Chullin 80a — 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: “a sheep”

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

“and even part of a sheep”! But Rabbi Eliezer holds: “a sheep,” and not part of “a sheep,”

as follows:

Rav Pappa said: Therefore,

what we learned

with regard to covering the blood,

that one does not slaughter a koy on a Festival, since the obligation of covering it is only due to uncertainty,

and with regard to the gifts,

about which the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree,

can only be found—

in the case of a deer that mated with a she-goat.

to a deer that mated with a she-goat .

And this means that the Mishna in Beitza with regard to covering the blood follows the opinion of the Rabbis, and therefore it established that one does not slaughter a koy on a Festival, lest we be concerned for the father’s seed, in which case it is obligated in covering because it contains part of a deer from the father. And one does not cover it, lest we not be concerned, 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, for it is certainly exempt from covering. Even if we are concerned for the father’s seed, it contains only part of a deer, and Rabbi Eliezer holds: “a deer, and 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 to them whether we are concerned for the father’s seed or not, and they disagree with regard to “a sheep, and even part of a sheep.” According to the Rabbis, one is obligated to give half the gifts, because even if we are concerned for the father’s seed, which is a deer exempt from the gifts, nevertheless it is obligated in half, on account of the 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 we are concerned for the father’s seed and it contains half that is exempt from the gifts. And according to Rabbi Eliezer it is entirely exempt from the gifts, lest we are concerned for the father’s seed; and since it contains a portion from the father that is exempt from the gifts, it is entirely exempt, because the Merciful One stated “a sheep,” and not part of a sheep. And since the matter is uncertain, one cannot obligate him in the gifts, for the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

According to the Rabbis, one must give half of the gifts. Even if one takes into consideration the possibility that the father’s seed has an effect, and that the father is a deer, which is exempt from the gifts, it is nevertheless obligated in half of them by virtue of its mother, the she-goat. For the Rabbis hold: “a sheep, and even part of a sheep.” But it is not obligated to give more than half, lest the father’s seed has an effect and it has half of an animal that is exempt from the gifts. And according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is entirely exempt from the gifts, lest the father’s seed has an effect. Since it has a part inherited from 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 may not be obligated to give the gifts, because the one who seeks to extract something from another bears the burden of proof.

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

for the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer

both with a he-goat that mated with a doe and with a deer that mated with a she-goat.

A.

With 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 the he-goat and the doe with its offspring on one day,

lest we are concerned for the father’s seed,

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

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

then even if it is only part of a sheep

it is prohibited

to slaughter it with its offspring on one day. [But one is not lashed, because the prohibition is not certain. For perhaps we are not concerned for the father’s seed, and it turns out that 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 the he-goat and the doe with its offspring. For

even if you say

that there is a possibility

that we are concerned for the father’s seed,

nevertheless, here there is only part of a domesticated animal from the father. For from the mother 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”!

It follows that only if it is entirely a sheep is it prohibited under “that one and its offspring”; but if only part of it is a sheep, it is not included in the prohibition.

B.

With a deer that mated with a she-goat

they disagree whether one is obligated concerning it in

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 the deer and the she-goat with its offspring on one day is lashed. For

even if you say that we are concerned for the father’s seed

and this female contains part of its father, the deer, which has no prohibition of “that one and its offspring,” nevertheless it also contains part from its mother, the domesticated animal. And

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

therefore

we lash him.

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

There is a prohibition: Perhaps we are not concerned for the father’s seed, and this

female offspring of the deer and the she-goat

is a complete sheep

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

There are no lashes: Perhaps we are concerned for the father’s seed

and it turns out that 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. And since it is uncertain whether he transgressed the negative commandment of “that one and its offspring,” therefore there are no lashes.

Until this point the Gemara assumed that the koy over which Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagreed is one born from the interbreeding of a deer and a goat; but 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, but

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

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

Rav Naḥman said: This koy is the wild ram

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

As a dispute between Tannaim:

for it was taught:

“This koy is the wild ram,”

[and this is like Rav Naḥman].

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

Rabbi Yosei says: A koy is a species in its own right, and the Sages did not decide concerning it whether it is a species of wild animal

it

is, or whether it is a species of domesticated animal

it is[, and this is like Rav Yehuda].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

A koy

is a species of domesticated animal,

and the

house

of the family

of Dushai would raise herds and herds of them.

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

the goats of the forest,

are fit with regard to the altar,

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

He

Rav Hamnuna

agrees with that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Ten

kinds of

domesticated animals

[including wild animals]

the verse enumerated!

They are permitted for eating,

and no more!

For apart from them there is no domesticated animal or wild animal fit for eating.

And these

goats of the marshes, which are certainly fit for eating,

since the verse did not count them

[as a separate species]

together with the wild animals, infer from it

that they are included in the species of goat

they are,

and it follows that these goats are not in the category of “wild animal,” but in the category of “domesticated animal” of the goat species, and they are included among those domesticated animals enumerated by the verse.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov raised an objection against him,

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

But say: “ram and deer”

written in the Torah

—

a specification,

whereas

“every domesticated animal”

written afterward—

a generalization!

And since wherever a specification is written and afterward a generalization,

the generalization is made to add to the specification,

there are many,

then many species [that possess the signs of purity] are learned from here, and they too were included to be fit for eating? And we answer:

If so,

that you expound specification and generalization to include many additional domesticated animals,

why do I need all these specifications,

all the domesticated animals and wild animals enumerated by the verse,

at all?!

For in order to expound “specification and generalization,” it would have been sufficient for the Torah to write one species, which would be the “specification.” Rather, certainly, they were all enumerated in order to say that only these are fit, and no more.

Rav Aḥa son of Rav Ika objects [

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

But perhaps

the goats of Bala

are a 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

Rambam wrote [Laws of Forbidden Foods 1:12] that the wild ox is a species of domestic animal. And the Maggid Mishneh objected: for shortly afterward he wrote that the ten species are divided into three species of domestic animals and seven species of wild animals, and he counted among the wild animals the te'o, whereas in our passage it is explained that the te'o is the wild ox. The Pri Hadash and the Vilna Gaon wrote [section 80] that Rambam relied on the Tosefta [Kilayim 1:6] and the Jerusalem Talmud [there, chapter 8], which reversed the matter and stated that Rabbi Yosei is the one who translates tor bala and holds that the te'o is a species of wild animal, whereas the Rabbis hold that it is a domestic animal, which was in an inhabited place and fled to the forest. See Or Sameaḥ and the following note. And likewise

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

said

Rav Aḥa son of Rav Avya to Rav Ashi: Perhaps

the goats of 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 domestic animals, and perhaps the goats of Bala are included in one of them?

Rav Ḥanan said to Rav Ashi: Amemar—

permitted both their fats!

Amemar permitted the fat of the goats of Bala for eating. And it is proven that he holds that they are wild animals, and the fat of a wild animal is permitted for eating.

Abba son of Rav Minyamin bar Ḥiyya asked Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya: These goats of Bala—

what

is it concerning their being brought

to the altar?

And this doubt depends on whether they are wild animals or domestic animals?

He said to him

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya:

Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree only regarding the wild ox

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

As we learned: The wild ox—

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

!

And the reason for their dispute is:

For the Rabbis hold: Since we translate [Deuteronomy 14:5] “te'o”

—“

forest ox,”

which means an ox of the forest [tor—ox, bala—forest], and since it is called “ox,” infer from this that the wild ox

is a species of domestic 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

the te'o, which is the wild ox,

among the wild animals,

for it is written, “ako, dishon, te'o, and zemer,” all of which are wild animals, infer from this that the wild ox

is a species of wild animal!

But these

goats of Bala, which were not counted among the wild animals—

everyone agrees that they are a species of goat!

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

Rav Aḥa son of Rav Ika objects: But perhaps

in truth the goats of Bala

are a species of ako,

and they are wild animals?

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps

the goats of Bala

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

which are wild animals?

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Ashi: Amemar—

permitted both their fats!

because they are wild animals.

We learned in the Mishna:

How? One who slaughters

it and its offspring: .

Consecrated animals outside.

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

From where? 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, then the one who slaughters

the first is liable for karet

because of an offering slaughtered outside, while the second is exempt from karet, because the second animal was disqualified on that day from being brought as an offering, since it is forbidden to slaughter it on account of “it and its offspring.” And one is liable for an offering slaughtered outside only for an offering fit to be brought inside.

And both

offerings are

disqualified, and both

slaughterers

receive forty lashes.