Study Moed Katan folio 13A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
in the case of one who slit the ear of a firstborn animal, the rabbis penalized his son after him, that is because the prohibition is by Torah law. A firstborn animal is disqualified from sacrifice if it becomes blemished, rendering it permitted to be eaten as non-sacred meat. It is prohibited to
And if you might say that in the case of one who sold his slave to a non-Jew and then died the rabbis penalized his son after him, that is because every day the slave is in the non-Jew’s possession precludes him from performing mitzvot. A Canaanite slave is obligated in the same mitzvot as a Jewish
What, then, is the halakha here, where one planned from the outset to perform his work on the intermediate days of a Festival and then after performing the work he died? Should one say that the rabbis penalized the man himself and he is no longer alive, or perhaps the rabbis imposed a penalty on t
R' Zeira said to R' Yirmeya: You already learned the answer to your question in a Mishnah (Shevi’it 4:2): A field whose thorns were removed during the Sabbatical Year may be sown in the 8th year, as removing thorns is not full-fledged labor that renders the field prohibited; but if it had been impr
Abaye said: We have a tradition that if one rendered impure another’s ritually pure items and died before paying, the rabbis did not penalize his son after him and require him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? It is that damage that is not evident, i.e., that does not involve any