Talmud Toons for Journaling Jews!

Kosher komix inspired by the daf yomi.

[dafdoodles]

Todays Daf discusses the mysterious concept of a “Koy” a special type of animals discussed in the Gemara that is of disputed wild/domestic status. The sages debate if the koy was an animal unto itself, a hybrid of other animals, or an already known animal by a different name. They are however in agreement that it is kosher!

The koy’s disputed status makes it a concern when slaughtering and preparing its meat, because there are higher requirements for shchita of domesticated animals. These types of edge cases are some of my favorite in the Talmud, I love seeing the rabbis get so deep into a hypothetical that they struggle to hold onto reality.

[dafdoodles]

Todays Daf explores the commandment to not slaughter an offspring with its parent. Originating in Vayikra, this prohibition has been interpreted as forbidding the slaughter of a parent and child animal within 24 hours of each other. The Mishna expounds on this, stating that this is a commandment that applied to slaughter of all animals, in all laces and times.

The distinction mentioned here by the Mishna is unique, as there exists many leniencies within shchita dependent of factors like the Temple standing, the consecration of a given animal, and the species of animal in question. This gives a particular type of moral weight to this Halacha, in my opinion. Most rules of kashrut have a popular association with morality or hygiene, but in reality are purely theological commandments with no rational or moral basis. This law, however, reflects a type of timeless mercy that is crucial to how humans interact with the other living beings we consume.

[dafdoodles]

Keeping in line with the theme of edge-cases of treyf, today’s daf asks the oft-pondered question: can a placenta transmit ritual impurity in the way other foods can? The answer is that usually it cannot, because most people in the time and place of the Talmud didn’t have a custom of eating the placenta anyways and so it was not regarded as foodstuff. However, if one were to intend a placenta to be for consumption then the laws for tumah apply (see Daf Doodle 21.)

As someone who also lives in a society where people don’t usually eat the placenta I was please to see how culturally relative this particular pasuk was. Within the bounds of kashrut, the Talmud seems to take a culturally expansive view on what is or is not edible. There are similarly interesting laws surrounding the consumption of substances like breast milk by adults, but that’s a talk for another daf.

[dafdoodles]

Today’s Daf discusses if the treyf status of an animal can be affected by a broken limb. As previously discussed in this tractate, an animal can be rendered treyf by any life-threatening condition it may have prior to being slaughtered. The Rabbis here are essentially debating what type of breakage constitutes a life threatening condition. They land on the bone being exposed in certain amounts, specifically that most of the flesh around it should be in tact and only a minority of the length of the bone can be sticking out.

Today our standards for treyfa are much higher. It has been some time since animals with broken bones were counted as kosher (except in situations where it would be financially ruinous and so this Talmudic leniency was deemed appropriate), but in the lives of many of our grandparents most kosher meat was not Glatt kosher in the way it is today. Similarly, the knives used to slaughter animals have gotten considerably sharper and more precise since the Hasidim introduced high-carbon steel knives in the 19th century. All of these are beautiful examples of how even the most traditional of practices can change greatly over time.

[dafdoodles]

Today’s Daf is part of a continued discussion on the status of a ben pekua, a fetus removed from its mother after shchita. While normally animals must be slaughtered to strict requirements in order to be kosher, a ben pekua is considered an organ of the animal from which it was removed and thus has a more relaxed set or restrictions.

Here, the rabbis debate the status of a ben pekua that has developed enough in the womb to be able to walk and carry on a full life after its removal from a slaughtered mother. Reb Shimon Shezuri has the opinion that such a case doesn’t require schita to be kosher (a less developed fetus might). When the uniqueness of this ruling is put into question, Kahana points out that usually a standing ben pekua must be shechted. This is to prevent people from thinking a household with such an animal is eating improperly slaughtered meat, as it’s impossible to tell the difference between a standing ben pekua and a normal cow. The halakhic principle at play here is maarit ayin, which rules that we should be careful not to do actions that make it appear as though we’re transgressing the mitzvot.

[knaidelmaidel]

thought of the day:

the only way to have a kosher cheeseburger with real meat and real cheese is with human meat

[misguidedandperplexed]

Echoing all the nuh uhs. But also, isn't the fetus of a pregnant schechted cow pareve?

[rebecca-liz]

I very much doubt it, the eggs of a properly killed chicken are fleischig.

[slyandthefamilybook]

@misguidedandperplexed is correct. it's called a ben p'kuah. if you shecht a cow while it's pregnant the fetus (if it's viable) is parve and does not require shechita (also eggs are parve?)

[dafdoodles]

I did some looking into it bc I know it to be a custom in some Ashkenazi communities to eat unlaid chicken eggs (eierlekh in Yiddish) and the Shuchan Arukh rules that they can be parve or meat depending on how developed they are:

“ביצים הנמצאים בעופות אם הם גמורות דהיינו שיש להם חלבון וחלמון אע"פ שהיא מעורה בגידים הרי זה גמורה ומותר לאכלה בחלב אבל אם אין לה אלא חלמון אסור לבשלם בחלב אבל אם אכלם בפני עצמם מותר לאכול אחריהם גבינה או חלב:

One can eat eggs found in poultry together with milk, even if they are attached to the ovary, provided they are developed, that is, the white and yolk are already formed; but it is forbidden to cook them with milk if they only have the yolk. However, one can eat cheese or milk after eating such eggs. “

https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh,_Yoreh_De'ah.87.5

[dafdoodles]

Today’s daf discusses the many types of injuries that could render an animal treyf. While the condition of the lungs are paramount to meat inspection (especially now adays) the process of inspecting a carcass to make sure the animal is kosher is a rigorous process that involves the inspection of many organs.

All of this is to ensure the animal would not have died a natural death soon after slaughter. The Gemara related relates this to the Torah verse commanding us not to eat the flesh of animals which have lived. The verb for live in this verse is conjugated to the perfect tense, implying animals who have lived their life and died, or who have lived their life and are effectively dead. This then could forbid animals with any number of potentially fatal conditions.

[dafdoodles]

Keeping with the theme of intent in slaughter, today’s daf covers the issue of two people slaughtering animals animal with differing intent.

The role of intent in slaughter with regard to idolatry reminds me of a great episode of Hadar’s Responsa Radio I heard the other week discussing bowing during a karate class and whether it was prohibited or not. The answer had a lot more to do with the intent and cultural context of the action rather than the action itself, in much a similar way to this daf.

[dafdoodles]

Continuing the discussion from the last daf about the role of intent in kosher slaughter, this daf covers a number of mishnaic prohibitions against slaughtering animals for the sake of various natural phenomena.

The way this concept connects the biggest and smallest souls with everything that contains a spark of divine light is not only breathtaking, but displays a way that notions of idolatry and impurity serve not to reduce or diminish the things that are called idolatrous or impure to engage with improperly. Rather, the Jewish concept of holy and profane elevates both to a reciprocal state of beauty where the rachmius and gashmius stand aside each other as beautiful albeit separate aspects of creation.

[dafdoodles]

Today’s daf discusses the relationship between kosher slaughter and intent. For example, food intended for idol worship is treyf. If someone gives you an animal to slaughter and intends to use parts of that animal for idol worship, but gives you edible parts as payment for the slaughter, is that meat kosher? The Gemara supposes that yes, it is! So long as the intent of the slaughterer is not idol worship the intentions of the owner is not relevant to meat’s kashrut status.

I appreciate the way that rulings like this enable Jewish people to exist inside of the same food systems that support their goyish neighbors. Although some aspects of kashrus like bishul akum and pas yisroel encourage us to maintain distinctness through our cuisine, there is still an acknowledgement that no one person (or people group) gets fed by themselves.

[dafdoodles]

Today’s daf continues yesterday’s conversation about impurity surrounding food. Rabbi Shimon makes a claim that the risk for impurity during the slaughter of an animal is not from the blood of the animal in and of itself but actually results from an act of slaughter, meaning that even if you were to shecht an animal in a way that could cause you to become impure and no blood came out there is still risk of impurity.

Many of the Talmud’s laws surrounding purity no longer apply in the absence of the Temple. Still, I think it’s interesting to see how the transmission of impurity mirrors and differs in some ways the way we think of contagion today. Particularly, there is an idea that liquids have a higher ability to impart impurity than solids which is part of what makes Rabbi Shimon’s argument so fascinating. Even without the presence of any liquid a mishandled shchita can still render someone impure.

[dafdoodles]

I had an incredible amount of difficulty understanding today’s daf at first because I have always had a difficult time understanding the different degrees of impurity/tumah, so I did some additional research and decided to make today’s comic about the four degrees of impurity.

The first degree of impurity can be attained by people and dishes that touch a source of impurity (usually something dead or some bodily fluid), a second degree of impurity is then passed on to any drink or food item that thing touches. For sacred food offerings like the terumah a third degree of impurity can be passed, and for sacred meat offerings (from holy animals) there is a fourth degree of impurity that can then also be passed down. Today’s daf covers some of the complicated interplay between how impurity can be transmitted, as liquids have a higher ability to transmit impurity which complicates these rules a little bit. There are also substances like the ashes of the red heifer which have a status of purity/impurity that transcends these levels to some degree.

[dafdoodles]

Todays daf begins with a strange idea: if you are feeling unwell, one treatment is to remove flesh from the neck of a living animal, to salt and rinse it well, and then to consume it after that animal has passed away. This bizarre ritual is affirmed by the Gemara which cites a baraita describing the exact same ritual.

While this scene is gruesome and unusual, it demonstrates part of a long tradition of amulet making. Commonly called segulot today, amulets have a rich history in Jewish folk tradition and occasionally end up preserved in more theological text like the Talmud which are otherwise more critical on witchcraft and witch-like behavior. One of my favorite recipes for a segulah comes from Rebbe Nachman on Breslov’s Sichot HaRan, where he suggests carrying the smoked fin of a fish to expel the evil eye.

[dafdoodles]

Todays daf goes over a dispute regarding the amount of time one can pause while conducting a slaughter. After giving a list of examples regarding why someone may pause their slaughter the Gemara goes on to elaborate on what exactly the appropriate window for such a pause might be. Arguing over what exactly “the time it takes to slaughter” means relative to this window. Today, because of this discrepancy, we permit no pause during kosher slaughter.

I recently attended a lecture on shchita out on by Sacred Slaughter where they mentioned that pausing is one of the most common beginners mistakes for a shochet. Something about taking an animals life and experiencing that in a visceral way is an aspect of kosher slaughter that is incredibly significant to me. Even as someone who does not shecht the meat I consume, the knowledge that a shchita had a high degree of care with regards to the process and intention through which my food was made helps me appreciate it more.

(P.S. Double upload today because I’m late on yesterday’s doodle!)

[dafdoodles]

There is an extended conversation between today and yesterday’s daf about if a bird can be slaughtered in a kosher manner with a bow and arrow. As part of this debate the Rabbis scrutinize the practices of one particular Rabbi Yona Bar Tachlifa, who would inspect his arrows to make sure they were kosher blades and land perfect shchita kill-shots on kosher birds. In particular, today’s daf comments on the practice of covering the blood of wild animals that have been shechted.

The last daf doodle covered another example of this, but there are several differences in the treatment of wild and domesticated animals with regard to kosher slaughter. Given that hunting is generally unable to render a kosher slaughter, it’s always been interesting to me the space made in Jewish law for this very hypothetical feeling type of shchita. An example of this is that, contrary to popular belief, there is a very wide area of the neck which one could shecht a giraffe but kosher giraffe remains uncommon because it’s very difficult to catch and restrain a giraffe.

[dafdoodles]

Today’s daf the Rabbis puzzle over a law the Mishnah states twice: a mammal needs two simanim cut the majority of the way and a fowl needs one. One of the Rabbis reasons that this is because it applies to both sacrifices and animals slaughtered for normal meals. In going over the details supporting this the sages mention that during the red heifers sacrifice no other work was to be done by anyone in assistance, or else it would render the heifer impure for sacrifice and thus the heifer wouldn’t convey its special property of making the shockers clothes impure.

The property of the heifer to make the pure impure and vice versa is demonstrated on multiple levels here in a way that reminds me of a teaching about the Red Heifer within Breslov: the ability of the red heifer to create purity from impurity is like the practice of “Azamra.” Azamra is the finding of good points in difficult moments, when we find the strength to do this through difficult things we both elevate sparks of life from the situation in the supernal realms and elevate our connection with HaShem in this world through our experience of Joy.

[dafdoodles]

Keeping with the theme of differences in slaughter, today’s daf tackles game animals, defective sacred animals, and birds (oh my!) The Torah teaches us that a defective sacred animal is like a game animal, is the sense that it may be eaten if slaughtered correctly but it is not eligible to be sacrificed in the Temple. The commandment to slaughter birds is Rabbinical in nature rather than from the Torah, which is perhaps part of why there is leniency in how many simanim must be cut (see Daf Doodle 15.)

What is a defective sacred animal? An animal which was raised to be a dedicated temple sacrifice is prohibited from working during its lifetime and should have no blemishes; therefore, when such an animal becomes blemished or if it has to be put to work it may still be eaten through normal shechita but is no longer eligible for use in the Temple (in many instances.)