Chullin 79a (עט.) — the Talmud in English

And

the Gemara further explains

Hanania’s

reasoning. He holds that the prohibition of “it and its offspring” applies both to males and to females because

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

on the other hand,

“beno,”

which indicates

an animal whose offspring follows it,

namely, a

female.

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

And Shmuel follows his own reasoning.

He holds that one must take into consideration the father’s seed in animals—that is, an animal’s offspring is affiliated with its father as well—and therefore he rules in accordance with Hanania, that slaughtering a father and its offspring on the same day is prohibited.

As we learned [Kilayim 8:4]:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The animals born from the

mother that is a

mare are,

even though their father

is a

donkey,

nevertheless

permitted

to mate

these offspring, which are mules,

with one another!

There is no prohibition of kilayim in mating a male mule with a female mule, since both are one species, having been born from the same two species.

However,

mules

born from the

mother that is a

donkey

whose father is a horse]

with

mules

born from the

mother that is a

mare

whose father is a donkey] are

prohibited

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

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

alone,

who says that one does not take the father’s seed into consideration

with regard to an animal. Rather, the offspring is affiliated solely with its mother. Therefore, he prohibits mating those born from a donkey with those born from a horse, since neither is considered a mixture of horse and donkey: the one whose mother is a donkey is entirely a donkey, and the one whose mother is a mare is entirely a horse, and they are two species that may not be mated with each other.

But the Sages say: All types of mules

even those whose mothers are not the same species—

are one species!

It is therefore permitted to mate them with one another, provided that each of them derives from the same two species from which the other derives.

The Gemara infers:

Who are “the Sages”?

It is Hanania, who says

with regard to “it and its offspring” that

one does take the father’s seed into consideration,

and if so, every mule contains a component of its father’s species as well.

And this one,

whose mother is a mare and whose father is a donkey,

is the offspring of a mare and a donkey,

and

also

the other

one,

whose mother is a donkey and whose father is a horse,

is the offspring of a donkey and a horse!

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

all of them

are one species!

And they are permitted to mate with one another.

Since Shmuel referred to Hanania’s opinion 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 passage.

They raised a dilemma:

Concerning what we cited—that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits mating the mules born from two species because the father’s seed is not considered: Is it

entirely obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the father’s seed is not considered,

and therefore he prohibits it?

Or perhaps

the matter is not obvious to him, but

he is uncertain

whether the father’s seed is considered or not, and he prohibits it because of the doubt? The Gemara explains:

What practical difference

is there whether the prohibition is certain or doubtful, since in either event it is prohibited?

With regard to permitting a mule with its mother!

That is, mating a mule whose mother is a mare and whose father is a donkey with the species of its mother, namely, a female horse.

If you say that it is entirely obvious to him

that the father’s seed is not considered, then

a mule with its mother is permitted,

since the mule is entirely a horse, like its mother, and may be mated with a horse.

But if you say that he is uncertain,

then

a mule with its mother is prohibited!

For it is possible that the father’s seed is considered, in which case the mule also contains a component of its father, a donkey, and may not be mated with a horse.

What is the ruling?

Come and hear:

from the Mishna concerning kilayim cited above:

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

are permitted to mate with one another!

And we considered the matter:

What are the circumstances?

Which mules are being discussed?

If we say that the father of this one

is a

donkey, and

the father of this one

is also

a

donkey,

then Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is difficult: Is it

necessary to say

that they are permitted to mate with one another? 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 both its father and mother,

while the father of this one

is a donkey

and its mother is a mare. [This is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement: “All those born from a horse,” including one that is an entirely pure horse, “even though their father [of the female mule] is a donkey, are permitted to mate with one another.”]

And

the Gemara infers:

It teaches

in Rabbi Yehuda’s statement

“permitted to mate with one another”; apparently, it is entirely obvious to him

that the father’s seed is not considered. Therefore, he permits mating an entirely pure horse with a female mule whose mother is a mare and whose father is a donkey—that is, a mule with its mother.

The Gemara rejects this:

No; perhaps

Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain whether the father’s seed is considered, and what he permitted in the Mishna is specifically in a case

where 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 is it

necessary to say

that they are permitted to mate with one another? There is nevertheless a novelty, because

lest you say

that these mules should be prohibited from mating with one another because of the doubt: Since each contains a horse component from its mother and a donkey component from its father [as the matter is uncertain whether the father’s seed is considered], it follows that

the horse component

of one mule

uses the donkey component

of the other, while

the donkey component

of the first mule

uses the horse component

of the other. This would constitute mating one species with another. Therefore,

it teaches us

that Rabbi Yehuda permits mating them, since they do not contain two separate components in each one; rather, all these mules are each a species in its own right—one species resembling both a horse and a donkey. According to the possibility that the father’s seed is considered.]

And if the father’s seed is not considered, it is certainly permitted, since they are all of the horse species, like the mother.]

Come and hear

to resolve the question concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion:

As it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If a female mule solicited

to be mated with a male,

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

a male mule like herself.

And if you say

that according to Rabbi Yehuda

it is entirely obvious

that the father’s seed is not considered, then

one should mate with her the species of her mother

[that is, “a mule with its mother.” When the mother of the female mule is a mare, one should mate her with a horse, since she herself is also entirely a horse; and if her mother is a donkey, one should mate her with a donkey! Rather, Rabbi Yehuda must certainly be uncertain whether the father’s seed is considered. Therefore, it is prohibited to mate her with the species of her mother, since she also contains a component of the father’s species.

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda is certain that the father’s seed is not considered. Here, however, the discussion concerns a female mule

whose mother’s species we do not know,

whether its mother is a mare or a donkey. Therefore, it is impossible to mate it with either species.

The Gemara asks:

But

Rabbi Yehuda

teaches, “but only its own species”!

He permits mating it with a mule of its species. If the species of the female mule’s mother is unknown, which male mule may be mated with it? Since the father’s seed is not considered, it is prohibited to mate mules whose mothers are of different species [as Rabbi Yehuda said above]; how can we know that their mothers are the same species?

The Gemara answers:

This is what

Rabbi Yehuda

is saying: One may mate with her neither a horse species,

that is, not an entirely pure horse, nor a mule whose mother is a mare,

nor a donkey species,

not an entirely pure donkey, nor a mule whose mother is a donkey,

because we do not know her species

of the female mule. His intention in saying “but only its own species” is that no animal may be mated with her until one knows from which species the female mule derives.

The Gemara asks how it is possible not to know the mother’s species:

Let us examine its distinguishing signs,

and thereby determine what its mother is.

For Abaye said: If its voice is deep,

that is a sign that it is

the offspring of a donkey,

whose mother was 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 was a mare.

And Rav Pappa said: If its ears are large

and its

tail is short,

that is a sign that it is

the offspring of a donkey. If its ears are small

and its

tail is long,

that is a sign that it is

the offspring of a mare!

The Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing? With

a female mule that is

mute,

so that it cannot be examined by its voice,

and mutilated,

with its tail and ears cut off, so that they too cannot be examined.

What conclusion was reached,

regarding the Gemara’s question about Rabbi Yehuda’s view—whether it is obvious to him that the father’s seed is not considered, or whether he is uncertain?

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

Infer from this that he is uncertain whether Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain whether one must be concerned about the father’s seed or not.

whether Rabbi Judah is concerned about paternal seed or not.

And we conclude:

Infer from this!

Rabbi Adda said to his attendant,

his attendant:

If you harness mules for me in a wagon,

if you wish to harness mules to the wagon in which I am traveling,

inspect 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 mothers of the same species, in order not to violate the prohibition, “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” [This prohibition also includes the prohibition against driving two different species of animals together],

and bring them in to me

to harness them to the wagon.

Apparently, he holds

Rabbi Abba:

one need not be concerned about the father’s seed,

and therefore the mules had to be offspring of mothers of the same species. Otherwise, they would be two different species, and it would be forbidden to drive them together. But if Rabbi Abba had held that one must be concerned about the father’s seed, he would not have needed to examine the mules. For even if their mothers were different species, all mules would still be one species, since all of them contain a mixture of horse and donkey, [in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda above].