therefore whichever ruling was later is authoritative. Now we must figure out the order in which he issued the rulings.

The Gemara provides a story in response:

Come and hear: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, and Rabbi Zeira were standing in the marketplace of Caesarea, at the entrance to the study hall. Rabbi Ami exited the study hall and found the two of them standing there. Rabbi Ami said to them: Have I not told you that at the time when the study hall is in session you should not stand outside, as perhaps there is a person inside the study hall who requires clarification of a halakhah?

Rabbi Zeira entered the study hall, whereas Rabbi Abba did not enter. The students were sitting and raising a dilemma: Which of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s two rulings is the later one? Rabbi Zeira said to them: You did not let me know that this is your dilemma while I was outside, which would have allowed me to ask the elder one, i.e., Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, since perhaps he heard the answer from his father, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba. And perhaps his father heard it from Rabbi Yohanan, as Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba would review his studies in front of Rabbi Yohanan every 30 days.

We get a funny anecdote about a couple of senior rabbis hanging outside the entrance to the study house, perhaps engaged in bitul torah (neglecting their Torah studies in favor of idle activities), perhaps merely discussing Torah in a different setting. Rabbi Ami chastises the rabbis for not being present in the study hall where they might have helped students with a difficult question. Indeed, it turns out that Rabbi Abba, the sage who doesn’t return to the beit midrash, may have held the answer to a student’s question about Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and whether his latter ruling aligned with Rabbi Meir or the rabbis. Alas, he didn’t reenter to answer this question.

While this anecdote is brought primarily to determine an answer to our halakhic question about which way Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules, it’s also a pithy commentary on the importance of a shoel u’meishiv, literally, “ask and answer.” This title refers to someone who goes around the study hall supporting others’ learning, making themselves available to answer questions. Without sufficient support, people can end up stuck, even on the smallest things. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba were more senior rabbis, and Rabbi Ami scolds them for not serving this crucial role.Of course, we’re still waiting on the answer of which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruling came second.

The Gemara ultimately reveals the later ruling was in accordance with Rabbi Meir, meaning: When the slaughter of a deaf-mute, imbecile or minor is performed without supervision, we need not worry about the possibility that it was valid.

Read all of Chullin 86 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on July 25, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.