The gemara discusses whether we are concerned for who the father is or do the laws only follow the mother. The is a debate regarding a koi (half domesticated/half non-domesticated animal) – do the laws of not slaughtered it and its parent apply? Which type of koy do they disagree about?
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Chullin 79
ולחנניה כתיב אותו דמשמע זכר וכתיב בנו מי שבנו כרוך אחריו דמשמע נקבה הלכך נוהג בין בזכרים בין בנקבות
And according to the opinion of Ḥananya, the reason for his ruling is that it is written “it,” which indicates a male, and it is written “its offspring,” teaching that the prohibition applies to that parent whose offspring clings to it, which indicates a female. Therefore, this prohibition applies to both males and females.
אמר רב הונא בר חייא אמר שמואל הלכתא כחנניה ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דתנן ר’ יהודה אומר הנולדים מן הסוס אע”פ שאביהן חמור מותרין זה בזה אבל הנולדין מן החמור עם הנולדין מן הסוס אסורין
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya. And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:4): Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to two animals that are born from a female horse, even if the father of one is a donkey and the father of the other is a horse, they are permitted to mate with one another. Since the mothers of both are horses, the offspring are all considered of the same species. But to mate animals that are born from a female donkey with animals that are born from a female horse, even if one animal was born from a male horse and a female donkey and the other was born from a male donkey and a female horse, is prohibited, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds.
ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל זו דברי ר’ יהודה דאמר אין חוששין לזרע האב אבל חכמים אומרים כל מיני פרדות אחת הן
And, commenting on that mishna, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: One need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of an animal, as the species is determined solely by the mother. But the Rabbis say: The species of an animal is determined according to both its mother and its father. Therefore, all types of mules, regardless of which parent is a horse and which is a donkey, are considered a single species and may mate with each other.
מאן חכמים חנניה הוא דאמר חוששין לזרע האב והאי בר סוסיא וחמרא והאי בר חמרא וסוסיא כולהו חדא מינא נינהו
Now, whose opinion is referred to as that of the Rabbis here? It is that of Ḥananya, who says: One needs to be concerned with paternity, as, in his opinion, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring applies to a male and its offspring as well. And therefore, with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds as well, this mule that is the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey, and that mule that is the offspring of a female donkey and a male horse are all a single species.
איבעיא להו (מי פשיט) ליה לר’ יהודה דאין חוששין לזרע האב או דלמא ספוקי מספקא ליה למאי נפקא מינה
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the offspring, or perhaps he is uncertain whether or not one need be concerned with its paternity? The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference?
למישרא פרי עם האם אי אמרת מיפשט פשיטא ליה פרי עם האם שרי (אלא אי) אמרת ספוקי מספקא ליה פרי עם האם אסור
The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to permitting the mating of the offspring with the species of the mother, e.g., the mating of the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey together with a horse. If you say that Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity, then the mating of the offspring with the species of the mother is permitted, as, in this case, they are both considered horses. But if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain, then the mating of the offspring with the species of the mother is prohibited, as one must be concerned about the species of the father.
מאי ת”ש ר’ יהודה אומר כל הנולדים מן הסוס אע”פ שאביהן חמור מותרין זה בזה היכי דמי אילימא דאבוה דהאי חמור ואבוה דהאי חמור צריכא למימר אלא לאו דאבוה דהאי סוס ואבוה דהאי חמור
What, then, is the answer to the question? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a possible resolution from the mishna cited earlier: Rabbi Yehuda says: All that are born from a female horse, even if the father of one of them is a donkey, are permitted to mate with each other. What are the circumstances here? If we say that the father of this male animal is a donkey, and the father of that female animal, with which the male is to be mated, is a donkey, does it need to be said? Since the mothers of both animals are horses, they are both of exactly the same species and may certainly mate with each other. Rather, is it not that the father of this one is a horse, and the father of that other one is a donkey?
וקתני מותרים זה עם זה אלמא מיפשט פשיטא ליה
And yet it is taught that they are permitted to mate with each other. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the offspring. If he were uncertain, he would deem their mating prohibited, as the father of one is a horse while the father of the other is a donkey.
לא לעולם דאבוה דהאי חמור ואבוה דהאי חמור ודקאמרת צריכא למימר מהו דתימא אתי צד דסוס משתמש בצד חמור וצד חמור משתמש בצד סוס קמ”ל
The Gemara responds: No, one cannot cite proof from this, as it can be said that actually, the father of this male animal is a donkey, and the father of that female animal is also a donkey. And with regard to that which you say: Does it need to be said that these two may mate? It does need to be said, lest you say: The horse component of the male mule comes and copulates with the donkey component of the female mule, and the donkey component of the male mule copulates specifically with the horse component of the female mule, which would violate the prohibition of diverse kinds. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that they are both of the same species and may mate.
ת”ש ר’ יהודה אומר פרדה שתבעה אין מרביעין עליה לא סוס ולא חמור אלא מינה ואי אמרת מפשט פשיטא ליה לרבע עלה מינא דאמה דלא ידעינן מינא דאמה מאי ניהו
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a possible resolution from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a female mule in heat, one may not mate a horse or a donkey with her, due to the prohibition against crossbreeding diverse kinds of livestock. Rather, one mates her with one of her kind, another mule. And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the offspring, then why not mate her with the species of her mother? Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain and therefore deems it prohibited to mate her with either a horse or a donkey. The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where we do not know what the mother’s species is.
והא אלא מינה קתני הכי קאמר אין מרביעין עליה לא מין סוס ולא מין חמור לפי שאין יודעין במינה וליבדוק בסימנין דאמר אביי עבי קליה בר חמרא צניף קליה בר סוסיא ואמר רב פפא רברבן אודניה וזוטרא גנובתיה בר חמרא זוטרן אודניה ורבה גנובתיה בר סוסיא הכא במאי עסקינן באלמת וגידמת
The Gemara challenges: But the baraita teaches: Rather, one mates her with one of her kind, indicating that her species is known. The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: One may not mate the species of a horse or the species of a donkey with her, because one does not usually know the species of the mother of a mule that one encounters. The Gemara suggests: But let one check her species by her distinguishing characteristics, as Abaye says: If its voice is deep, it is the offspring of a female donkey; if its voice is shrill, it is the offspring of a female horse. And Rav Pappa says: If its ears are large and its tail is small, it is the offspring of a female donkey; if its ears are small and its tail is large, it is the offspring of a female horse. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a mule who is mute, and whose ears and tail are lopped off, and whose species cannot be determined. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion cannot be proven from this case.
מאי הוי עלה ת”ש דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע הכל מודין בפרי עם האם שאסור שמע מינה ספוקי מספקא ליה ש”מ
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it? Come and hear a resolution, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: All, including Rabbi Yehuda, agree with regard to mating the offspring with the species of its mother that it is prohibited. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain. If he were certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity, he would deem mating the offspring with the species of its mother permitted, since the father’s species would not matter. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.
אמר ליה ר’ אבא לשמעיה אי מעיילת לי כודנייתא בריספק עיין להנך דדמיין להדדי ועייל לי אלמא קסבר אין חוששין לזרע האב
The Gemara relates with regard to this issue that Rabbi Abba said to his servant: If you bring me mules attached to a wagon [rispak], look for those that are similar to each other in their voices and the sizes of their ears and tails, and bring those for me, in order not to violate the prohibition of diverse kinds. Evidently, Rabbi Abba holds that with regard to the offspring of diverse kinds, one need not be concerned with its paternity, since, as explained earlier, these distinguishing characteristics indicate only the species of the mother.
וסימנין דאורייתא
And in addition, he holds that these distinguishing characteristics apply by Torah law, such that they may be relied upon to allay concerns of violating even a prohibition that is mandated by Torah law.
תנו רבנן אותו ואת בנו נוהג בכלאים ובכוי רבי אליעזר אומר כלאים הבא מן העז ומן הרחל אותו ואת בנו נוהג בו כוי אין אותו ואת בנו נוהג בו אמר רב חסדא איזהו כוי שנחלקו בו רבי אליעזר וחכמים זה הבא מן התייש ומן הצבייה
§ The Sages taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 5:1): The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring applies to the offspring of diverse kinds of animals, such as a goat and a ewe, and to the koy, even though the prohibition does not apply to undomesticated animals. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe, the prohibition of a mother and its offspring applies; with regard to a koy, the prohibition of a mother and its offspring does not apply. Rav Ḥisda says: What is the koy about which Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree? It is that which results from the mating of a goat and a doe.
היכי דמי אילימא בתייש הבא על הצבייה וילדה וקא שחיט לה ולברה והאמר רב חסדא הכל מודים בהיא צבייה ובנה תייש שפטור שה ובנו אמר רחמנא ולא צבי ובנו
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances surrounding the birth of this koy? If we say that it is the result of a goat that mates with a doe, and she gives birth, and one slaughters her and her offspring on the same day, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: All concede in the case where she is a doe and her offspring is a goat, because she mated with a goat, that one who slaughters them both on the same day is exempt from lashes for violating the prohibition of a mother and its offspring? He is exempt because the Merciful One states: “And whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that the prohibition applies to a domesticated animal and its offspring, but not to an undomesticated animal and its offspring, such as a doe and its offspring.
אלא בצבי הבא על התיישה וילדה וקא שחיט לה ולברה והאמר רב חסדא הכל מודים בהיא תיישה ובנה צבי שחייב שה אמר רחמנא ובנו כל דהו
Rather, perhaps this koy is the product of a deer that mates with a female goat, and she gives birth, and one slaughters her and her offspring on the same day. But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: All concede that in the case where she is a goat and her offspring is a deer because she mated with a deer, that one who slaughters them both on the same day is liable? He is liable because the Merciful One states in the Torah: “A sheep…and its offspring” (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that the prohibition applies to a domesticated animal such as a sheep and its offspring of any species, even if it is an undomesticated animal.
לעולם בתייש הבא על הצבייה וילדה בת ובת ילדה בן וקא שחיט לה ולברה
The Gemara responds: Actually, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is in the case of a goat that mates with a doe, and she gives birth to a female offspring, a koy, and this female offspring gives birth to a male offspring, and one slaughters her and her male offspring on the same day.
רבנן סברי חוששין לזרע האב ושה ואפילו מקצת שה ורבי אליעזר סבר אין חוששין לזרע האב ושה ואפילו מקצת שה לא אמרינן
The Rabbis hold: One needs to be concerned with its paternity, and therefore the koy is partially a goat due to its father, and the word “sheep” in the verse means that even if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a single day. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: One need not be concerned with its paternity, and the status of the koy is unaffected by the fact that its father is a goat, and therefore, in this case we do not say that the word “sheep” mentioned in the verse means that even if it is partially a sheep it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a single day, as the father’s component is ignored.
וליפלוג בחוששין לזרע האב בפלוגתא דחנניה ורבנן
The Gemara challenges: And let them disagree with regard to any animal of mixed breed about whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity, i.e., with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Ḥananya and the Rabbis, whether the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day also applies to a father and its offspring because one needs to be concerned with an animal’s paternity.
אי פליגי בההיא הוה אמינא בהא אפילו רבנן מודו דשה ואפילו מקצת שה לא אמרי’ קמ”ל
The Gemara responds: If they would disagree only about that issue, I would say: With regard to this issue of a doe mother and a goat father, even the Rabbis concede that we do not say that the word “sheep” mentioned in the verse means that even if an animal is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a single day. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that according to the Rabbis, not only does one need to be concerned with paternity, but the word “sheep” indicates that even if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring.
והא דתנן כוי אין שוחטין אותו ביו”ט ואם שחטו אין מכסין את דמו
The Gemara challenges: But that which we learned in a mishna (83b) appears to contradict this: One may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, because covering its blood entails the performance of prohibited labor that is permitted only if there is a definite obligation to do so. And if one slaughtered a koy on a Festival after the fact, one does not cover its blood, as the Sages prohibited transporting soil on a Festival where it is uncertain that a mitzva by Torah law exists.
במאי עסקינן אילימא בתייש הבא על הצבייה וילדה בין לרבנן בין לר”א לשחוט וליכסי צבי ואפילו מקצת צבי
The Gemara explains the question: What are we dealing with? If we say that we are dealing with a goat who mates with a doe, and she gives birth, then whether according to the opinion of the Rabbis or according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, let him slaughter the koy on the Festival ab initio and cover the blood, as the mother of the koy is a deer, and the koy therefore may be termed an undomesticated animal, whose blood requires covering. This should be so even if it is partially a deer, i.e., it has an undomesticated animal component from only one parent, since all agree that the offspring’s species derives from its mother.
אלא בצבי הבא על התיישה וילדה אי לרבנן לשחוט וליכסי אי לר”א לשחוט ולא ליכסי
Rather, we must be dealing with a case of a deer that mates with a female goat, and she gives birth. This, too, is difficult: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one needs to be concerned with paternity, let him slaughter this koy on the Festival ab initio and cover the blood, as it is partially an undomesticated animal due to its father. If the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one need not be concerned with paternity, let him slaughter the koy on the Festival ab initio and not cover the blood, as it should be considered a domesticated animal, whose blood does not require covering due to its mother who is a goat.
לעולם בצבי הבא על התיישה ורבנן ספוקי מספקא להו אי חוששין לזרע האב אי אין חוששין
The Gemara concludes that actually this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is referring to a case of a deer who mates with a female goat, and the Rabbis do not say with certainty that in determining the species of an animal one must be concerned with paternity, but rather the Rabbis are simply uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity or one need not be concerned. Therefore, they rule that one should not slaughter it on a Festival, ab initio, in order to avoid a possible prohibition, and if one did slaughter it, he should not cover the blood, to avoid violating a prohibition in order to perform an uncertain mitzva.
ומדלרבנן מספקא להו לרבי אליעזר פשיטא ליה
The Gemara infers: And from the fact that the Rabbis are uncertain, and therefore they rule that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, applies to a koy, it can be inferred that according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who rules that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, does not apply to a koy, it is obvious that, with regard to a koy resulting from a deer mating with a female goat, one need not be concerned with its paternity at all.
והא דתניא הזרוע והלחיים והקבה נוהגים בכוי ובכלאים ר’ אליעזר אומר כלאים הבא מן העז ומן הרחל חייב במתנות מן הכוי פטור מן המתנות
The Gemara asks: But according to this, that which is taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 9:1) presents a difficulty: The mitzva to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of non-sacred animals to a priest applies both to a koy and to the offspring of diverse kinds of animals. Rabbi Eliezer says: A hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from it; a hybrid that results from a koy is exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it.
במאי עסקינן אילימא בתייש הבא על הצבייה וילדה בשלמא לרבי אליעזר דפטר קסבר שה ואפילו מקצת שה לא אמרינן
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What type of koy are we dealing with? If we say that we are dealing with a goat who mates with a doe, and she gives birth, granted, this is consistent according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems it exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it. As he holds that we do not say that the word “sheep” (see Deuteronomy 18:3) means that even if it is partially a sheep one must give gifts of the priesthood from it, as paternity is ignored and this koy is considered solely the offspring of a doe, exempting it from having gifts given from it.
אלא לרבנן נהי דקסברי שה ואפילו מקצת שה בשלמא פלגא לא יהיב ליה אידך פלגא לימא ליה אייתי ראייה דחוששין לזרע האב ושקול
But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, even if it is granted that they hold that the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep, or any other type of domesticated animal, one is obligated to give gifts of the priesthood from it, why should the owner of this koy be required to give the gifts to a priest? Granted, he does not give the priest half of the gifts, since half of the koy, i.e., the mother’s component, is an undomesticated animal; but with regard to the other half, as well, let him say to the priest: Bring proof that one needs to be concerned with its paternity and take that half; otherwise receive nothing.
אלא בצבי הבא על התיישה וילדה בשלמא לרבנן מאי חייב בחצי מתנות אלא לרבי אליעזר ליחייב בכולהי מתנות
Rather, we are dealing with the case of a deer who mates with a female goat and she gives birth. Granted, this is consistent according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one is obligated to give gifts of the priesthood from it, as what is meant by: Obligated? It means: It is obligated in half of the gifts, since on its mother’s side the goat component is subject to the obligation to give the gifts, but with regard to the other half of the gifts he can tell the priest: Bring proof that one need not be concerned with paternity, and take it. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one need not be concerned with paternity at all, such that this koy would be considered a domesticated animal like its mother, let the owner be obligated in all of the gifts. Why, then, does Rabbi Eliezer deem him exempt?
לעולם בצבי הבא על התיישה וילדה ור”א נמי ספוקי מספקא ליה אי חוששין לזרע האב או לא וכיון דלרבנן מספקא להו ולרבי אליעזר מספקא ליה במאי פליגי
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a deer who mates with a female goat, and she gives birth, and Rabbi Eliezer is also uncertain whether, in determining the species of an animal, one needs to be concerned with its paternity or not. The Gemara asks: But since the conclusion is that the Rabbis are uncertain and Rabbi Eliezer is uncertain, in what case do they disagree where Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner exempt from giving the gifts entirely?
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Chullin 79
ืืืื ื ืื ืืชืื ืืืชื ืืืฉืืข ืืืจ ืืืชืื ืื ื ืื ืฉืื ื ืืจืื ืืืจืื ืืืฉืืข ื ืงืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจืื ืืื ืื ืงืืืช
And according to the opinion of แธคananya, the reason for his ruling is that it is written โit,โ which indicates a male, and it is written โits offspring,โ teaching that the prohibition applies to that parent whose offspring clings to it, which indicates a female. Therefore, this prohibition applies to both males and females.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืืจ ืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืืืชื ืืื ื ืื ืืืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืขืืื ืืชื ื ืจ’ ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืืืืื ืื ืืกืืก ืืข”ืค ืฉืืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืชืจืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืขื ืื ืืืืื ืื ืืกืืก ืืกืืจืื
Rav Huna bar แธคiyya says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of แธคananya. And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:4): Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to two animals that are born from a female horse, even if the father of one is a donkey and the father of the other is a horse, they are permitted to mate with one another. Since the mothers of both are horses, the offspring are all considered of the same species. But to mate animals that are born from a female donkey with animals that are born from a female horse, even if one animal was born from a male horse and a female donkey and the other was born from a male donkey and a female horse, is prohibited, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds.
ืืืืจ ืจื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืื ืืืจื ืจ’ ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืืจืื ืื ืืื ื ืคืจืืืช ืืืช ืื
And, commenting on that mishna, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: One need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of an animal, as the species is determined solely by the mother. But the Rabbis say: The species of an animal is determined according to both its mother and its father. Therefore, all types of mules, regardless of which parent is a horse and which is a donkey, are considered a single species and may mate with each other.
ืืื ืืืืื ืื ื ืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื ืืืื ืืจ ืกืืกืื ืืืืจื ืืืื ืืจ ืืืจื ืืกืืกืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืื ื ื ืื ืื
Now, whose opinion is referred to as that of the Rabbis here? It is that of แธคananya, who says: One needs to be concerned with paternity, as, in his opinion, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring applies to a male and its offspring as well. And therefore, with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds as well, this mule that is the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey, and that mule that is the offspring of a female donkey and a male horse are all a single species.
ืืืืขืื ืืื (ืื ืคืฉืื) ืืื ืืจ’ ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื ืื ืืืื ืกืคืืงื ืืกืคืงื ืืื ืืืื ื ืคืงื ืืื ื
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the offspring, or perhaps he is uncertain whether or not one need be concerned with its paternity? The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference?
ืืืืฉืจื ืคืจื ืขื ืืื ืื ืืืจืช ืืืคืฉื ืคืฉืืื ืืื ืคืจื ืขื ืืื ืฉืจื (ืืื ืื) ืืืจืช ืกืคืืงื ืืกืคืงื ืืื ืคืจื ืขื ืืื ืืกืืจ
The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to permitting the mating of the offspring with the species of the mother, e.g., the mating of the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey together with a horse. If you say that Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity, then the mating of the offspring with the species of the mother is permitted, as, in this case, they are both considered horses. But if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain, then the mating of the offspring with the species of the mother is prohibited, as one must be concerned about the species of the father.
ืืื ืช”ืฉ ืจ’ ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืื ืืืืื ืื ืืกืืก ืืข”ืค ืฉืืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืชืจืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืฆืจืืื ืืืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืกืืก ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืจ
What, then, is the answer to the question? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a possible resolution from the mishna cited earlier: Rabbi Yehuda says: All that are born from a female horse, even if the father of one of them is a donkey, are permitted to mate with each other. What are the circumstances here? If we say that the father of this male animal is a donkey, and the father of that female animal, with which the male is to be mated, is a donkey, does it need to be said? Since the mothers of both animals are horses, they are both of exactly the same species and may certainly mate with each other. Rather, is it not that the father of this one is a horse, and the father of that other one is a donkey?
ืืงืชื ื ืืืชืจืื ืื ืขื ืื ืืืื ืืืคืฉื ืคืฉืืื ืืื
And yet it is taught that they are permitted to mate with each other. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the offspring. If he were uncertain, he would deem their mating prohibited, as the father of one is a horse while the father of the other is a donkey.
ืื ืืขืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืงืืืจืช ืฆืจืืื ืืืืืจ ืืื ืืชืืื ืืชื ืฆื ืืกืืก ืืฉืชืืฉ ืืฆื ืืืืจ ืืฆื ืืืืจ ืืฉืชืืฉ ืืฆื ืกืืก ืงื”ื
The Gemara responds: No, one cannot cite proof from this, as it can be said that actually, the father of this male animal is a donkey, and the father of that female animal is also a donkey. And with regard to that which you say: Does it need to be said that these two may mate? It does need to be said, lest you say: The horse component of the male mule comes and copulates with the donkey component of the female mule, and the donkey component of the male mule copulates specifically with the horse component of the female mule, which would violate the prohibition of diverse kinds. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that they are both of the same species and may mate.
ืช”ืฉ ืจ’ ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืคืจืื ืฉืชืืขื ืืื ืืจืืืขืื ืขืืื ืื ืกืืก ืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืื ื ืืื ืืืจืช ืืคืฉื ืคืฉืืื ืืื ืืจืืข ืขืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืื ืืืขืื ื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืื ื ืืื
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a possible resolution from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a female mule in heat, one may not mate a horse or a donkey with her, due to the prohibition against crossbreeding diverse kinds of livestock. Rather, one mates her with one of her kind, another mule. And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the offspring, then why not mate her with the species of her mother? Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain and therefore deems it prohibited to mate her with either a horse or a donkey. The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where we do not know what the motherโs species is.
ืืื ืืื ืืื ื ืงืชื ื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืืื ืืจืืืขืื ืขืืื ืื ืืื ืกืืก ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืคื ืฉืืื ืืืืขืื ืืืื ื ืืืืืืืง ืืกืืื ืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืขืื ืงืืื ืืจ ืืืจื ืฆื ืืฃ ืงืืื ืืจ ืกืืกืื ืืืืจ ืจื ืคืคื ืจืืจืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืืจื ืื ืืืชืื ืืจ ืืืจื ืืืืจื ืืืื ืื ืืจืื ืื ืืืชืื ืืจ ืกืืกืื ืืื ืืืื ืขืกืงืื ื ืืืืืช ืืืืืืช
The Gemara challenges: But the baraita teaches: Rather, one mates her with one of her kind, indicating that her species is known. The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: One may not mate the species of a horse or the species of a donkey with her, because one does not usually know the species of the mother of a mule that one encounters. The Gemara suggests: But let one check her species by her distinguishing characteristics, as Abaye says: If its voice is deep, it is the offspring of a female donkey; if its voice is shrill, it is the offspring of a female horse. And Rav Pappa says: If its ears are large and its tail is small, it is the offspring of a female donkey; if its ears are small and its tail is large, it is the offspring of a female horse. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a mule who is mute, and whose ears and tail are lopped off, and whose species cannot be determined. Therefore, Rabbi Yehudaโs opinion cannot be proven from this case.
ืืื ืืื ืขืื ืช”ืฉ ืืืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืืจืื ืืจื ืืืืฉืข ืืื ืืืืื ืืคืจื ืขื ืืื ืฉืืกืืจ ืฉืืข ืืื ื ืกืคืืงื ืืกืคืงื ืืื ืฉ”ื
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it? Come and hear a resolution, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: All, including Rabbi Yehuda, agree with regard to mating the offspring with the species of its mother that it is prohibited. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain. If he were certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity, he would deem mating the offspring with the species of its mother permitted, since the fatherโs species would not matter. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.
ืืืจ ืืื ืจ’ ืืื ืืฉืืขืื ืื ืืขืืืืช ืื ืืืื ืืืชื ืืจืืกืคืง ืขืืื ืืื ื ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืืขืืื ืื ืืืื ืงืกืืจ ืืื ืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื
The Gemara relates with regard to this issue that Rabbi Abba said to his servant: If you bring me mules attached to a wagon [rispak], look for those that are similar to each other in their voices and the sizes of their ears and tails, and bring those for me, in order not to violate the prohibition of diverse kinds. Evidently, Rabbi Abba holds that with regard to the offspring of diverse kinds, one need not be concerned with its paternity, since, as explained earlier, these distinguishing characteristics indicate only the species of the mother.
ืืกืืื ืื ืืืืจืืืชื
And in addition, he holds that these distinguishing characteristics apply by Torah law, such that they may be relied upon to allay concerns of violating even a prohibition that is mandated by Torah law.
ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืืืชื ืืืช ืื ื ื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืขื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืชื ืืืช ืื ื ื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืชื ืืืช ืื ื ื ืืื ืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืกืื ืืืืื ืืื ืฉื ืืืงื ืื ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืืืื ืื ืืื ืื ืืชืืืฉ ืืื ืืฆืืืื
ยง The Sages taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 5:1): The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring applies to the offspring of diverse kinds of animals, such as a goat and a ewe, and to the koy, even though the prohibition does not apply to undomesticated animals. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe, the prohibition of a mother and its offspring applies; with regard to a koy, the prohibition of a mother and its offspring does not apply. Rav แธคisda says: What is the koy about which Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree? It is that which results from the mating of a goat and a doe.
ืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืชืืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืืฆืืืื ืืืืื ืืงื ืฉืืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืืืจ ืจื ืืกืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืฆืืืื ืืื ื ืชืืืฉ ืฉืคืืืจ ืฉื ืืื ื ืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืืื ืฆืื ืืื ื
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances surrounding the birth of this koy? If we say that it is the result of a goat that mates with a doe, and she gives birth, and one slaughters her and her offspring on the same day, that is difficult: But doesnโt Rav แธคisda say: All concede in the case where she is a doe and her offspring is a goat, because she mated with a goat, that one who slaughters them both on the same day is exempt from lashes for violating the prohibition of a mother and its offspring? He is exempt because the Merciful One states: โAnd whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one dayโ (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that the prohibition applies to a domesticated animal and its offspring, but not to an undomesticated animal and its offspring, such as a doe and its offspring.
ืืื ืืฆืื ืืื ืขื ืืชืืืฉื ืืืืื ืืงื ืฉืืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืืืจ ืจื ืืกืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืชืืืฉื ืืื ื ืฆืื ืฉืืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืืื ื ืื ืืื
Rather, perhaps this koy is the product of a deer that mates with a female goat, and she gives birth, and one slaughters her and her offspring on the same day. But doesnโt Rav แธคisda say: All concede that in the case where she is a goat and her offspring is a deer because she mated with a deer, that one who slaughters them both on the same day is liable? He is liable because the Merciful One states in the Torah: โA sheepโฆand its offspringโ (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that the prohibition applies to a domesticated animal such as a sheep and its offspring of any species, even if it is an undomesticated animal.
ืืขืืื ืืชืืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืืฆืืืื ืืืืื ืืช ืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืงื ืฉืืื ืื ืืืืจื
The Gemara responds: Actually, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is in the case of a goat that mates with a doe, and she gives birth to a female offspring, a koy, and this female offspring gives birth to a male offspring, and one slaughters her and her male offspring on the same day.
ืจืื ื ืกืืจื ืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื ืืฉื ืืืคืืื ืืงืฆืช ืฉื ืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืกืืจ ืืื ืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื ืืฉื ืืืคืืื ืืงืฆืช ืฉื ืื ืืืจืื ื
The Rabbis hold: One needs to be concerned with its paternity, and therefore the koy is partially a goat due to its father, and the word โsheepโ in the verse means that even if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a single day. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: One need not be concerned with its paternity, and the status of the koy is unaffected by the fact that its father is a goat, and therefore, in this case we do not say that the word โsheepโ mentioned in the verse means that even if it is partially a sheep it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a single day, as the fatherโs component is ignored.
ืืืืคืืื ืืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื ืืคืืืืชื ืืื ื ืื ืืจืื ื
The Gemara challenges: And let them disagree with regard to any animal of mixed breed about whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity, i.e., with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between แธคananya and the Rabbis, whether the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day also applies to a father and its offspring because one needs to be concerned with an animalโs paternity.
ืื ืคืืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืคืืื ืจืื ื ืืืื ืืฉื ืืืคืืื ืืงืฆืช ืฉื ืื ืืืจื’ ืงื”ื
The Gemara responds: If they would disagree only about that issue, I would say: With regard to this issue of a doe mother and a goat father, even the Rabbis concede that we do not say that the word โsheepโ mentioned in the verse means that even if an animal is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a single day. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that according to the Rabbis, not only does one need to be concerned with paternity, but the word โsheepโ indicates that even if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring.
ืืื ืืชื ื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืืื ืืืชื ืืื”ื ืืื ืฉืืื ืืื ืืืกืื ืืช ืืื
The Gemara challenges: But that which we learned in a mishna (83b) appears to contradict this: One may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, because covering its blood entails the performance of prohibited labor that is permitted only if there is a definite obligation to do so. And if one slaughtered a koy on a Festival after the fact, one does not cover its blood, as the Sages prohibited transporting soil on a Festival where it is uncertain that a mitzva by Torah law exists.
ืืืื ืขืกืงืื ื ืืืืืื ืืชืืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืืฆืืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืจืื ื ืืื ืืจ”ื ืืฉืืื ืืืืืกื ืฆืื ืืืคืืื ืืงืฆืช ืฆืื
The Gemara explains the question: What are we dealing with? If we say that we are dealing with a goat who mates with a doe, and she gives birth, then whether according to the opinion of the Rabbis or according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, let him slaughter the koy on the Festival ab initio and cover the blood, as the mother of the koy is a deer, and the koy therefore may be termed an undomesticated animal, whose blood requires covering. This should be so even if it is partially a deer, i.e., it has an undomesticated animal component from only one parent, since all agree that the offspringโs species derives from its mother.
ืืื ืืฆืื ืืื ืขื ืืชืืืฉื ืืืืื ืื ืืจืื ื ืืฉืืื ืืืืืกื ืื ืืจ”ื ืืฉืืื ืืื ืืืืกื
Rather, we must be dealing with a case of a deer that mates with a female goat, and she gives birth. This, too, is difficult: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one needs to be concerned with paternity, let him slaughter this koy on the Festival ab initio and cover the blood, as it is partially an undomesticated animal due to its father. If the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one need not be concerned with paternity, let him slaughter the koy on the Festival ab initio and not cover the blood, as it should be considered a domesticated animal, whose blood does not require covering due to its mother who is a goat.
ืืขืืื ืืฆืื ืืื ืขื ืืชืืืฉื ืืจืื ื ืกืคืืงื ืืกืคืงื ืืื ืื ืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืฉืฉืื
The Gemara concludes that actually this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is referring to a case of a deer who mates with a female goat, and the Rabbis do not say with certainty that in determining the species of an animal one must be concerned with paternity, but rather the Rabbis are simply uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity or one need not be concerned. Therefore, they rule that one should not slaughter it on a Festival, ab initio, in order to avoid a possible prohibition, and if one did slaughter it, he should not cover the blood, to avoid violating a prohibition in order to perform an uncertain mitzva.
ืืืืืจืื ื ืืกืคืงื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืคืฉืืื ืืื
The Gemara infers: And from the fact that the Rabbis are uncertain, and therefore they rule that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, applies to a koy, it can be inferred that according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who rules that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, does not apply to a koy, it is obvious that, with regard to a koy resulting from a deer mating with a female goat, one need not be concerned with its paternity at all.
ืืื ืืชื ืื ืืืจืืข ืืืืืืื ืืืงืื ื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืจ’ ืืืืขืืจ ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืขื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืื ืืืชื ืืช ืื ืืืื ืคืืืจ ืื ืืืชื ืืช
The Gemara asks: But according to this, that which is taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 9:1) presents a difficulty: The mitzva to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of non-sacred animals to a priest applies both to a koy and to the offspring of diverse kinds of animals. Rabbi Eliezer says: A hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from it; a hybrid that results from a koy is exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it.
ืืืื ืขืกืงืื ื ืืืืืื ืืชืืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืืฆืืืื ืืืืื ืืฉืืื ืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืคืืจ ืงืกืืจ ืฉื ืืืคืืื ืืงืฆืช ืฉื ืื ืืืจืื ื
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What type of koy are we dealing with? If we say that we are dealing with a goat who mates with a doe, and she gives birth, granted, this is consistent according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems it exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it. As he holds that we do not say that the word โsheepโ (see Deuteronomy 18:3) means that even if it is partially a sheep one must give gifts of the priesthood from it, as paternity is ignored and this koy is considered solely the offspring of a doe, exempting it from having gifts given from it.
ืืื ืืจืื ื ื ืื ืืงืกืืจื ืฉื ืืืคืืื ืืงืฆืช ืฉื ืืฉืืื ืคืืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืคืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืชื ืจืืืื ืืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื ืืฉืงืื
But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, even if it is granted that they hold that the word โsheepโ means that even if it is partially a sheep, or any other type of domesticated animal, one is obligated to give gifts of the priesthood from it, why should the owner of this koy be required to give the gifts to a priest? Granted, he does not give the priest half of the gifts, since half of the koy, i.e., the motherโs component, is an undomesticated animal; but with regard to the other half, as well, let him say to the priest: Bring proof that one needs to be concerned with its paternity and take that half; otherwise receive nothing.
ืืื ืืฆืื ืืื ืขื ืืชืืืฉื ืืืืื ืืฉืืื ืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืืฆื ืืชื ืืช ืืื ืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืืืื ืืืืืื ืืชื ืืช
Rather, we are dealing with the case of a deer who mates with a female goat and she gives birth. Granted, this is consistent according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one is obligated to give gifts of the priesthood from it, as what is meant by: Obligated? It means: It is obligated in half of the gifts, since on its motherโs side the goat component is subject to the obligation to give the gifts, but with regard to the other half of the gifts he can tell the priest: Bring proof that one need not be concerned with paternity, and take it. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one need not be concerned with paternity at all, such that this koy would be considered a domesticated animal like its mother, let the owner be obligated in all of the gifts. Why, then, does Rabbi Eliezer deem him exempt?
ืืขืืื ืืฆืื ืืื ืขื ืืชืืืฉื ืืืืื ืืจ”ื ื ืื ืกืคืืงื ืืกืคืงื ืืื ืื ืืืฉืฉืื ืืืจืข ืืื ืื ืื ืืืืื ืืืจืื ื ืืกืคืงื ืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืกืคืงื ืืื ืืืื ืคืืืื
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a deer who mates with a female goat, and she gives birth, and Rabbi Eliezer is also uncertain whether, in determining the species of an animal, one needs to be concerned with its paternity or not. The Gemara asks: But since the conclusion is that the Rabbis are uncertain and Rabbi Eliezer is uncertain, in what case do they disagree where Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner exempt from giving the gifts entirely?
Follow
