• When the offspring of a condemned cow becomes prohibited

A Baraisa states that if a cow killed a person and afterwards gave birth, if it gave birth before its verdict was issued, the offspring is permitted (in benefit), but if it gave birth afterwards, it is forbidden. The first ruling implies that even if the mother killed someone while pregnant, the offspring is permitted. This is contradicted by Rava, who said: ולד הנוגחת אסור – the offspring of a pregnant goring [cow] is forbidden (as a korban), because היא וולדה נגחו – it and its offspring both gored together!? The Gemara emends the Baraisa to say that if the cow conceived and gave birth between the killing and the verdict, the offspring is permitted, but if it conceived and gave birth after the verdict, the offspring is prohibited, because it was born from a forbidden cow. The Gemara asks that according to the opinion that זה וזה גורם מותר – when this forbidden item and that permitted item together cause something, the result is permitted, then the offspring, which was produced by a forbidden mother and permitted father, should be permitted!? Finally, Ravina emends the Baraisa to say that if the mother conceived before the verdict and gave birth afterwards, the offspring is prohibited, because עובר ירך אמו הוא – the fetus is like a thigh of the mother and becomes forbidden through the mother’s verdict.

• How a more lenient מיתה is given to one who did not receive התראה for it

The Mishnah on the previous Daf taught that if people sentenced to different methods of execution were mixed together, they are all given the most lenient execution. The Gemara asks that this should prove that מותרה לדבר חמור הוי מותרה לדבר קל – someone warned for a more severe execution is also considered warned for a more lenient execution. Otherwise, those who were warned and convicted for the more severe מיתה could not be killed with the more lenient מיתה!? Rebbe Yirmiyah answers that the Mishnah’s case is שהתרו בו סתם – that they warned him generally that he would be killed, but did not specify which method (so he is considered warned for every type of מיתה). This follows the Tanna who only requires התראה that the perpetrator would be killed, but Rebbe Yehudah requires warning him with the מיתה he would receive. The Tanna Kamma derives his ruling from the מקושש (the one who gathered wood on Shabbos), who was killed without being warned which מיתה he would incur (since it was not yet known). Rebbe Yehudah holds that was a הוראת שעה.

• The more lenient מיתה is administered in a mixture, even against the majority

Rav Yechezkel taught his son Rami our Mishnah with the text: הנשרפין בנסקלין – if those sentenced with שריפה became mixed with those sentenced with סקילה, Rebbe Shimon says they are all stoned, because he holds שריפה is the most severe execution. Rav Yehudah, Rami’s brother, objected: אבא לא תיתנייה הכי – Father, do not teach the Mishnah this way! If most of the group was sentenced to סקילה, why is it necessary to say that שריפה is more severe? Even if it were not more severe, תיפוק ליה דרובה נסקלין נינהו – let [this ruling] result from most [of the group] being those sentenced to סקילה, and we follow the majority to give everyone סקילה!? Instead, Rav Yehudah said to teach the Mishnah as: הנסקלין בנשרפין – those sentenced with סקילה became mixed with those sentenced with שריפה, and Rebbe Shimon rules they are all stoned (the more lenient מיתה), despite the majority being sentenced to שריפה. Still, the Chochomim say they are all killed with שריפה “because סקילה is more severe” (in their opinion), which is unnecessary where the majority was sentenced to שריפה, because they are simply responding to Rebbe Shimon. Shmuel told Rav Yehudah he should not have corrected his father in this direct manner.