Chullin Daf 23 צולין דַף 23

Rebbe Zeirah asked: if one vowed to bring an עולה from either an איל – ram (i.e., above thirteen months of age) or a כבש – lamb (within its first twelve months), and he brought a פלגס – [a sheep between these ages], is he יוצא? This question depends on a machlokes Amoraim. A Mishnah teaches that if one was obligated to bring an איל, or obligated to bring a כבש, and brought a פלגס, he must bring the larger נסכים brought with an איל, and is not יוצא his obligation. Rebbe Yochanan holds a פלגס is a בריה – independent entity, neither איל nor כבש, so he is definitely not יוצא his obligation (and a derashah requires the נסכים of an איל). According to Rebbe Yochanan, one is clearly not יוצא in Rebbe Zeira’s case. The question is relevant according to Bar Padda, who said מייתי ומתני – he brings the נסכים of an איל and stipulates to accommodate all possibilities (i.e., if a פלגס is an איל, all the נסכים should be for the korban, and if it is a כבש, the superfluous amounts should be a donation). The question is, are these the only two possibilities Bar Padda considers (so one would be יוצא in Rebbe Zeira’s case, where he can bring either) or does Bar Padda also consider the possibility that a פלגס is a בריה? The Gemara concludes: תיקו.

Rebbe Zeira asked: if one vowed to bring ten תודה loaves from either חמץ or מצה (since a תודה consists of both types), and he brought שיאור – [partially leavened dough], is he יוצא? This question depends on the definition and status of שיאור. Rebbe Meir holds that once dough develops any cracks, it is full-fledged חמץ and incurs כרת. If הכסיפו פניו – its surface became pale, it is שיאור, and only liable to malkus. Thus, he holds שיאור is definitely חמץ (albeit more lenient), and one would definitely be יוצא his vow in Rebbe Zeira’s case. Rebbe Yehudah holds that הכסיפו פניו is fully valid מצה, and defines שיאור as the earlier stage of cracks which are כקרני חגבים – like locusts’ antennae (but not yet interconnected). He holds that such dough must be burned, but one is not punished for eating it. Rebbe Zeira’s question is, does Rebbe Yehudah consider this שיאור a ספק if it is חמץ or מצה, so in this case he would surely be יוצא whichever one it is, or does Rebbe Yehudah consider it a בריה – an independent entity, neither חמץ nor מצה, and one would not be יוצא his vow by bringing שיאור? The Gemara concludes: תיקו.

The next Mishnah states: כשר בפרה פסול בעגלה – what is valid for parah [adumah] is invalid for eglah [arufah]. כשר בעגלה פסול בפרה – What is valid for eglah [arufah] is invalid for parah [adumah]. A Baraisa explains that the פרה אדומה is valid when killed with shechitah, but invalid when killed with עריפה – decapitation, whereas an עגלה ערופה is valid when killed with עריפה, and invalid when killed with shechitah. The Gemara asks that פרה אדומה should be valid with עריפה, or an עגלה ערופה should be valid with shechitah, based on a kal vachomer, and the next Daf darshens pesukim to teach that each method is specific to its procedure.