Chullin 158

וסימנין דאורייתא

and also that the [aforementioned] signs are [reliable by] Biblical law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they may be relied upon in a case of doubt which involves a Biblical law. This opinion therefore would solve the question raised in B.M. 27a, whether the identification marks in a lost article are legally valid by Biblical or merely by Rabbinic law (Rashi) .');">¹</span>

תנו רבנן

Our Rabbis taught: [The law of] 'It and its young' applies to a hybrid and a koy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offspring of a goat and a deer; V. supra p. 436, n. 2. It must be remembered that in connection with the law of 'It and its young', the Torah expressly states: Whether it be an ox or a sheep, which includes the goat but excludes the deer and all wild animals.');">²</span>

אותו ואת בנו נוהג בכלאים ובכוי

R'Eliezer says.

רבי אליעזר אומר

To a hybrid, the offspring of a goat and a ewe, the law of 'It and its young' applies; to a koy, the law of 'It and i young' does not apply.

כלאים הבא מן העז ומן הרחל אותו ואת בנו נוהג בו כוי אין אותו ואת בנו נוהג בו

R'Hisda said: What is the koy about which R'Eliezer and the Rabbis differ?

אמר רב חסדא

It is the offspring of a he-goat and a hind.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is a hybrid and not a species of animal. Throughout this passage the hind denotes the female deer and the hart the male.');">³</span>

איזהו כוי שנחלקו בו רבי אליעזר וחכמים זה הבא מן התייש ומן הצבייה

What are the circumstances?

היכי דמי

If you suggest that a he-goat covered a hind and [the hind] gave birth to a young, and then one slaughtered the dam and its young; but [this cannot be, for] R'Hisda has also stated that all agree that if the dam was a hind and its young [the offspring of] a he-goat, one is not culpable [for slaughtering the dam and its young on the same day], for the Divine Law says: a sheep.

אילימא בתייש הבא על הצבייה וילדה וקא שחיט לה ולברה

and its young,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 28.');">⁴</span>

והאמר רב חסדא

and not 'a hind and its young'.

הכל מודים בהיא צבייה ובנה תייש שפטור שה ובנו אמר רחמנא ולא צבי ובנו

And if you suggest that a hart covered a she-goat and it gave birth to a young and then one slaughtered the dam and its young; but [this, too' cannot be, for] R'Hisda has further stated that all agree that if the dam was a she-goat and its young [the offspring of] a hart, one is culpable, for the Divine Law says 'a sheep'; and as for the expression 'its young'.

אלא בצבי הבא על התיישה וילדה וקא שחיט לה ולברה

[it implies any offspring] whatever it is!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though its sire was of a different species.');">⁵</span>

והאמר רב חסדא

- Indeed, the circumstances are these: a he-goat covered a hind and [the hind] gave birth to a female young; this female young also gave birth to a young, and then one slaughtered the female young and its young [on the same day].

הכל מודים בהיא תיישה ובנה צבי שחייב שה אמר רחמנא ובנו כל דהו

Now the Rabbis are of the opinion that we take into consideration the seed of the male parent, and that the term 'sheep' includes even that which is a sheep in part only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The female young, therefore, by reason of its sire, is partly a sheep, and the law of 'It and its young' applies to it.');">⁶</span>

לעולם בתייש הבא על הצבייה וילדה בת ובת ילדה בן וקא שחיט לה ולברה

R'Eliezer, on the other hand, holds that we do not take into consideration the seed of the male parent, nor do we say that the term 'sheep' includes that which is a sheep in part only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The female young is a hind, taking exclusively after its dam and so the law of 'It and its young' does not apply to it.');">⁷</span>

רבנן סברי

Why not say that they differ on the issue whether or not we take into consideration the seed of the male parent, as is the dispute between Hananiah and the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., whether the law of 'It and its young' applies to the male parent and its young or not; V. supra 78b. According to R. Eliezer it does not apply and according to the Rabbis it does.');">⁸</span>

חוששין לזרע האב ושה ואפילו מקצת שה

- If they were to differ on that issue only.

ורבי אליעזר סבר

I might have said that in the above case even the Rabbis would agree [that the law of 'It and its young' does not apply], for we do not say that the term 'sheep' includes that which is a sheep in part only; he therefore teaches us [the above dispute].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Introducing a second issue, namely, whether or not the term 'sheep' includes a sheep in part.');">⁹</span>

אין חוששין לזרע האב ושה ואפילו מקצת שה לא אמרינן

Consider then the following case.

וליפלוג בחוששין לזרע האב בפלוגתא דחנניה ורבנן

We have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bez. 8a.');">¹⁰</span>

אי פליגי בההיא הוה אמינא

A person may not slaughter a koy on a festival, and if he did slaughter it he may not cover up its blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XVII, 13. The law of covering up the blood after slaughtering applies to wild animals and fowls only. A koy, therefore, since it is part goat and part deer, may not be slaughtered on a festival for there is no absolute duty in regard to it to cover up its blood.');">¹¹</span>

בהא אפילו רבנן מודו דשה ואפילו מקצת שה לא אמרי' קמ"ל

Now of what [koy] are we speaking here?

והא דתנן

If you suggest that a he-goat covered a hind and it gave birth [to the koy], then both according to the Rabbis and R'Eliezer he may slaughter it [on the festival] and cover up its blood, for the law [of covering up the blood] applies to deer and even to that which is deer in part.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is undisputed that the seed of the female parent is of vital consideration, and since the dam is a hind the law of covering up the blood will certainly apply to its young, even though its sire might have been a goat. Even according to the Rabbis who maintain that we must take into consideration the seed of the male parent, in this case a goat, there is the obligation to cover up the blood of the offspring. for this law is a positive obligation and will certainly apply to that part of the offspring which represents the deer element in it, and since it applies to part it must apply to the whole too, for the deer and goat elements are indistinguishable in it (v. Tosaf. a.l.) .');">¹²</span>

כוי אין שוחטין אותו ביו"ט ואם שחטו אין מכסין את דמו

And if you suggest that a hart covered a she-goat and it gave birth [to the koy], then according to the Rabbis he may slaughter it [on the festival] and cover up its blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they take into consideration the seed of the male parent this koy has a 'deer' element in it, consequently its blood must be covered up.');">¹³</span>

במאי עסקינן

and according to R'Eliezer he may slaughter it [on the festival] and need not cover the blood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he ignores the seed of the male parent the offspring in this case is entirely a goat and the law of covering up the blood does not apply to it. Both according to the Rabbis and R. Eliezer there is no doubt about the covering up of its blood, hence it may be slaughtered on a festival.');">¹⁴</span>

אילימא בתייש הבא על הצבייה וילדה בין לרבנן בין לר"א לשחוט וליכסי צבי ואפילו מקצת צבי

- Indeed, the fact was that a hart covered a she-goat, but the Rabbis are undecided whether or not we must take into consideration the seed of the male parent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They therefore take the stricter view in every ease where this consideration arises. On the one hand, they say, the law of 'It and its young' will apply to it, and on the other hand, it is forbidden to be slaughtered on a festival, because of the doubt as to the covering up of its blood.');">¹⁵</span>

אלא בצבי הבא על התיישה וילדה אי לרבנן לשחוט וליכסי אי לר"א לשחוט ולא ליכסי

It follows, does it not, that since the Rabbis are undecided on this point.

לעולם בצבי הבא על התיישה ורבנן ספוקי מספקא להו אי חוששין לזרע האב אי אין חוששין

R'Eliezer has no doubts at all about it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer is convinced in his view that the seed of the male is of no consequence.');">¹⁶</span>

ומדלרבנן מספקא להו לרבי אליעזר פשיטא ליה

Consider then the following case.

והא דתניא

It was taught: The law of The shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 3: And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from them that slaughter any slaughtering, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. It is clear that this law does not apply to a wild animal, as a deer.');">¹⁷</span>

הזרוע והלחיים והקבה נוהגים בכוי ובכלאים

applies to a koy and to a hybrid.

ר' אליעזר אומר

R'Eliezer says.

כלאים הבא מן העז ומן הרחל חייב במתנות מן הכוי פטור מן המתנות

A hybrid, the offspring of a goat and a ewe, is subject to these dues; a koy is not subject to these dues.

במאי עסקינן

Now of what [koy] are we speaking here?

אילימא בתייש הבא על הצבייה וילדה

If you suggest that a he-goat covered a hind and it gave birth [to the koy], then the view of R'Eliezer that it is not subject [to these dues] is clear, for he is of the opinion that we do not say that the term 'sheep' includes tha which is a sheep in part only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Moreover, according to R. Eliezer, this koy is entirely a deer for he holds that we ignore the seed of the male parent.');">¹⁸</span>

בשלמא לרבי אליעזר דפטר קסבר

But according to the view of the Rabbis, granting that they hold that the term 'sheep' includes even that which is a sheep in part only, it is clear therefore that there is certainly no obligation to give him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. The priest.');">¹⁹</span>

שה ואפילו מקצת שה לא אמרינן

one half [of the dues]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The koy on account of its female parent, which is a hind, is certainly exempt as to half the dues; and by 'subject to dues' the Rabbis at most meant, subject to half the dues.');">²⁰</span>

אלא לרבנן נהי דקסברי

and even as regards the other half<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That half of the dues which represents the male parent, i.e., the goat.');">²¹</span>

שה ואפילו מקצת שה בשלמא פלגא לא יהיב ליה אידך פלגא לימא ליה

he could say to him, 'Bring proof that we take into consideration the seed of the male parent and then you shall have it'.

אייתי ראייה דחוששין לזרע האב ושקול

And if you suggest that a hart covered a she-goat, then according to the Rabbis it is perfectly clear, for by 'subject' they meant [subject] to half the dues.

אלא בצבי הבא על התיישה וילדה

But according to R'Eliezer it ought to be subject to the whole of the dues!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since, according to R. Eliezer, the seed of the male parent is to be ignored, this koy is entirely a goat, and is therefore subject to the whole of the priests dues.');">²²</span>

בשלמא לרבנן מאי חייב בחצי מתנות אלא לרבי אליעזר ליחייב בכולהי מתנות

- Indeed the case was that a hart covered a she-goat and it gave birth [to the koy], but R'Eliezer is undecided whether or not we must take into consideration the seed of the male parent.

לעולם בצבי הבא על התיישה וילדה ור"א נמי ספוקי מספקא ליה אי חוששין לזרע האב או לא

But if the Rabbis are undecided about it and R'Eliezer too is undecided, wherein do they differ? -

וכיון דלרבנן מספקא להו ולרבי אליעזר מספקא ליה במאי פליגי