Chullin 79b — the Talmud in English

v

From the fact that Rabbi Abba relied upon the identifying signs of the mules, infer from it that he holds that

identifying signs are of Torah authority: [in tractate Bava Metzia the Gemara left this unresolved]. For if it were only a rabbinic law—that they enacted that a lost object be returned on the basis of identifying signs—their enactment would be effective only concerning a lost object, which is a matter of monetary law, but we would not rely upon identifying signs concerning a Torah prohibition

. And how did Rabbi Abba permit, on the basis of identifying signs, the prohibition against mating two species together?

The Sages taught:

The prohibition of

“the same one and its offspring” applies to a crossbreed

—for it is prohibited to slaughter the mother and its offspring born to her from another animal species.

And concerning a koy,

which is born from a domesticated animal and a wild animal, it is prohibited to slaughter it and its offspring on the same day [even though in the case of a wild animal there is no prohibition of “the same one and its offspring”].

Rabbi Eliezer says: A crossbreed that comes from the goat and from the ewe

—for both of them are a domesticated-animal species—

“the same one and its offspring” applies to it

—for it is prohibited to slaughter the mother and its offspring. But

with regard to a koy

that comes from a domesticated animal and a wild animal,

“the same one and its offspring” does not apply to it.

Rav Hisda said: What is the koy concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed? It is the one that comes from a he-goat and a doe

—which was born from both of them.

And we raise an objection to it:

What are the circumstances? If you say

that they disagreed

with regard to a he-goat that mated with a doe, and she gave birth

to a son that is a koy,

and he slaughtered her

—the doe—

and its offspring

—her offspring [and the same law applies to her daughter, and likewise throughout the sugya]—on the same day, if so, the following difficulty arises:

But Rav Hisda said: Everyone agrees concerning a doe and its offspring, a he-goat,

that is, she gave birth to it from a he-goat,

that he is exempt

from lashes for “the same one and its offspring” if he slaughtered the doe and its offspring on the same day , for

the Merciful One said, “a sheep and its offspring,” and not “a deer and its offspring”!

Rather, say that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed

say that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagree

with regard to a deer that mated with a female he-goat, and she gave birth

to a koy,

and he slaughtered her

—the female he-goat—

and its offspring.

This too presents a difficulty:

But Rav Hisda said: Everyone agrees concerning a female he-goat and its offspring

born to her from

a deer, that he is liable

for “the same one and its offspring” if he slaughtered the female he-goat and its offspring, for

the Merciful One said, “sheep” and “its offspring,”

and even an offspring

of any kind!

That is, even if the offspring is a wild animal, it is prohibited to slaughter it together with its mother. The Torah said that with regard to the mother, the prohibition applies only if she is a domesticated animal, but concerning the offspring the Torah did not say that it must be a domesticated animal. Rather, since it is the offspring of the domesticated animal, it is included in the prohibition.

And we answer: Rather,

in fact, Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagree

with regard to a he-goat that mated with a doe and she gave birth

—the doe—

to a daughter

that is a koy,

and

the

daughter gave birth to a son, and he slaughtered her

—the daughter—

and its offspring

with her offspring on the same day.

And the reason for their disagreement is:

The Rabbis hold: We are concerned for the father’s seed

—so it is found that the daughter born from the he-goat and the doe has mixed into her a small amount from the father, which is a he-goat.

And “sheep”

written in the Torah means

even

if it is only

some sheep

—it is included in the prohibition. Therefore, it is prohibited to slaughter the daughter, which is partially sheep, together with her offspring.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds: We are not concerned for the father’s seed

—and it follows that

we do not say, “sheep, even some sheep.”

Since the animal is not identified at all after the father but after the mother, and in the daughter of the he-goat and the doe there is not even “some sheep,” for the mother of the daughter is a doe; and since the daughter is considered a completely pure doe, it is permitted to slaughter the daughter together with her offspring.

And we raise an objection to it: Since we have explained that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed over whether we are concerned for the father’s seed or not, if so, why did they need to disagree concerning a koy?

Let them disagree concerning being concerned for the father’s seed, in the dispute of Hanania and the Rabbis,

who disagreed concerning every case of “the same one and its offspring,” whether it applies also to males [so that it is prohibited to slaughter the father together with its offspring], or whether it applies only to females [so that only the mother is prohibited from being slaughtered together with its offspring]. Their disagreement depends on this reasoning—whether we are concerned for the father’s seed or not—as explained above

. And we answer:

If they disagreed about that,

whether it applies to males or not,

it might have been said, concerning this—

with regard to a koy—

even the Rabbis would agree

that it is permitted to slaughter the daughter of the he-goat and the doe together with her offspring. For even if we are concerned for the father’s seed, there is only “some sheep” in the daughter, and

we do not say, “sheep, even some sheep”; this teaches us

that the Rabbis say that we do say, “sheep, even some sheep.”

And we raise an objection to it:

But we learned: A koy may not be slaughtered on a Festival

because with regard to a koy one must fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood, due to the uncertainty that perhaps it is a wild animal, [for covering the blood applies only to a wild animal and a bird, and not to a domesticated animal], and on a Festival the blood of a koy is not covered, as the following beraita teaches; therefore, one should not slaughter it ab initio, so as not to nullify the mitzva of covering the blood.

And if he slaughtered it

on the Festival—

he does not cover its blood

that day, because moving the earth for the purpose of covering the blood involves desecration of the Festival, and one may not desecrate the Festival for covering the blood when this is required only because of the uncertainty.

What are we dealing with? If you say it is a he-goat that mated with a doe and she gave birth

to a koy, this presents the following difficulty:

whether according to the Rabbis or according to Rabbi Eliezer—

let him slaughter

the koy on the Festival

and let him cover

its blood, for it is certainly liable for covering, and not merely because of uncertainty! For even according to the Rabbis, who are concerned for the father’s seed, and this koy has some domesticated-animal status from its father, the he-goat [which is exempt from covering], nevertheless the koy is liable for covering, since it also has some wild-animal status from its mother . And when

“deer”

is stated with regard to covering the blood, its meaning is

even

if it is only

some deer

—it too is included in the mitzva of covering.

Rather, say that the prohibition against covering on a Festival is

say that the prohibition against covering the blood on a Festival is

with regard to a deer that mated with a female he-goat and she gave birth

to a koy. This too presents a difficulty:

if according to the Rabbis,

who are concerned for the father’s seed, then

let him slaughter

it on the Festival

and let him cover it.

For this koy has the status of some wild animal on account of its father, the deer. And

if according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who is not concerned for the father’s seed, then this koy is a completely domesticated animal like its mother and is certainly exempt from covering. And would it be permitted

to slaughter

it

but not to cover

its blood? And we answer:

In fact, the prohibition against covering on a Festival is speaking

the prohibition against covering the blood on a Festival is discussing a koy born from

of

a koy that comes from

a deer that mated with a female he-goat,

and this is according to the method of the Rabbis, who are concerned for the father’s seed. But the matter is not clear to them. Rather,

the Rabbis are uncertain

whether we are concerned for the father’s seed or whether we are not concerned. Therefore, they acted stringently: they do not cover the blood of the koy on a Festival, lest we are not concerned for the father’s seed, in which case it is entirely a domesticated animal like its mother, the female he-goat, and is exempt from covering. But, on the other hand, they do not slaughter it on a Festival, lest we are concerned for the father’s seed, in which case it is liable for covering like its father, the deer; and since they will not cover its blood because of the uncertainty, one should not slaughter it, so as not to nullify the mitzva of covering.

And likewise, concerning “the same one and its offspring,” the Rabbis prohibit slaughtering the koy born from a he-goat and a doe, and its offspring, because of the uncertainty that perhaps we are concerned for the father’s seed, in which case the koy is a domesticated animal like its father.

And the Gemara infers:

And since concerning the Rabbis

you said that

they are uncertain,

and therefore they prohibit slaughtering the koy and its offspring, it follows that

concerning Rabbi Eliezer,

who disputes the Rabbis and permits one ab initio to slaughter “the same one and its offspring” in the case of a koy,

it is certain to him

that we are not concerned for the father’s seed, as stated above.

And since this is so, we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught: The foreleg, the cheeks, and the stomach

which are given to a koen only from a domesticated animal and not from a wild animal

apply to a koy and to a crossbreed.

Rabbi Eliezer says: A crossbreed that comes from the goat and from the ewe

—for both are a domesticated-animal species—

is liable for the gifts

of the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach to the koen, but

a koy is exempt from the gifts. What are we dealing with? If you say it is a he-goat that mated with a doe and she gave birth

to a koy, this presents the following difficulty:

granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer, who exempts it

from the gifts, it is possible that he

holds

that it says concerning the gifts, “whether an ox or whether a sheep,” and concerning this koy

we do not say, “sheep, even some sheep”!

For according to his view there is not even some sheep in it. Since it is clear to him that we are not concerned for the father’s seed, it follows that it is entirely a wild animal like its mother.

But according to the Rabbis, although they hold that “sheep”

stated with regard to liability for the gifts means

even

if it is only

some sheep, and it too is liable for the gifts, nevertheless this koy should properly be exempt from the gifts. For

granted, he does not give half

to him. That is, it is certain that even the Rabbis do not obligate one to give half the gifts from a koy whose father is a he-goat and whose mother is a doe. For even if we are concerned for the father’s seed and obligate the koy in the gifts because it contains some sheep, nevertheless one can obligate only the domesticated-animal side within it, whereas the wild-animal side within it, which it has on account of its mother, is exempt from the gifts. It follows that the owners give only one half of the domesticated-animal side, and from the other half they are exempt.

But it still presents a difficulty: why do the Rabbis obligate them to give to the koen

the

other half? Since the Rabbis are uncertain whether we are concerned for the father’s seed or not,

when the Sages are uncertain whether the father’s seed is taken into consideration or not?

let him say to him

—the owner to the koen—

“Bring proof that we are concerned for the father’s seed, and take it,”

the half! For the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof, and as long as you have not brought proof, you take nothing, because perhaps we are not concerned for the father’s seed, in which case it is entirely a wild animal like its mother and is completely exempt from the gifts.

Rather, if you establish that they disagreed

if you establish that they disagree

with regard to a deer that mated with a female he-goat and she gave birth

to a koy, the difficulty returns, for

granted, according to the Rabbis,

there is no difficulty as to why they said that all the gifts must be given. For there is uncertainty whether we are concerned for the father’s seed, in which case the koy has half the status of a wild animal on account of its father, the deer, which is exempt from the gifts; and if so, they should be obligated to give only half, until the koen brings proof that we are not concerned for the father’s seed, and consequently the obligation applies also to the other half, since it is entirely a domesticated animal. This is not a difficulty, because it can be explained that in fact

what is meant by “liable”

the Rabbis said?—

for half the gifts

alone is he liable, and not for all of them.

Rather, according to Rabbi Eliezer, he should be liable for all of the gifts

since it is obvious to him that we do not take account of the paternal seed, and it emerges that this koy is entirely a male goat like its mother and is liable for the gifts?

And we answer:

In fact,

they disputed

with regard to a deer that mated with a she-goat and she gave birth

to a koy,

and Rabbi Eliezer too is uncertain to him whether we take account of the paternal seed or not,

as follows.

And we challenge:

And since it is uncertain to the Rabbis and

also

it is uncertain to Rabbi Eliezer,

then

over what do they disagree "

with regard to ‘same animal and its offspring’ and the gifts"?!