Chullin 79a — the Talmud in English

And

the Gemara adds to explain

for Hanania

, who holds that “the [prohibition of slaughtering] it and its offspring” applies both to males and to females: his reason is because

it is written “oto,” which implies a male, and it is written

on the other hand

“bno,”

which implies

one whose offspring clings to him,

and that is

a female.

Therefore, it applies both to males and to females. Rav Huna bar Hiyya said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Hanania!

And Shmuel followed his own reasoning.

For he holds that in animals one is concerned for the father’s seed—that is, the offspring of an animal is also attributed to its father—and therefore he rules in accordance with Hanania, that even a father and his offspring are forbidden to slaughter on the same day.

For we learned [Kilayim 8:4]:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Those born from the

mother who is

a mare,

even

though their father

is

a donkey—

they are permitted

to mate these offspring, which are mules,

with one another!

For there is no prohibition of kilayim in mating a male mule with a female mule, since both of them are one species, as they were born from the same species.

But

mules

born from the

mother who is

a donkey

[and their father is a horse]

with

mules

born from the

mother who is

a mare

[and their father is a donkey]

are forbidden

to mate with one another, since each one is a different species, and the prohibition of “You shall not mate your animal with kilayim” applies to them.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda

alone,

who says that one is not concerned for the father’s seed

in an animal, but the offspring is attributed exclusively to the mother. Therefore, he prohibits mating those born from the donkey with those born from the horse, since neither of them is considered a mixture of horse and donkey; rather, the one whose mother was a donkey is entirely a donkey, and the one whose mother was a horse is entirely a horse, and they are two species that are forbidden to mate with one another.

But the Sages say: All types of mules,

even those whose mothers are not the same

are one!

And it is permitted to mate them with one another, if each one came from the two species from which its fellow came.

And the Gemara infers:

Who are “the Sages”?

It is Hanania, who says

with regard to “it and its offspring”

that one is concerned for the father’s seed,

and, if so, every mule also contains a portion of the father’s species.

And this one

whose mother is a mare and whose father is a donkey

is the offspring of a mare and a donkey,

and

and

also

this one

whose mother is a donkey and whose father is a horse

is the offspring of a donkey and a horse!

That is, both of them contain a similar mixture of horse and donkey. Therefore,

all of them—

are one species!

And they are permitted to mate with one another.

And since Shmuel stated Hanania’s view using the expression “the Sages,” we learn from here that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with Hanania, as he ruled in our discussion.

They raised a dilemma:

What we brought, that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits mating the mules born from two species because one is not concerned for the father’s seed—is it

entirely clear to Rabbi Yehuda that one is not concerned for the father’s seed,

and therefore he prohibits it?

Or perhaps,

the matter is not clear to him, but

it is doubtful to him

whether one is concerned for the father’s seed or not, and he prohibits it because of the doubt? And we explain:

What practical difference is there

whether the prohibition is certain or doubtful? In either case it is forbidden.

To permit a mule with the mother!

To mate a mule—whose mother is a mare and whose father is a donkey—with the species of its mother, namely with a female horse.

If you say that it is entirely clear to him

to Rabbi Yehuda that one is not concerned for the father’s seed, then

a mule with the mother is permitted,

for it follows that the mule is entirely a horse, like its mother, and it is permitted to mate it with a horse.

And if you say that it is doubtful to him,

then

a mule with the mother is forbidden!

For it must be doubted that one is concerned for the father’s seed, and it follows that perhaps the mule also contains a portion of its father, which is a donkey, and it is forbidden to mate it with a horse.

What is the conclusion?

Come and hear:

from what we learned in the Mishna concerning kilayim brought above:

Rabbi Yehuda says: All those born from a horse, even though their father is a donkey—

are permitted with one another!

And we considered it:

What are the circumstances?

Which mules are being discussed?

If we say that the father of this one

is

a donkey, and

also

the father of this one

is

a donkey,

there is a difficulty with Rabbi Yehuda: Is it not

necessary to say

that they are permitted with one another? Surely it is obvious, since they are identical!?

Rather, is it not

that Rabbi Yehuda is discussing animals that are not identical? For example,

the father of this one is

a horse,

meaning that the offspring is entirely a horse, from its father and its mother.

And the father of this one—

is a donkey

and its mother is a horse [and this is Rabbi Yehuda’s intention: “All those born from a horse,” even a complete horse, “although their father [of the female mule] is a donkey—they are permitted with one another”].

And

the Gemara infers:

It teaches

in Rabbi Yehuda’s statement

“permitted with one another”; evidently, it is entirely clear to him

that one is not concerned for the father’s seed, and therefore he permits mating a complete horse with a female mule whose mother is a horse and whose father is a donkey—that is, a mule with the mother.

And we reject this:

No! In truth,

Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain whether one is concerned for the father’s seed or not, and what he permitted in the Mishna is specifically in a case

that the father of this one is a donkey and the father of this one is a donkey.

And as for what you said,

that in such a case

it is necessary to say

that they are permitted with one another—there is a novelty in this, because

it might have been thought

to prohibit these mules from mating with one another because of the doubt: Since each one contains a horse-side from its mother and a donkey-side from its father [for the matter is doubtful whether one is concerned for the father’s seed], it follows that

the horse-side

of the mule

uses the donkey-side

of the female mule,

and the donkey-side

of the mule

uses the horse-side

of the female mule, and there is mating of one species with a species not its own. Therefore,

it teaches us

that Rabbi Yehuda permits mating them, since each does not contain two sides, but all these mules are a species in their own right—one species that is a kind of horse and donkey. [On the view that one is concerned for the father’s seed.

And if one is certainly not concerned for the father’s seed, it is permitted, for they are all the species of horse, like the mother.

Come and hear:

to resolve the issue concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s view:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda says: A female mule that demanded

that a male be mated with her,

one may mate with her neither a horse nor a donkey, but only her own species,

a mule like herself.

And if you say

that according to Rabbi Yehuda

it is entirely clear to him

that one is not concerned for the father’s seed, then

let one mate with her the species of her mother

[that is, “a mule with the mother”]. When the mother of the female mule is a horse, let them mate a horse with her, since she herself is also entirely a horse; and if the mother is a donkey, let them mate a donkey with her!? Rather, certainly Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain whether one is concerned for the father’s seed, and therefore it is forbidden to mate with her the species of the mother, since she also contains a portion of the species of the father.

And we reject this: In truth, it is entirely clear to Rabbi Yehuda that one is not concerned for the father’s seed. But here we are dealing with a female mule

whose mother’s species we do not know, what it is,

whether the mother of the female mule is a horse or a donkey, and therefore it is impossible to mate anything with her, neither this nor that.

And we ask:

But

Rabbi Yehuda

teaches, “but only her own species”!

That one mates with her a mule of her species. And if the mother of the female mule is unknown, which mule should be mated with her? Since one is not concerned for the father’s seed, it is forbidden to mate mules whose mothers are different [as Rabbi Yehuda said above]; how can we know that their mothers are the same?

And we answer:

This is what

Rabbi Yehuda

said: One may mate with her neither a horse species,

that is, not a complete horse, and also not a mule whose mother is a horse,

nor a donkey species,

not a complete donkey, and not a mule whose mother is a donkey,

because they do not know her species

of the female mule. And his intention in saying “but only her own species” is that one may not mate any animal with her at all until it is known to you from which species the female mule is.

And we ask how it is possible that the species of the mother is unknown:

Let them examine the signs

of the female mule, and through this they will know what its mother is.

For Abaye said: If its voice is thick,

if the voice of the female mule is deep, it is a sign that it is

the offspring of a donkey,

whose mother is a donkey.

If its voice is shrill,

if its voice is clear, it is a sign that it is

the offspring of a mare,

whose mother is a horse.

And Rav Pappa said: If its ears are large,

its ears are large,

and its tail is small,

its tail is short; it is a sign that it is

the offspring of a donkey. If its ears are small,

its ears are small,

and its tail is large,

and its tail is long, it is a sign that it is

the offspring of a mare!

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a

female mule

that is mute,

so that it is impossible to examine it by its voice,

and maimed,

whose tail and ears have been cut off, and it is impossible to examine it through them.

What has become of it,

with regard to the Gemara’s issue of what Rabbi Yehuda’s view is—whether it is clear to him that one is not concerned for the father’s seed, or whether it is doubtful to him?

Come and hear: For Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Everyone agrees that a mule with the mother is forbidden!

It can be inferred from this: it is uncertain to him

whether, according to Rabbi Judah, we are concerned about the father’s seed or not.

And we conclude:

It can be inferred!

Rabbi Adda said to his attendant

who served him:

If you bring in mules for me in a cart,

if you wish to harness mules to the cart in which I travel,

examine these

mules

that resemble one another!

Examine them by means of the signs mentioned above . So that you will know that they resemble one another, having been born to a mother of the same species, in order not to transgress, “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” [For this prohibition also includes the prohibition of driving by means of two species of animal] ,

and bring them in to me

to harness them to the cart.

Evidently, he held

Rabbi Abba:

We are not concerned about the father’s seed,

and therefore it was necessary for the mules to be sons of mothers of the same species. For if not, they would be two species, and it would be prohibited to drive them together. But had Rabbi Abba held that we are concerned about the father’s seed, he would not have needed to examine the mules. For even if their mothers were different, all mules would be one species, since all of them contain a mixture of horse and donkey [in accordance with the view of the Rabbis who differ with Rabbi Judah above].