Chullin 80a (פ.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: They disagree

with regard to

the exposition of

“a sheep, and even part of a sheep”

, as

the Rabbis hold that “a sheep”

stated with regard to “that one and its offspring” and the gifts means

“even part of a sheep”! And Rabbi Eliezer holds: “a sheep,” but not part of a “sheep,”

as follows:

Rav Pappa said: Therefore,

what we learned

with regard to covering the blood,

that one may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, since the obligation to cover its blood is only doubtful,

and with regard to the gifts,

concerning which the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree,

can apply only

—

to a deer that mated with a she-goat .

That is, the Mishna in Beitza concerning covering the blood follows the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore, it ruled that one may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, lest one be concerned for the paternal seed, in which case it is obligated in covering the blood because it contains an element of deer from its father. And one may not cover its blood, lest one not be concerned for the paternal seed, in which case it is entirely a domesticated animal like its mother. [But according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is permitted to slaughter it on a Festival, since it is certainly exempt from covering. For even if we are concerned for the paternal seed, it contains only part of a deer, and Rabbi Eliezer holds: “a deer,” but not part of a deer].

And what we learned, that they disagree with regard to the gifts, is because

both according to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Eliezer it is uncertain whether one is concerned for the paternal seed or not, and they disagree with regard to “a sheep, and even part of a sheep.”

According to the Rabbis, one must give half of the gifts, because even if we are concerned for the paternal seed, which is a deer exempt from the gifts, nevertheless it is obligated in half of them on account of its mother, the she-goat. For the Rabbis hold: “a sheep, and even part of a sheep.” But it is not obligated in more than half, lest one be concerned for the paternal seed, in which case half of it is exempt from the gifts. And according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is entirely exempt from the gifts, lest one be concerned for the paternal seed. Since it contains a portion of its father, which is exempt from the gifts, it is entirely exempt, because the Merciful One stated “a sheep,” but not part of a sheep. And since the matter is uncertain, it cannot be obligated in the gifts, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

With regard to “that one and its offspring,” it can apply

to the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer

both in the case of a he-goat that mated with a doe and in the case of a deer that mated with a she-goat.

a.

In the case of a he-goat that mated with a doe. And

they disagree only with regard to

the prohibition,

whether the matter is prohibited or not; but with regard to lashes, everyone agrees that there are none.

For the Rabbis hold

: It is prohibited to slaughter the female offspring born from a he-goat and a doe with its offspring on the same day,

as perhaps one is concerned for the paternal seed

and this female contains part of its father, the he-goat. And since

we say, “a sheep, and even part of a sheep,”

therefore, even if it is only partly a sheep, it is

prohibited

to slaughter it with its offspring on the same day. [But there are no lashes, because the prohibition is not certain. For perhaps one is not concerned for the paternal seed, in which case the female is entirely a wild animal like its mother, and it is permitted to slaughter it with its offspring].

And Rabbi Eliezer holds

: It is permitted to slaughter the female offspring of a he-goat and a doe with its offspring. For

although it is indeed possible

that there is a side to say

that one is concerned for the paternal seed,

nevertheless, there is here only part of a domesticated animal on the paternal side. From the maternal side it is a wild animal, which has no prohibition of “that one and its offspring.” And

we do not say, “a sheep, and even part of a sheep”!

Consequently, only if it is entirely a sheep is it prohibited under “that one and its offspring.” But if it is only partly a sheep, it is not included in the prohibition.

b.

In the case of a deer that mated with a she-goat,

they disagree whether one is liable for

lashes,

or not; but with regard to the prohibition, everyone agrees that it is prohibited.

For the Rabbis hold

: One who slaughters the female offspring of a deer and a she-goat with its offspring on the same day is liable for lashes. For

although one is indeed concerned for the paternal seed

and this female contains part of its father, the deer, which is not subject to the prohibition of “that one and its offspring,” nevertheless, it also contains part of its mother, the domesticated animal. And

we say, “a sheep, and even part of a sheep”! And

therefore

we administer lashes to him.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds: There is a prohibition, but there are no lashes.

There is a prohibition: Perhaps one is not concerned for the paternal seed, and this

female offspring of the deer and the she-goat

is a full-fledged sheep

like its mother; therefore, it is prohibited to slaughter it with its offspring.

There are no lashes: Perhaps one is concerned for the paternal seed

and this female contains part of its father, the deer,

and we do not say, “a sheep, and even part of a sheep”!

If so, it is permitted to slaughter it with its offspring. Since it is uncertain whether he violated the prohibition of “that one and its offspring,” there are therefore no lashes.

Until this point, the Gemara assumed that the koy disputed by Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is one born from the crossbreeding of a deer and a goat. However, we find additional opinions as to what a “koy” is:

Rav Yehuda said: A koy

is not born from a domesticated animal and a wild animal. Rather,

it is a species in its own right, and the Sages did not determine

whether it is a domesticated-animal species or a wild-animal species 44 .

Rav Naḥman said: This koy is a wild ram

that grows in the forest, and there is no uncertainty concerning it; it is a completely wild animal.

It is subject to a dispute among tanna’im

: As it was taught in a beraita:

“This koy is a wild ram,”

[and this is like Rav Naḥman].

And some say: This koy is one that comes from a he-goat and a doe.

Rabbi Yosei says: A koy is an independent species, and the Sages did not determine whether it is a wild-animal species

or

or a domesticated-animal species

[and this is like Rav Yehuda].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says

: A koy

is a domesticated-animal species,

and the members of

the

family of

Dushai used to raise herds and herds of them.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Safra said that Rav Hamnuna said: These goats of the marshes,

the goats of the forest,

are fit for the altar,

because they are not a wild-animal species [which is not offered on the altar], but a domesticated-animal species.

He,

Rav Hamnuna,

agrees with that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Torah enumerated ten

species of

domesticated animals

[including wild animals]

in Scripture!

They are permitted to be eaten,

and no others!

Apart from them, there is no domesticated or wild animal that is fit to be eaten.

And these

goats of the marshes, which are certainly fit to be eaten,

since Scripture did not enumerate them

[as an independent species]

among the wild animals, it follows

that they are included in the species of goat;

they are,

and consequently these goats are not classified as “wild animals,” but as “domesticated animals” of the goat species, and they are included among the domesticated animals enumerated by Scripture.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov raised an objection

to Rav Hamnuna’s statement that only the ten domesticated animals enumerated in Scripture are fit:

But say: “ram and deer,”

which are written in the Torah, are a

particular,

whereas

“every animal”

written afterward is a

generalization!

And since wherever a particular is written followed by a generalization,

the generalization adds to the particular,

if so,

there are many

species [that possess the signs of purity] that can be derived from here as also having been included among those fit to eat? And we answer:

If so,

that you interpret the particular followed by a generalization as including many additional domesticated animals,

why do I need all these particulars,

all the domesticated and wild animals enumerated by Scripture,

at all?

To derive “particular followed by a generalization,” it would have sufficed for the Torah to write one species as the “particular”! Rather, certainly all of them were enumerated to teach that only these are fit, and no others.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, challenged this regarding the above proof that the eizei de-Bala are domesticated animals and not wild animals]:

the proof above that the goats of Bala are domestic animals and not wild animals]:

But perhaps the

eizei de-Bala

are a species of ako, that is, the ako is a wild animal counted among the ten domesticated animals, and since we are not expert in identifying the species of the eizei de-Bala, it is possible that Scripture in fact counted them when it mentioned the species of ako?

which is a wild animal counted among the ten domestic animals, and since we are not expert regarding what species the goats of Bala are, it is possible that in truth Scripture counted them when it mentioned the species of ako

And likewise

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi—and some say:

Rav

Aha, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Perhaps the

eizei de-Bala

are a species of te'o or a species of zemer? For the te'o and the zemer are also wild animals counted among the ten animals, and perhaps the eizei de-Bala are included in one of them?

For the te'o and the zemer are also wild animals counted among the ten domestic animals, and perhaps the goats of Bala are included in one of them?

Rav Hanan said to Rav Ashi: Ameimar—

permitted the milk of both of them!

Ameimar permitted the milk of the eizei de-Bala for consumption. It follows that he holds that they are wild animals, and the milk of a wild animal is permitted for consumption.

Abba, son of Rav Minyamin bar Hiyya, asked Rav Huna bar Hiyya: These eizei de-Bala—

is it possible that they

be offered

on the altar? This uncertainty depends on whether they are wild animals or domesticated animals?

This question depends on whether they are wild animals or domestic animals?

He said to him—

Rav Huna bar Hiyya:

Rabbi Yosei and the Sages disagree only with regard to the wild ox

that grew in the forest, whether it is a domesticated animal or a wild animal.

As we learned in the Mishna: The wild ox—

is a species of domesticated animal. Rabbi Yosei says: It is a species of wild animal

!

And the reason for their dispute is:

For the Sages hold: Since we translate [Deuteronomy 14:5] “‘te'o’”—

—“

“torbela,”

which means “ox of the forest” [tor—ox; bela—forest], and since it is called an “ox,” it follows that the wild ox

is a species of domesticated animal!

Rashi explained that we are not expert regarding the species of the goats of Bala, and it is possible that they are mentioned in the Torah among the wild animals. And the Maharsha explained that if we were expert regarding them, we would know that they are called goats, because they are of the goat species. Necessarily, we are concerned that they are actually of the ako species and that their name changed. And it is seemingly astonishing, for regarding the te'o we were expert that it is the wild ox; how, then, did they shortly afterward raise the possibility that the goats of Bala are a species of te'o? See Rosh Yosef who explains that the discussion regarding the goats of Bala is because they do not resemble a goat, and it is uncertain whether they are wild animals or domestic animals of a species unfit for the altar.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: Since Scripture counted it

as the te'o, which is the wild ox,

among the wild animals,

as it is written, “ako, dishon, te'o, and zemer,” all of which are wild animals, it follows that the wild ox

is a species of wild animal!

But these

eizei de-Bala, which were not counted among the wild animals—

according to everyone, they are a species of goat!

For they are called “goats,” and Rabbi Yosei, too, will agree here that we follow the name.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, challenged this: But perhaps the

eizei de-Bala are in fact

a species of ako,

and are wild animals?

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps the

eizei de-Bala

are a species of te'o or a species of zemer,

which are wild animals?

Rav Nahman said to Rav Ashi: Ameimar—

permitted the milk of both of them!

because they are wild animals .

We learned in the Mishna:

How so? One who slaughters

it and its offspring: .

offerings outside [the Temple courtyard].

Rabbi Oshaya said: The entire Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

From where is this derived? Since it teaches

in the Mishna that if the two animals that are “it and its offspring” were

consecrated,

and he slaughtered them

outside

the Temple courtyard, the one who slaughtered the

first is liable for karet

because of slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard, while the second is exempt from karet. This is because the second animal was disqualified from being offered on that day, since it was forbidden to slaughter it on account of the prohibition of “it and its offspring.” One is liable for slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard only for an offering fit to be sacrificed inside.

And both

offerings are

disqualified, and both

slaughterers

receive the forty lashes.