Chullin 156

זה בנה אב

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse in Deut. XIV, 4 (Rashi) ; or in Ex. XII, 5 (Tosaf.) . ut');">¹</span>

כל מקום שנאמר שה אינו אלא להוציא את הכלאים

verse establishes the rule that wherever 'sheep' is stated the hybrid is excluded! - Since the verse states 'or',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. XXII, 28. Heb. This word is shown to be superfluous and it therefore serves to include the hybrid.');">²</span>

אמר קרא

it includes the hybrid.

או לרבות את הכלאים

But is not 'or' necessary to indicate disjunction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the verse means either the ox and its young or the sheep and its young.');">³</span>

האי או מיבעי ליה לחלק

For I might have thought that one is not culpable unless one kills an ox and its young and also a sheep and its young, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the word or.');">⁴</span>

דס"ד אמינא

therefore teaches us [that it is not so]! - Disjunction is indicated in the expression 'its young'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that its young and not their young is stated clearly suggests the young and only one of the aforementioned animals, either the ox or the sheep.');">⁵</span>

עד דשחיט שור ובנו שה ובנו לא מיחייב קמ"ל

But it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the word or.');">⁴</span>

לחלק מבנו נפקא

is still necessary for the following [teaching].

ואכתי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא

It was taught: Had Scripture stated: 'An ox and a sheep and its young [ye shall not kill]'.

אילו נאמר שור ושה ובנו הייתי אומר

I would have said that one is not culpable unless one kills an ox and a sheep and the young of any one of them; the text therefore says.

עד שישחוט שור ושה ובנו ת"ל

And whether it be an ox or a sheep, ye shall not kill it and its young.

(ויקרא כב, כח) שור או שה אותו ואת בנו

Now presumably [this teaching] is derived from the expression 'or'! - No, it is derived from the expression 'it' [and its young'].

מאי לאו מאו נפקא ליה

This is well according to the Rabbis - who regard 'it' as superfluous;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">⁶</span>

לא מאותו

but according to Hananiah who does not regard 'it' as superfluous, whence would he derive the principle of disjunction? - No verse is necessary to indicate disjunction for he concurs with the view of R'Jonathan.

הניחא לרבנן דמייתר להו אותו

For it was taught: For any man that curseth his father and his mother [shall surely be put to death]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 9. unt ,tu uhct ,t');">⁷</span>

אלא לחנניה דלא מייתר ליה אותו לחלק מנא ליה

from this I know only [that he is liable for cursing] his father and his mother;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the verse states , and presumably the vav ('and') is conjunctive, implying both parents.');">⁸</span>

לחלק לא צריך קרא דסבר לה כר' יונתן

[if he curses] his father and not his mother, or his mother and not his father, whence do I know [that he is liable]?

דתניא

Because it also says.

(ויקרא כ, ט) איש אשר יקלל את אביו ואת אמו אין לי אלא אביו ואמו

His father and his mother he hath cursed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 9. unt ,tu uhct ,t');">⁷</span>

אביו שלא אמו ואמו שלא אביו מנין

that is, he has cursed his father, he has cursed his mother:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For at the beginning of the verse: 'that curseth' is in immediate proximity to 'his father', and at the end of the verse: 'he hath cursed' is in immediate proximity to 'his mother'; thus showing that he who curses either parent is liable.');">⁹</span>

ת"ל

so R'Josiah.

(ויקרא כ, ט) אביו ואמו קלל אביו קלל אמו קלל דברי ר' יאשיה

R'Jonathan says.

ר' יונתן אומר

It may imply both together or each separately, unless the verse expressly states 'together'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the vav is either disjunctive or conjunctive according to the established law; for when Scripture intends the vav as a conjunction, the usjh word 'together', is added; e.g., Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together (Deut. XXII, 10) .');">¹⁰</span>

משמע שניהם כאחד ומשמע אחד בפני עצמו עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב יחדו

What is this dispute between Hananiah and the Rabbis? - It was taught: The law of 'It and its young' applies to the female parent only and not to the male.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one may slaughter on the same day the male parent and its young, for we do not regard the seed of the male as of consequence, v. infra.');">¹¹</span>

מאי חנניה ומאי רבנן

Hananiah says: It applies both to the male and female parent.

דתניא

What is the reason of the Rabbis? - It was taught: I might have said that the law of 'It and its young' applies to both male and female parents; there is, however, an argument against this, viz. , there is a prohibition here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of 'It and its young'.');">¹²</span>

אותו ואת בנו נוהג בנקבות ואינו נוהג בזכרים חנניה אומר

and there is also a prohibition with regard to 'The dam with the young';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 6: If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young.');">¹³</span>

נוהג בין בזכרים ובין בנקבות

just as the prohibition of 'The dam with the young' applies only to the female parent and not to the male, so the prohibition here applies only to the female parent and not to the male.

מ"ט דרבנן

But [it will be retorted] it is not so; you may say this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you may make this distinction in the law between the male and female parent.');">¹⁴</span>

דתניא

of 'The dam and its young', since [it has this distinctiveness, in that] the law does not place upon the same footing birds that are at one's disposal and birds that are not at one's disposal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the law of 'The dam with the young' applies only to birds that 'chance to be' before one in the way, i.e., free and wild, but not to birds that are at one's disposal, ready at hand, i.e., captive birds; v. infra 138b.');">¹⁵</span>

יכול יהא אותו ואת בנו נוהג בין בזכרים ובין בנקבות

can you then say this of 'It and its young', seeing that [it has not this distinctiveness, for] the law places upon same footing beasts that are at one's disposal and beasts that are not at one's disposal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the law of 'It and its young' undoubtedly applies to all beasts whether met with by chance on the way or confined within one's close.');">¹⁶</span>

ודין הוא

The verse therefore states 'it',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 9. unt ,tu uhct ,t');">⁷</span>

חייב כאן וחייב באם על הבנים

that is, it refers to one [parent] and not to both.

מה כשחייב באם על הבנים בנקבות ולא בזכרים אף כשחייב כאן בנקבות ולא בזכרים

Since therefore Scripture discriminates [betwee the parents].

לא אם אמרת באם על הבנים שכן לא עשה בה מזומן כשאינו מזומן תאמר באותו ואת בנו שעשה בו מזומן כשאינו מזומן

I am justified in applying the above argument, viz. , there is a prohibition here and there is also a prohibition with regard to 'The dam with the young', just as the prohibition of 'The dam with the young' applies only to the female parent and not to the male, so the prohibition here applies only to the female parent and not to the male! And if you desire to say [anything against this, I submit the following]: [The expression] 'its young' relates to that parent to whom the young clings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the dam. u,ut');">¹⁸</span>

ת"ל

thus excluding the male parent to whom the young does not cling! (What is meant by.'

אותו א' ולא ב'

But if you desire to say anything against this'? - If you say that 'it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , lit., 'him'.');">¹⁹</span>

אחר שחלק הכתוב זכיתי לדין

indicates the male parent.

חייב כאן וחייב באם על הבנים

I therefore submit another argument: The expression 'its young' relates to that parent to whom the young clings; thus excluding the male parent to whom the young does not cling.)

מה כשחייב באם על הבנים בנקבות ולא בזכרים אף כשחייב כאן בנקבות ולא בזכרים

ואם נפשך לומר בנו מי שבנו כרוך אחריו יצא זכר שאין בנו כרוך אחריו

מה אם נפשך לומר

וכי תימא

אותו זכר משמע הרי הוא אומר

בנו מי שבנו כרוך אחריו יצא זכר שאין בנו כרוך אחריו