מפת הסוגיא — חולין ע״טSugya map — Chullin 79

ברייתא: איסור ״אותו ואת בנו״ נוהג בכלאי בהמה ובכוי. ר׳ אליעזר חולק: בכלאים מן העז והרחל — נוהג; בכוי — אינו נוהג. רב חסדא מגדיר: הכוי שעליו נחלקו ר׳ אליעזר וחכמים הוא הוולד הבא מתיש (עז זכר) ומצבייה.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 5:1): The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring applies to the offspring of diverse kinds of animals, such as a goat and a ewe, and to the koy, even though the prohibition does not apply to undomesticated animals. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe, the prohibition of a mother and its offspring applies; with regard to a koy, the prohibition of a mother and its offspring does not apply. Rav Ḥisda says: What is the koy about which Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree? It is that which results from the mating of a goat and a doe.

היכי דמי הכוי הזה? אם נאמר תיש הבא על הצבייה והיא ילדה, ושוחט אותה ואת בנה — והרי אמר רב חסדא: הכל מודים שאם היא צבייה (האם) ובנה תיש — פטור, שאמרה תורה ״שה ובנו״ ולא ״צבי ובנו״, והאם כאן צבייה.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances surrounding the birth of this koy? If we say that it is the result of a goat that mates with a doe, and she gives birth, and one slaughters her and her offspring on the same day, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: All concede in the case where she is a doe and her offspring is a goat, because she mated with a goat, that one who slaughters them both on the same day is exempt from lashes for violating the prohibition of a mother and its offspring? He is exempt because the Merciful One states: “And whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that the prohibition applies to a domesticated animal and its offspring, but not to an undomesticated animal and its offspring, such as a doe and its offspring.

אלא נאמר צבי הבא על התיישה (עז נקבה) והיא ילדה, ושוחט אותה ואת בנה — והרי אמר רב חסדא: הכל מודים שאם היא תיישה (האם) ובנה צבי — חייב, שאמרה תורה ״שה״ ובנו מכל מין שהוא, והאם כאן עז.

Rather, perhaps this koy is the product of a deer that mates with a female goat, and she gives birth, and one slaughters her and her offspring on the same day. But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: All concede that in the case where she is a goat and her offspring is a deer because she mated with a deer, that one who slaughters them both on the same day is liable? He is liable because the Merciful One states in the Torah: “A sheep…and its offspring” (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that the prohibition applies to a domesticated animal such as a sheep and its offspring of any species, even if it is an undomesticated animal.

תירוץ: לעולם תיש על הצבייה — אך לא בדור ראשון, אלא הצבייה ילדה בת (היא הכוי), והבת ילדה בן, ושוחט את הבת ואת בנה. כאן האם עצמה מחצה עז (מצד אביה), ולכן יש מקום לדון.

The Gemara responds: Actually, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is in the case of a goat that mates with a doe, and she gives birth to a female offspring, a koy, and this female offspring gives birth to a male offspring, and one slaughters her and her male offspring on the same day.

בכך נחלקו: חכמים סוברים חוששין לזרע האב — ולכן הכוי הוא מקצת עז מחמת אביה — ו״שה״ פירושו אפילו מקצת שה. ר׳ אליעזר סובר אין חוששין לזרע האב, ואין דורשים ״שה ואפילו מקצת שה״.

The Rabbis hold: One needs to be concerned with its paternity, and therefore the koy is partially a goat due to its father, and the word “sheep” in the verse means that even if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a single day. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: One need not be concerned with its paternity, and the status of the koy is unaffected by the fact that its father is a goat, and therefore, in this case we do not say that the word “sheep” mentioned in the verse means that even if it is partially a sheep it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a single day, as the father’s component is ignored.

קושיא: ואם כל המחלוקת היא בשאלה אם חוששין לזרע האב — שיחלקו בה במישרין, כמחלוקת חנניה ורבנן (אם ״אותו ואת בנו״ נוהג אף באב), ולמה תלו זאת בכוי?

The Gemara challenges: And let them disagree with regard to any animal of mixed breed about whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity, i.e., with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Ḥananya and the Rabbis, whether the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day also applies to a father and its offspring because one needs to be concerned with an animal’s paternity.

תירוץ: אילו נחלקו רק בשאלת זרע האב, הייתי אומר שבמקרה הכוי אף חכמים מודים שאין אומרים ״שה ואפילו מקצת שה״; לכן שנו דווקא בכוי, להשמיענו שלדעת חכמים אף ״מקצת שה״ אסור.

The Gemara responds: If they would disagree only about that issue, I would say: With regard to this issue of a doe mother and a goat father, even the Rabbis concede that we do not say that the word “sheep” mentioned in the verse means that even if an animal is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a single day. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that according to the Rabbis, not only does one need to be concerned with paternity, but the word “sheep” indicates that even if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring.

מיתיבי ממשנה (לקמן פג:): אין שוחטין כוי ביום טוב (שמא יתחייב לכסות דמו, וזו מלאכה שאינה ודאית), ואם שחטו — אין מכסין את דמו (מספק). משנה זו לכאורה סותרת את הבנת המחלוקת.

The Gemara challenges: But that which we learned in a mishna (83b) appears to contradict this: One may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, because covering its blood entails the performance of prohibited labor that is permitted only if there is a definite obligation to do so. And if one slaughtered a koy on a Festival after the fact, one does not cover its blood, as the Sages prohibited transporting soil on a Festival where it is uncertain that a mitzva by Torah law exists.

במאי עסקינן? אם בתיש על הצבייה וילדה — האם צבייה, ולכן בין לחכמים בין לר׳ אליעזר ישחוט ויכסה את הדם, שהוולד הוא צבי (חיה) ואפילו מקצת צבי, ודמו טעון כיסוי. אם כן אין כאן ספק.

The Gemara explains the question: What are we dealing with? If we say that we are dealing with a goat who mates with a doe, and she gives birth, then whether according to the opinion of the Rabbis or according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, let him slaughter the koy on the Festival ab initio and cover the blood, as the mother of the koy is a deer, and the koy therefore may be termed an undomesticated animal, whose blood requires covering. This should be so even if it is partially a deer, i.e., it has an undomesticated animal component from only one parent, since all agree that the offspring’s species derives from its mother.

אלא בצבי על התיישה וילדה — אף זה קשה: אם כחכמים שחוששין לזרע האב, ישחוט ויכסה (שהוא מקצת חיה מצד אביו); ואם כר׳ אליעזר שאין חוששין, ישחוט ולא יכסה (שהוא בהמה גמורה כאמו). בשני הצדדים אין ספק, והמשנה נוקטת ספק.

Rather, we must be dealing with a case of a deer that mates with a female goat, and she gives birth. This, too, is difficult: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one needs to be concerned with paternity, let him slaughter this koy on the Festival ab initio and cover the blood, as it is partially an undomesticated animal due to its father. If the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one need not be concerned with paternity, let him slaughter the koy on the Festival ab initio and not cover the blood, as it should be considered a domesticated animal, whose blood does not require covering due to its mother who is a goat.

תירוץ: לעולם המשנה בצבי על התיישה, ולשיטת חכמים — הם מסופקים אם חוששין לזרע האב או לא. מספק זה אין שוחטין לכתחילה, ואם שחט אין מכסין — כדי שלא יעבור על מלאכת יו״ט ספק.

The Gemara concludes that actually this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is referring to a case of a deer who mates with a female goat, and the Rabbis do not say with certainty that in determining the species of an animal one must be concerned with paternity, but rather the Rabbis are simply uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity or one need not be concerned. Therefore, they rule that one should not slaughter it on a Festival, ab initio, in order to avoid a possible prohibition, and if one did slaughter it, he should not cover the blood, to avoid violating a prohibition in order to perform an uncertain mitzva.

דיוק: ומדהמשנה כחכמים שמסופקים — משמע שלר׳ אליעזר פשוט שאין חוששין כלל לזרע האב, ולכן הכוי (צבי על התיישה) בהמה גמורה, ולא נוהג בו ספק.

The Gemara infers: And from the fact that the Rabbis are uncertain, and therefore they rule that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, applies to a koy, it can be inferred that according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who rules that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, does not apply to a koy, it is obvious that, with regard to a koy resulting from a deer mating with a female goat, one need not be concerned with its paternity at all.

מיתיבי מברייתא: מתנות כהונה — הזרוע, הלחיים והקבה — נוהגות בכוי ובכלאים. ר׳ אליעזר חולק: בכלאי עז ורחל חייב במתנות, ובכוי פטור. שוב נברר באיזה כוי מדובר.

The Gemara asks: But according to this, that which is taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 9:1) presents a difficulty: The mitzva to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of non-sacred animals to a priest applies both to a koy and to the offspring of diverse kinds of animals. Rabbi Eliezer says: A hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from it; a hybrid that results from a koy is exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it.

במאי עסקינן? אם בתיש על הצבייה וילדה — מובן ר׳ אליעזר שפוטר (שאינו דורש ״מקצת שה״); אך לחכמים, גם אם דורשים ״שה ואפילו מקצת שה״ — בחצי (מצד האם הצבייה) פטור, ועל החצי האחר יאמר הכהן ״הבא ראיה שחוששין לזרע האב, וטול״. נמצא אין ראיה ברורה לחיוב.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What type of koy are we dealing with? If we say that we are dealing with a goat who mates with a doe, and she gives birth, granted, this is consistent according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems it exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it. As he holds that we do not say that the word “sheep” (see Deuteronomy 18:3) means that even if it is partially a sheep one must give gifts of the priesthood from it, as paternity is ignored and this koy is considered solely the offspring of a doe, exempting it from having gifts given from it. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, even if it is granted that they hold that the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep, or any other type of domesticated animal, one is obligated to give gifts of the priesthood from it, why should the owner of this koy be required to give the gifts to a priest? Granted, he does not give the priest half of the gifts, since half of the koy, i.e., the mother’s component, is an undomesticated animal; but with regard to the other half, as well, let him say to the priest: Bring proof that one needs to be concerned with its paternity and take that half; otherwise receive nothing.

אלא בצבי על התיישה וילדה. מובן לחכמים: ״חייב״ — בחצי מתנות (מצד האם העז), ועל החצי האחר יביא הכהן ראיה. אבל לר׳ אליעזר (שאינו חושש לזרע האב, והכוי בהמה גמורה כאמו) — היה צריך להתחייב בכל המתנות, ולמה פטרוֹ?

Rather, we are dealing with the case of a deer who mates with a female goat and she gives birth. Granted, this is consistent according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one is obligated to give gifts of the priesthood from it, as what is meant by: Obligated? It means: It is obligated in half of the gifts, since on its mother’s side the goat component is subject to the obligation to give the gifts, but with regard to the other half of the gifts he can tell the priest: Bring proof that one need not be concerned with paternity, and take it. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one need not be concerned with paternity at all, such that this koy would be considered a domesticated animal like its mother, let the owner be obligated in all of the gifts. Why, then, does Rabbi Eliezer deem him exempt?

תירוץ: לעולם בצבי על התיישה, ואף ר׳ אליעזר מסופק אם חוששין לזרע האב או לא. וכיוון שגם חכמים מסופקים וגם ר׳ אליעזר מסופק — אם כן במה בעצם נחלקו?

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a deer who mates with a female goat, and she gives birth, and Rabbi Eliezer is also uncertain whether, in determining the species of an animal, one needs to be concerned with its paternity or not. The Gemara asks: But since the conclusion is that the Rabbis are uncertain and Rabbi Eliezer is uncertain, in what case do they disagree where Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner exempt from giving the gifts entirely?

מסקנה: נחלקו בדרשת ״שה ואפילו מקצת שה״. חכמים: ״שה״ — אפילו מקצת שה (ולכן הכוי בהמה לעניין המתנות); ר׳ אליעזר: ״שה״ — שלם, ולא מקצת שה (ולכן פטור).

They disagree concerning whether the word “sheep” mentioned in the verses indicates that even if it is partially a sheep, it is considered a domesticated animal. The Rabbis hold that the word “sheep” indicates that even if it is partially a sheep it is considered a domesticated animal, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that the word “sheep” indicates that it must be descended entirely from sheep or other domesticated animals, but not partially descended from sheep.

רב פפא ממפה: הלכך, לעניין כיסוי הדם ולעניין מתנות — אי אפשר להעמיד אלא בצבי על התיישה, שבו גם חכמים וגם ר׳ אליעזר מסופקים אם חוששין לזרע האב, ונחלקו רק בדרשת ״שה ואפילו מקצת שה״.

Rav Pappa says: Therefore, the cases relating to a koy must be interpreted in accordance with this understanding of the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. With regard to the matter of covering the blood of a koy, which the mishna indicates is performed due to uncertainty as to whether a koy is an undomesticated animal, and with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, which the Rabbis require to be given from a koy as from a domesticated animal, but Rabbi Eliezer does not, you find a way to interpret the cases only if they are referring to a koy resulting from a deer who mates with a female goat. This is so because, according to the aforementioned conclusions about their opinions, both according to the opinion of the Rabbis and according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer it is uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with paternity, and the koy is considered partially an undomesticated animal, or one need not be concerned, and it is considered entirely domesticated. And they disagree as to whether the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep it is considered a domesticated animal. Therefore, the mishna, which requires one to cover the blood of a koy whose father is a deer due to uncertainty, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, because they, as opposed to Rabbi Eliezer, hold that if an animal has a domesticated component, it is considered a domesticated animal, and with regard to covering the blood if the animal has an undomesticated component, the animal is considered undomesticated. As for the gifts of the priesthood, the Rabbis require half of them to be given from this koy, as it has a domesticated component from its mother, while Rabbi Eliezer exempts one from giving them, as he holds that an animal’s parents must both be domesticated to qualify the animal as domesticated.

ולעניין אותו ואת בנו, מוצאים את המחלוקת בשני הצירופים. בתיש על הצבייה — לעניין איסור (לכתחילה): חכמים — שמא חוששין לזרע האב, ודורשים ״מקצת שה״, ואסור; ר׳ אליעזר — אף אם חוששין, אין דורשים ״מקצת שה״. ובצבי על התיישה — לעניין מלקות: חכמים — אף אם חוששין, דורשים ״מקצת שה״ ומלקין; ר׳ אליעזר — איסור יש (שמא אין חוששין, והוא שה גמור כאמו), אך מלקות אין (שמא חוששין, ואין דורשים ״מקצת שה״).

Rav Pappa continues: With regard to the matter of the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day, which the Rabbis hold applies to a koy but Rabbi Eliezer does not, you find such a case either with regard to a koy who is the daughter of a goat who mates with a doe, or with regard to a koy who is the daughter of a deer who mates with a female goat. Rav Pappa explains: The case may be referring to a koy who is the daughter of a goat who mates with a doe, and it relates to a prohibition, i.e., whether slaughtering it and its offspring in one day is prohibited ab initio, as the Rabbis hold: Perhaps one needs to be concerned with its paternity, and this koy is therefore considered part domesticated, and we say that the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep this prohibition applies, and its slaughter on the same day as its daughter is prohibited ab initio, although one does not receive lashes for it as it is not a definite transgression. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Though one indeed needs to be concerned with its paternity, and this koy is considered partially domesticated, we do not say that the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep the prohibition applies. Therefore, its slaughter on the same day as its offspring is permitted. Additionally, the case under dispute may be referring to a koy who is the daughter of a deer who mates with a female goat, and it relates to whether slaughtering it and its offspring in one day renders one liable to receive lashes. The Rabbis hold: Though one indeed needs to be concerned with its paternity, and this koy is considered partially undomesticated, we say that the word “sheep” means that the prohibition applies even if it is partially a sheep, such as this koy, and one who slaughters it and its offspring on one day is flogged. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: There is a prohibition against slaughtering this koy and its offspring on the same day, but if one slaughtered them there are no lashes. The Gemara explains: There is a prohibition in the case of this koy that is itself a mother, since perhaps one need not be concerned with its paternity, and therefore this koy is a full-fledged sheep, like its mother. Due to uncertainty, there are no lashes for violating the prohibition because perhaps one needs to be concerned with its paternity, in which case this koy is only a partial sheep. And according to Rabbi Eliezer, we do not say that the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially a sheep it is subject to the prohibition. Therefore, one is not flogged for slaughtering this koy on the same day as its offspring, as lashes are administered only when the witnesses give the transgressor a definite forewarning against violating the prohibition. Since the prohibition in this case is uncertain, any forewarning would be uncertain.