Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 14, 2019 | 讟壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 79

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聽do they disagree about?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜诇讞谞谞讬讛 讻转讬讘 讗讜转讜 讚诪砖诪注 讝讻专 讜讻转讬讘 讘谞讜 诪讬 砖讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜 讚诪砖诪注 谞拽讘讛 讛诇讻讱 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转

And according to the opinion of 岣nanya, the reason for his ruling is that it is written 鈥渋t,鈥 which indicates a male, and it is written 鈥渋ts offspring,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讘讬讛谉 讞诪讜专 诪讜转专讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讜诇讚讬谉 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专 注诐 讛谞讜诇讚讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜住 讗住讜专讬谉

Rav Huna bar 岣yya says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya. 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 驻专讚讜转 讗讞转 讛谉

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.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜讛讗讬 讘专 住讜住讬讗 讜讞诪专讗 讜讛讗讬 讘专 讞诪专讗 讜住讜住讬讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讗 谞讬谞讛讜

Now, whose opinion is referred to as that of the Rabbis here? It is that of 岣nanya, 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛

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?

诇诪讬砖专讗 驻专讬 注诐 讛讗诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 驻专讬 注诐 讛讗诐 砖专讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 驻专讬 注诐 讛讗诐 讗住讜专

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.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讘讬讛谉 讞诪讜专 诪讜转专讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专 讜讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 住讜住 讜讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专

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?

讜拽转谞讬 诪讜转专讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

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.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专 讜讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专 讜讚拽讗诪专转 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗转讬 爪讚 讚住讜住 诪砖转诪砖 讘爪讚 讞诪讜专 讜爪讚 讞诪讜专 诪砖转诪砖 讘爪讚 住讜住 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻专讚讛 砖转讘注讛 讗讬谉 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 诇讗 住讜住 讜诇讗 讞诪讜专 讗诇讗 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘注 注诇讛 诪讬谞讗 讚讗诪讛 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讗 讚讗诪讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

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鈥檚 species is.

讜讛讗 讗诇讗 诪讬谞讛 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬谉 住讜住 讜诇讗 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 讜诇讬讘讚讜拽 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注讘讬 拽诇讬讛 讘专 讞诪专讗 爪谞讬祝 拽诇讬讛 讘专 住讜住讬讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘专讘谉 讗讜讚谞讬讛 讜讝讜讟专讗 讙谞讜讘转讬讛 讘专 讞诪专讗 讝讜讟专谉 讗讜讚谞讬讛 讜专讘讛 讙谞讜讘转讬讛 讘专 住讜住讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讗诇诪转 讜讙讬讚诪转

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鈥檚 opinion cannot be proven from this case.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬谉 讘驻专讬 注诐 讛讗诐 砖讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檚 species would not matter. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇砖诪注讬讛 讗讬 诪注讬讬诇转 诇讬 讻讜讚谞讬讬转讗 讘专讬住驻拽 注讬讬谉 诇讛谞讱 讚讚诪讬讬谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讜注讬讬诇 诇讬 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘

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.

讜住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讜讘讻讜讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注讝 讜诪谉 讛专讞诇 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讜 讻讜讬 讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讻讜讬 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讝讛 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛转讬讬砖 讜诪谉 讛爪讘讬讬讛

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 岣sda 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转讬讬砖 讛讘讗 注诇 讛爪讘讬讬讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜拽讗 砖讞讬讟 诇讛 讜诇讘专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讛讬讗 爪讘讬讬讛 讜讘谞讛 转讬讬砖 砖驻讟讜专 砖讛 讜讘谞讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 爪讘讬 讜讘谞讜

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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜拽讗 砖讞讬讟 诇讛 讜诇讘专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讛讬讗 转讬讬砖讛 讜讘谞讛 爪讘讬 砖讞讬讬讘 砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘谞讜 讻诇 讚讛讜

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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎 sheep鈥nd its offspring鈥 (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.

诇注讜诇诐 讘转讬讬砖 讛讘讗 注诇 讛爪讘讬讬讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讘转 讜讘转 讬诇讚讛 讘谉 讜拽讗 砖讞讬讟 诇讛 讜诇讘专讛

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.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

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 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渟heep鈥 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鈥檚 component is ignored.

讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讞谞谞讬讛 讜专讘谞谉

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 岣nanya 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鈥檚 paternity.

讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渟heep鈥 indicates that even if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻讜讬 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 砖讞讟讜 讗讬谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讚诪讜

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.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转讬讬砖 讛讘讗 注诇 讛爪讘讬讬讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇砖讞讜讟 讜诇讬讻住讬 爪讘讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 爪讘讬

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鈥檚 species derives from its mother.

讗诇讗 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讗讬 诇专讘谞谉 诇砖讞讜讟 讜诇讬讻住讬 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇砖讞讜讟 讜诇讗 诇讬讻住讬

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.

诇注讜诇诐 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜专讘谞谉 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讗讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

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.

讜诪讚诇专讘谞谉 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

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.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讘讻讜讬 讜讘讻诇讗讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注讝 讜诪谉 讛专讞诇 讞讬讬讘 讘诪转谞讜转 诪谉 讛讻讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转

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.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转讬讬砖 讛讘讗 注诇 讛爪讘讬讬讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚驻讟专 拽住讘专 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

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 鈥渟heep鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 讚拽住讘专讬 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 讘砖诇诪讗 驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讬讛 讚讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜砖拽讜诇

But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, even if it is granted that they hold that the word 鈥渟heep鈥 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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讘讞爪讬 诪转谞讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜诇讛讬 诪转谞讜转

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鈥檚 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?

诇注讜诇诐 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讜 诇讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇专讘谞谉 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

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?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 79

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 79

讜诇讞谞谞讬讛 讻转讬讘 讗讜转讜 讚诪砖诪注 讝讻专 讜讻转讬讘 讘谞讜 诪讬 砖讘谞讜 讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讜 讚诪砖诪注 谞拽讘讛 讛诇讻讱 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转

And according to the opinion of 岣nanya, the reason for his ruling is that it is written 鈥渋t,鈥 which indicates a male, and it is written 鈥渋ts offspring,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讘讬讛谉 讞诪讜专 诪讜转专讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讜诇讚讬谉 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专 注诐 讛谞讜诇讚讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜住 讗住讜专讬谉

Rav Huna bar 岣yya says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya. 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 驻专讚讜转 讗讞转 讛谉

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.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜讛讗讬 讘专 住讜住讬讗 讜讞诪专讗 讜讛讗讬 讘专 讞诪专讗 讜住讜住讬讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讗 谞讬谞讛讜

Now, whose opinion is referred to as that of the Rabbis here? It is that of 岣nanya, 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛

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?

诇诪讬砖专讗 驻专讬 注诐 讛讗诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 驻专讬 注诐 讛讗诐 砖专讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 驻专讬 注诐 讛讗诐 讗住讜专

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.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讘讬讛谉 讞诪讜专 诪讜转专讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专 讜讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 住讜住 讜讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专

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?

讜拽转谞讬 诪讜转专讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

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.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专 讜讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讞诪讜专 讜讚拽讗诪专转 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗转讬 爪讚 讚住讜住 诪砖转诪砖 讘爪讚 讞诪讜专 讜爪讚 讞诪讜专 诪砖转诪砖 讘爪讚 住讜住 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻专讚讛 砖转讘注讛 讗讬谉 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 诇讗 住讜住 讜诇讗 讞诪讜专 讗诇讗 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘注 注诇讛 诪讬谞讗 讚讗诪讛 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讗 讚讗诪讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

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鈥檚 species is.

讜讛讗 讗诇讗 诪讬谞讛 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬谉 住讜住 讜诇讗 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 讜诇讬讘讚讜拽 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注讘讬 拽诇讬讛 讘专 讞诪专讗 爪谞讬祝 拽诇讬讛 讘专 住讜住讬讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘专讘谉 讗讜讚谞讬讛 讜讝讜讟专讗 讙谞讜讘转讬讛 讘专 讞诪专讗 讝讜讟专谉 讗讜讚谞讬讛 讜专讘讛 讙谞讜讘转讬讛 讘专 住讜住讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讗诇诪转 讜讙讬讚诪转

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鈥檚 opinion cannot be proven from this case.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬谉 讘驻专讬 注诐 讛讗诐 砖讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檚 species would not matter. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇砖诪注讬讛 讗讬 诪注讬讬诇转 诇讬 讻讜讚谞讬讬转讗 讘专讬住驻拽 注讬讬谉 诇讛谞讱 讚讚诪讬讬谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讜注讬讬诇 诇讬 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘

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.

讜住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讜讘讻讜讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注讝 讜诪谉 讛专讞诇 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讜 讻讜讬 讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讻讜讬 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讝讛 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛转讬讬砖 讜诪谉 讛爪讘讬讬讛

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 岣sda 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转讬讬砖 讛讘讗 注诇 讛爪讘讬讬讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜拽讗 砖讞讬讟 诇讛 讜诇讘专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讛讬讗 爪讘讬讬讛 讜讘谞讛 转讬讬砖 砖驻讟讜专 砖讛 讜讘谞讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 爪讘讬 讜讘谞讜

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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜拽讗 砖讞讬讟 诇讛 讜诇讘专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讛讬讗 转讬讬砖讛 讜讘谞讛 爪讘讬 砖讞讬讬讘 砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘谞讜 讻诇 讚讛讜

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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎 sheep鈥nd its offspring鈥 (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.

诇注讜诇诐 讘转讬讬砖 讛讘讗 注诇 讛爪讘讬讬讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讘转 讜讘转 讬诇讚讛 讘谉 讜拽讗 砖讞讬讟 诇讛 讜诇讘专讛

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.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

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 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渟heep鈥 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鈥檚 component is ignored.

讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讞谞谞讬讛 讜专讘谞谉

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 岣nanya 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鈥檚 paternity.

讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渟heep鈥 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 鈥渟heep鈥 indicates that even if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻讜讬 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 砖讞讟讜 讗讬谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讚诪讜

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.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转讬讬砖 讛讘讗 注诇 讛爪讘讬讬讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇砖讞讜讟 讜诇讬讻住讬 爪讘讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 爪讘讬

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鈥檚 species derives from its mother.

讗诇讗 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讗讬 诇专讘谞谉 诇砖讞讜讟 讜诇讬讻住讬 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇砖讞讜讟 讜诇讗 诇讬讻住讬

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.

诇注讜诇诐 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜专讘谞谉 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讗讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

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.

讜诪讚诇专讘谞谉 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

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.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讘讻讜讬 讜讘讻诇讗讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注讝 讜诪谉 讛专讞诇 讞讬讬讘 讘诪转谞讜转 诪谉 讛讻讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转

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.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转讬讬砖 讛讘讗 注诇 讛爪讘讬讬讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚驻讟专 拽住讘专 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

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 鈥渟heep鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 讚拽住讘专讬 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 讘砖诇诪讗 驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讬讛 讚讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜砖拽讜诇

But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, even if it is granted that they hold that the word 鈥渟heep鈥 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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讘讞爪讬 诪转谞讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜诇讛讬 诪转谞讜转

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鈥檚 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?

诇注讜诇诐 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讜 诇讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇专讘谞谉 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

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?

Scroll To Top