Bava Kamma 155

והא גבי קדשים נמי נאמר שור או כשב שאין אתה יכול להוציא כלאים מביניהם ונרבי מדסיפא למעט רישא נמי למעט אדרבה מדרישא לרבות סיפא נמי לרבות

But in connection with sacrifices it is also written <i>'a bullock or a sheep'</i>, in which case it is impossible for you to exclude a hybrid born from these two, why then should we not employ the term 'or' to include [a hybrid of a different kind]? — Since the term 'or' in the later phrase<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with 'sheep' and 'goat'. ');">¹</span>

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא למעט הוא דאיצטריך תרי מיעוטי דאע"ג דאימעט כלאים איצטריך למעוטי נדמה אלא אי אמרת לרבות תרי ריבויי למה השתא כלאים אירבי ליה נדמה מבעיא

is to 'be employed to exclude, the term 'or' in the earlier phrase<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where 'bullock' and 'sheep' are mentioned. ');">²</span>

אלא הא דאמר רבא זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר שה אינו אלא להוציא את הכלאים למאי הלכתא אי לקדשים בהדיא כתיב בהו (ויקרא כב, כז) שור או כשב פרט לכלאים

should similarly be employed to exclude. But why not say on the contrary that, as the term '<i>or'</i> in the earlier phrase has to be employed to amplify, so also should the term '<i>or'</i> in the later phrase? — Would this be logical? I grant you that if you say that the term '<i>or'</i> meant to exclude, then it would be necessary to have two [terms 'or'] to exclude, for even when a hybrid has been excluded, it would still be necessary to exclude an animal looking like a hybrid. But if you say it is meant to amplify, why two amplifications [in the two terms 'or']? For once a hybrid is included, what question could there be of an animal looking like a hybrid. To what <i>halachah</i> then would the statement made by Raba refer, that this is a <i>locus classicus</i> for the rule that wherever it says 'sheep'. the purpose is to exclude a hybrid? If to sacrifices, is it not explicitly said: 'A bullock or a sheep which excepts a hybrid'? If to the tithes [of animals], is not the term 'under'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 32. ');">³</span>

אי למעשר תחת תחת יליף מקדשים

compared to 'under' used in connection with sacrifices [making it subject to the same law]? If to a firstling, is the verb expressing 'passing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 12. ');">⁴</span>

אי לבכור העברה העברה יליף ממעשר

not compared to 'passing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 32. ');">³</span>

אי נמי נדמה אמרת לא דכתיב (במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור עד שיהא הוא שור ובכורו שור כלאים מבעיא

used in connection with tithe? Or again we may say, since where the animal only looks like a hybrid you say that it is not [subject to the law of firstling], since it is written: <i>'But the firstling of an ox'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. 'a cow'. Num. XVIII. 17. ');">⁵</span>

אלא כי איתמר דרבא לענין פטר חמור כדתנן אין פודין לא בעגל ולא בחיה ולא בשחוטה ולא בטריפה ולא בכלאים ולא בכוי

[which implies that the rule holds good] only where the parents were of the species of <i>'ox'</i> and the firstling was of the species of <i>'ox'</i>, what question can there be regarding a hybrid itself? — The statement made by Raba must therefore have referred to the firstling of an ass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has to be redeemed by a sheep (Ex. XIII. 13). so that a hybrid would therefore not be eligible. ');">⁶</span>

ולרבי אלעזר דמתיר בכלאים דתנן ר"א מתיר בכלאים מפני שהוא שה למאי הלכתא

as we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 1, 5. ');">⁷</span>

אמר לך ר"א כי איתמר דרבא לטמא שנולד מן הטהור ועיבורו מן הטמא ודלא כרבי יהושע דאי ר' יהושע משה כשבים ושה עזים נפקא ליה עד שיהא אביו כבש ואמו כבשה

It can not be redeemed either by a calf or by a wild animal or by a slaughtered sheep or by a <i>trefa</i> sheep or by a hybrid or by a koy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a kind of an antelope about which there was a doubt whether it belongs to the species of cattle or to that of beasts of the forest. [V. Lewysohn. Zoologie, p. 115 ff. who identifies it with the [G], 'goat-stag' mentioned by Plinius.] ');">⁸</span>

וטהורה מטמאה מי מיעברא אין דקיי"ל

But if we accept the view of R. Eleazar, who allows redemption with a hybrid sheep, as we have learnt: R. Eleazar allows the redemption to be made with a hybrid, for it is a sheep,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 1, 5. ');">⁷</span> to what <i>halachah</i> [can we refer the statement of Raba]? — R. Eleazar might reply that the statement made by Raba is to teach [the prohibition of] an unclean animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. a swine; v. Lev. XI, 7. ');">⁹</span> born from a clean animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as a sheep. ');">¹⁰</span> which became pregnant from an unclean animal [being forbidden as food].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as where a cow became pregnant from a horse and gave birth to a foal or where a sheep became pregnant from a swine and gave birth to a swine. ');">¹¹</span> this opinion not being in accordance with R. Joshua. for R. Joshua derived<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Bek. 7a. ');">¹²</span> this prohibition from the verse 'the sheep of sheep and the sheep of goats'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 4. ');">¹³</span> which implies that unless the father was a 'sheep' and the mother a 'sheep' [the offspring is forbidden for food]. But could a clean animal become pregnant from an unclean animal? — Yes, since it is known to us