חולין עט

חולין עט

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?