Chullin 159
שה ואפי' מקצת שה ורבי אליעזר סבר
Therefore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are all undecided whether or not the seed of the male parent is taken into consideration and their point of dispute is as to the significance of the term 'sheep' to include, that which is sheep in part only.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
שה ולא מקצת שה אמר רב פפא
said R'Papa, with regard to the law of covering up the blood and also with regard to the [priests'] dues [the koy spoken of] can only be [the offspring of such interbreeding] as where a hart covered a she-goat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly the aforementioned Baraitha which teaches that a koy may not be slaughtered on a festival agrees with the view of the Rabbis. For the obligation to cover up the blood of this koy, the offspring of a hart and a she-goat, arises only by reason of the male element in it, and since this is a matter of doubt one may not slaughter it on a festival. It is indeed possible to explain that the koy spoken of in that Baraitha is the offspring of a he-goat and a hind, so that the view expressed therein would agree with that of R. Eliezer, since he is of the opinion that what is only part deer is not subject to the law of covering up the blood. It is preferable, however, to establish the Baraitha in accordance with the view of the majority. And so, too, the koy that is the subject of dispute between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to the priests' dues is also the offspring of a hart and a he-goat; the Rabbis holding that this koy is subject to half the dues by virtue of the female element in it, but as to the other half, the priest can make no claim to it, for it may be that we should take into consideration the seed of the male parent in which case the priest is not entitled at all to that half. R. Eliezer, on the other hand, holds that this koy is entirely exempt from dues, for it may be that we ought to take into consideration the seed of the male parent, in which 'case it is only a sheep in part by virtue of the female element in it, and according to R. Eliezer a part sheep is not included in the term 'sheep'. Their dispute cannot be explained satisfactorily in any other manner, for if the koy were the offspring of a he-goat and a hind, in that case even the Rabbis would declare it wholly exempt from dues, since it has a 'sheep' element in it only on account of the male parent, and it may be that we do not take into consideration the seed of the male.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
הלכך לענין כסוי הדם ומתנות לא משכחת אלא בצבי הבא על התיישה דבין לרבנן ובין לר' אליעזר מספקא להו אי חוששין לזרע האב או לא וקא מיפלגי בשה ואפילו מקצת שה
- For both the Rabbis and R'Eliezer are undecided whether we must take into consideration the seed of the male parent or not; but they differ as to whether the term 'sheep' includes that which is a sheep in part only or not.
בתייש הבא על הצבייה ולאיסורא דרבנן סברי
The dispute in the case where a he-goat covered a hind is as to [whether there is any] prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To slaughter the koy and its dam both on the same day.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
דילמא חוששין לזרע האב שה ואפי' מקצת שה אמרינן ואסור
[or not], the Rabbis holding that it may be that we ought to take into consideration the seed of the male parent, [in which case it is a part sheep], and since we say that the term 'sheep' includes even that which is a sheep in part only, it is therefore forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a person however, did slaughter both on one day, he would not suffer stripes for it, for the warning which must precede the wrongful act is in this case dubious, since the act might not have been prohibited at all.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ורבי אליעזר סבר
whilst R'Eliezer maintains that even though we do take into consideration the seed of the male parent, [in which case it is a part sheep], we do not say that the term 'sheep' includes that which is a sheep in part only; [and it is therefore permitted].
נהי נמי דחוששין לזרע האב שה ואפילו מקצת שה לא אמרינן
In the case where a hart covered a she-goat the dispute is as to [whether] stripes [are inflicted or not]; the Rabbis holding that even though we take into consideration the seed of the male parent, since we say that the term 'sheep' includes even that which is a sheep in part only, we therefore inflict stripes upon him; whilst R'Eliezer maintains: There is only a prohibition but stripes cannot be inflicted.'
בצבי הבא על התיישה ולמלקות רבנן סברי
There is only a prohibition', perhaps we do not take into consideration the seed of the male 'parent and therefore this is a proper sheep; 'but stripes cannot be inflicted', for it may be that we ought to take into consideration the seed of the male parent [so that it is only a part sheep], and we do not say that the term 'sheep' includes that which is a sheep in par only.
נהי נמי דחוששין לזרע האב שה ואפילו מקצת שה אמרינן ומלקינן ליה
Rab Judah said: A koy is a separate creature<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a distinct species of animal and not a hybrid, the offspring of a deer and a goat, as assumed above.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
כוי זה איל הבר
are fit for the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a sacrifice, for they belong to the class of cattle and not wild animals. Only cattle were allowed as offerings upon the altar but not wild animals.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
זה הבא מן התייש ומן הצבייה
Scripture has enumerated ten species of animals [that may be eaten], and no more.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XIV. 4, 5: These are the beasts which ye may eat: the ox, the sheep and the goat, the hart and the gazelle and the roebuck, and the uet ut, rnz wild goat () and the pygarg and the wild ox () and the chamois () . These verses enumerate all the cattle and wild beasts that may be eaten.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
כוי בריה בפני עצמה היא ולא הכריעו בה חכמים אם מין חיה אם מין בהמה
nce these [forest goats] are not reckoned among the wild animals mentioned, it follows that they are of the species of goats.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And are therefore fit for sacrifices.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
הני עזי דבאלא מהו לגבי מזבח
renders [Teo as] 'the wild ox', it is certainly a species of cattle, whereas R'Jose maintains, since it is reckoned together with the other species of wild animals it is a species of wild animal; but these [forest goats], according to all views, belong to the species of goats.
דרבנן סברי
Whence do you gather this? - For it reads: IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE CONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY, HE WHO SLAUGHTERED THE FIRST INCURS THE PENALTY OF KARETH, BOTH ANIMALS ARE INVALID, AND EACH INCURS FORTY STRIPES.
מדקא חשיב ליה בהדי חיות מינא דחיה הוא
We know that according to R'Simeon a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its name is not slaughtering'. Any act of slaughtering which does not for any reason whatsoever effect the ritual fitness of the animal to be eaten is not considered in the eye of the law a slaughtering. Any such act would not be a transgression of the prohibition of 'It and its young', for Scripture speaks of 'slaughtering' in this connection.');"><sup>17</sup></span>