1)

(a)Our Mishnah teaches us that the prohibition of Oso v'es B'no (Shechting a mother and its baby) applies bein ba'Aretz bein be'Chutz la'Aretz, bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis, be'Chulin u've'Mukdashin. The first statement is obvious - because it is a Chovas ha'Guf (a personal Mitzvah that has nothing to do with the land).

(b)The Tana nevertheless sees fit to mention it - on account of the other two statements (which need to be mentioned, as will be explained in the Sugya and in the last Perek, respectively).

(c)It make no difference ...

1. ... in which order one Shechts them or ...

2. ... whether the same person Shechts the second animal or a different one.

(d)Whoever Shechts Oso v'es B'no Chulin ba'Chutz (outside the Azarah) receives Malkos. The second animal however - may be eaten.

2)

(a)If one Shecht Oso v'es B'no Kodshim ba'Chutz, both animals are Pasul because of Shechutei Chutz, and the first Shochet is Chayav Kareis. The second one - is Chayav for Oso v'es B'no, but not for Shechutei Chutz, since it is not fit to be brought bi'Fenim.

(b)The second animal is not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach - because it is considered Mechusar Z'man (premature, like an animal that is less than eight days old).

(c)The Tana nevertheless rules that they both receive Malkos (even the first one) - because whoever is Chayav Kareis is subject to Malkos (upon which he is Patur from Kareis).

(d)If they both Shecht Chulin bi'Fenim, both animals are Pasul (because of Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah), and the second Shochet receives Malkos (for transgressing Oso v'es B'no). The first one does not receive Malkos for Shechting Chulin in the Azarah - because Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah is not a La'av, only an Asei ...

(e)... as the Pasuk writes in Re'ei - "Ki Yirchak mi'Mecha ha'Makom Ve'zavachta", from which Chazal extrapolate be'Richuk Makom atah Zove'ach ... ).

3)

(a)If they Shecht ...

1. ... the two animals Kodshim bi'Fenim - the first animal is Kasher and the Shochet, Patur, whereas the second one is Pasul (because it is Mechusar Z'man), and the Shochet Chayav Malkos (because of Oso v'es B'no).

2. ... Chulin and Kodshim ba'Chutz (in that order) - the first animal is Kasher and the Shochet, Patur, whereas the second Shochet receives Malkos (for Oso v'es B'no), and the Korban is Pasul.

3. ... Kodshim and Chulin ba'Chutz - the first Shochet is Chayav Kareis (for Shechutei Chutz) and the Korban is Pasul, whereas for the second Shechitah, they both receive Malkos (for Shechutei Chutz) and the animal is Kasher.

(b)And in a case where they Shecht ...

1. ... Chulin ba'Chutz and bi'Fenim - the first Shochet is Patur and the animal is Kasher, whereas the second animal is Pasul (because it is Mechusar Z'man), and the second Shochet receives Malkos (for Oso v'es B'no).

2. ... Kodshim ba'Chutz and bi'Fenim - the first Shochet is Chayav Kareis and the Korban is Pasul; for the second one, both Shochtim receive Malkos (for their respective sins) and the Korban is Pasul.

3. ... Chulin bi'Fenim and ba'Chutz - the first animal is Pasul, and the Shochet, Patur, and the second one Kasher, but the Shochet receives Malkos (because of Oso v'es B'no).

4. ... Kodshim bi'Fenim and ba'Chutz - the first Korban is Kasher and the Shochet Kasher, whereas the second Korban is Pasul and the Shochet receives Malkos (for Shechutei Chutz).

4)

(a)We learn from ...

1. ... the juxtaposition of the Pasuk (in connection with Kodshim before the eighth day) "Shor O Kesev O Eiz ki Yivaled" and that of "ve'Shor O Seh Oso v'es B'no Lo Sishchatu be'Yom Echad that - Oso v'es B'no applies to Kodshim.

2. ... "(ve')Shor" in the second Pasuk that - it applies to Chulin.

3. ... the "Vav" in "ve'Shor" that - even though the Torah interrupted with the latter Din concerning Chulin, it nevertheless applies to Mukdashin as well.

(b)Based on what we just learned, we think that Oso v'es B'no ought not to apply to Kila'yim (a baby born from a ewe whose father is a goat, or vice-versa) - since it does not apply to Kodshim.

(c)And we add to that the fact that the Torah writes "Seh", and Rava learns from "Sei Kevasim ve'Sei Izim" (in Re'ei, in connection with the Tahor species of animals [see also Tosfos DH 'Zeh Banah Av') that - "Seh" generally precludes Kil'ayim.

(d)The Torah therefore adds the word "O" - to include Kil'ayim in the Din of Oso v'es B'no.

5)

(a)We query our use of "O" to include Kil'ayim with regard to 'Oso v'es B'no', on the grounds that - we need it to divide "Shor" from "Seh" (to preclude the need to Shecht both of them with their children on the same day in order to be Chayav).

(b)And we answer that - we can learn that from "B'no" (which is in the singular).

6)

(a)According to the Beraisa, had the Torah written "Shor va'Seh u'B'no", we would have learned that - one is only Chayav if one Shechts both mothers and one of the children.

(b)So the Torah writes "ve'Shor O Seh, Oso v'es B'no", to teach us that one is Chayav for Shechting just one of the mothers and her son - a Kashya on our current Limud from "O", since we initially thought that we learn this from "O".

(c)And we answer that - it is not from "O" that we learn it, bit from "Oso".

7)

(a)The problem we still have according to Chananya (whom we have already discussed earlier) is that - according to him, "Oso" comes to teach us that Chosh'shin le'Zera ha'Av (so from where does he learn that one does not require both mothers plus one of the children in order to be Chayav)?

(b)We answer that Chananya learns that from "O", since he holds like Rebbi Yonasan - who on principle, does not require "O" Lechalek (as we will see shortly).

(c)Whereas the Rabbanan (of Chananya) hold - like Rebbi Yashiyah (who does require "O" Lechalek).

8)

(a)Rebbi Yashiyah learns from the fact that, after writing "Ish asher Yekalel es Aviv v'es Imo" (Kedoshim), the Torah adds "Aviv ve'Imo Killel" that - one is Chayav for cursing either one's father or one's mother (which is why the Pasuk first places 'K'lalah' next to "Aviv", and then next to "Imo"), and not only if he curses them both.

(b)Rebbi Yonasan disagrees with Rebbi Yashiyah, because he holds that - wherever the Torah does not insert "Yachdav" (like it does by Kil'ayim) it automatically divides (as if it had written "O").

(c)And from "Aviv ve'Imo Killel" he learns that - one is Chayav for cursing one's parents even after they are no longer alive.

9)

(a)Chananya in a Beraisa learns that Oso v'es B'no applies even to a father and his son (or daughter). According to the Rabbanan - it is restricted to a mother ...

(b)... and they derive this - from the Mitzvah of Shilu'ach ha'Kein, which applies specifically to a mother and her young.

(c)We query the Rabbanan's Mah Matzinu however - inasmuch as we cannot learn Oso v'es B'no (which applies to all animals, even if they have been designated in advance), from Shilu'ach ha'Kein (which only applies to birds that one comes across by chance), in which case it may well apply to the father as well.

(d)The Rabbanan refute this Kashya however, from "Oso" - which teaches us that it only applies to one of the parents (leaving us with the source from Shilu'ach ha'Kein, indicating that it rather applies to the mother than to the father [which in itself, is neither a Kula nor a Chumra).

10)

(a)The Rabbanan finally learn from "B'no" that - if the Pasuk is restricted to only one of the parents, then it must be the mother, whose child resembles a baby son (or a daughter), in that the baby follows her around everywhere (which is not the case by the father).

(b)In spite of having already learned their Din from the combination of "Oso" and Eim al ha'Banim, they need the D'rashah of "B'no" - to counter the claim that "Oso" (masculine) overrides the Limud from Shilu'ach ha'Kein.

(c)Chananya learns from "Oso" and "B'no" that - one is Chayav in both cases (for Shechting either a mother and her child or a father and his child, on the same day).