Chullin Daf 79 (חולין דף ע״ט)
Daf: 79 | Amudim: 79a – 79b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (79a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Chananyah’s derivation: ‘oto’ indicates the male, ‘beno’ the female — so both are included
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלַחֲנַנְיָה, כְּתִיב ״אוֹתוֹ״ דְּמַשְׁמַע זָכָר, וּכְתִיב ״בְּנוֹ״ – מִי שֶׁבְּנוֹ כָּרוּךְ אַחֲרָיו דְּמַשְׁמַע נְקֵבָה, הִלְכָּךְ נוֹהֵג בֵּין בִּזְכָרִים בֵּין בִּנְקֵבוֹת.
English Translation:
And according to the opinion of Ḥananya, the reason for his ruling is that it is written “it,” which indicates a male, and it is written “its offspring,” teaching that the prohibition applies to that parent whose offspring clings to it, which indicates a female. Therefore, this prohibition applies to both males and females.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by completing the picture from 78b. Chananyah reads the same two words as the Rabanan but combines them instead of choosing between them: ‘oto’ is grammatically masculine and indicates the sire, while ‘beno’ — the parent to whom the offspring clings — indicates the mother. Since the verse contains both signals, the prohibition applies to both males and females. The exegetical dispute is thus symmetrical: the Rabanan use ‘beno’ to interpret ‘oto,’ while Chananyah lets each word stand on its own.
Key Terms:
- אוֹתוֹ = ‘It’ — the masculine pronoun, read by Chananyah as including the sire
- כָּרוּךְ אַחֲרָיו = ‘Clings to it’ — the offspring follows the mother; the signal that includes the dam
Segment 2
TYPE: פסק ומשנה
Shmuel rules like Chananyah — and is consistent with his reading of the mishna about mules
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הִלְכְתָא כַּחֲנַנְיָה, וְאַזְדָּא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹלָדִים מִן הַסּוּס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲבִיהֶן חֲמוֹר – מוּתָּרִין זֶה בְּזֶה, אֲבָל הַנּוֹלָדִין מִן הַחֲמוֹר עִם הַנּוֹלָדִין מִן הַסּוּס – אֲסוּרִין.
English Translation:
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya. And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:4): Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to two animals that are born from a female horse, even if the father of one is a donkey and the father of the other is a horse, they are permitted to mate with one another. Since the mothers of both are horses, the offspring are all considered of the same species. But to mate animals that are born from a female donkey with animals that are born from a female horse, even if one animal was born from a male horse and a female donkey and the other was born from a male donkey and a female horse, is prohibited, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna bar Chiyya reports Shmuel’s ruling: the halacha follows Chananyah — oto v’et beno applies to the father as well. The Gemara shows that Shmuel is consistent (azda l’taamei), citing the mishna in Kilayim (8:4): Rabbi Yehuda permits mating two animals born of mares even if one was sired by a donkey, but forbids mating the offspring of a jenny with the offspring of a mare. The mishna’s logic — that species follows the mother — becomes the springboard for the entire discussion of paternity that fills the daf.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכְתָא כַּחֲנַנְיָה = ‘The halacha follows Chananyah’ — Shmuel’s ruling that the prohibition applies to sires too
- וְאַזְדָּא לְטַעְמֵיהּ = ‘And he follows his own reasoning’ — a ruling shown to be consistent with the same authority’s position elsewhere
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Shmuel identifies the mishna as Rabbi Yehuda’s view: species follows the mother alone
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל מִינֵי פְּרָדוֹת אַחַת הֵן.
English Translation:
And, commenting on that mishna, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: One need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of an animal, as the species is determined solely by the mother. But the Rabbis say: The species of an animal is determined according to both its mother and its father. Therefore, all types of mules, regardless of which parent is a horse and which is a donkey, are considered a single species and may mate with each other.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda quotes Shmuel’s gloss on that mishna: it represents Rabbi Yehuda’s individual view that ‘one need not be concerned with the seed of the father’ (ein chosheshin l’zera ha’av) — the offspring’s species is determined solely by its mother. The Chachamim disagree: both parents count, and therefore ‘all types of mules are one’ — a mule is a mule regardless of which parent was the horse, and any mule may mate with any other.
Key Terms:
- אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב = ‘One need not be concerned with the father’s seed’ — species is determined by the mother alone
- כׇּל מִינֵי פְּרָדוֹת אַחַת הֵן = ‘All kinds of mules are one’ — the Chachamim’s view that every mule is the same species
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
The Chachamim of that mishna are identified as Chananyah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן חֲכָמִים? חֲנַנְיָה הוּא, דְּאָמַר חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, וְהַאי בַּר סוּסְיָא וַחֲמָרָא, וְהַאי בַּר חֲמָרָא וְסוּסְיָא – כּוּלְּהוּ חֲדָא מִינָא נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
Now, whose opinion is referred to as that of the Rabbis here? It is that of Ḥananya, who says: One needs to be concerned with paternity, as, in his opinion, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring applies to a male and its offspring as well. And therefore, with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds as well, this mule that is the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey, and that mule that is the offspring of a female donkey and a male horse are all a single species.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara closes Shmuel’s circle: who are the ‘Chachamim’ who treat all mules as one species? Chananyah — the very tanna who holds that paternity matters for oto v’et beno. Because he is ‘concerned with the father’s seed,’ a mule born of a mare and a donkey and a mule born of a jenny and a horse each carry both species in their lineage, making them a single kind that may interbreed. Shmuel, having ruled like Chananyah on oto v’et beno, consistently attributes the mule ruling to him as well.
Key Terms:
- בַּר סוּסְיָא וַחֲמָרָא = Offspring of a mare and a male donkey — one of the two kinds of mule
- חֲדָא מִינָא = One species — hybrids sharing both lineages may mate with one another
Segment 5
TYPE: איבעיא
The dilemma: is Rabbi Yehuda certain that paternity is irrelevant, or merely in doubt?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִי פְּשִׁיט לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, אוֹ דִלְמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ?
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the offspring, or perhaps he is uncertain whether or not one need be concerned with its paternity? The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference?
קלאוד על הדף:
Having mapped the positions, the Gemara raises a subtle question about Rabbi Yehuda himself: when he says species follows the mother, is he certain (pashit lei) that the father contributes nothing to the offspring’s species — or is he in doubt, ruling stringently where the doubt matters? The difference between a confident principle and a cautious doubt will determine the practical rulings that follow.
Key Terms:
- אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ = ‘A dilemma was raised before them’ — the formula introducing an unresolved question of the academy
- סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ = ‘He is in doubt’ — the position rests on uncertainty, not a confident principle
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
The practical difference: may the mule be mated with its mother’s species?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמִישְׁרֵא פְּרִי עִם הָאֵם, אִי אָמְרַתְּ: מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ – פְּרִי עִם הָאֵם שְׁרֵי, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ – פְּרִי עִם הָאֵם אָסוּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to permitting the mating of the offspring with the species of the mother, e.g., the mating of the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey together with a horse. If you say that Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity, then the mating of the offspring with the species of the mother is permitted, as, in this case, they are both considered horses. But if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain, then the mating of the offspring with the species of the mother is prohibited, as one must be concerned about the species of the father.
קלאוד על הדף:
The nafka mina is crisp: mating the hybrid offspring with the mother’s species (pri im ha’em) — for instance, a mule born of a mare paired with a horse. If Rabbi Yehuda is certain that the father’s seed is irrelevant, the mule simply is a horse, and the pairing is permitted. If he is in doubt, the donkey component of the father may be real, and pairing the mule with a horse would risk the Torah prohibition of crossbreeding — so it is forbidden.
Key Terms:
- פְּרִי עִם הָאֵם = ‘The offspring with the mother’ — mating the hybrid with its mother’s species, the test case for the dilemma
- נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ = The practical difference between the two readings
Segment 7
TYPE: תא שמע
First proof attempt from the mishna: the permitted pairing seems to mix a horse-sired and donkey-sired mule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַנּוֹלָדִים מִן הַסּוּס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲבִיהֶן חֲמוֹר – מוּתָּרִין זֶה בָּזֶה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי חֲמוֹר וַאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי חֲמוֹר – צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא לָאו דַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי סוּס וַאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי חֲמוֹר;
English Translation:
What, then, is the answer to the question? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a possible resolution from the mishna cited earlier: Rabbi Yehuda says: All that are born from a female horse, even if the father of one of them is a donkey, are permitted to mate with each other. What are the circumstances here? If we say that the father of this male animal is a donkey, and the father of that female animal, with which the male is to be mated, is a donkey, does it need to be said? Since the mothers of both animals are horses, they are both of exactly the same species and may certainly mate with each other. Rather, is it not that the father of this one is a horse, and the father of that other one is a donkey?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the mishna itself: Rabbi Yehuda permits mating ‘all born of a mare, even if the father of one is a donkey.’ In what case? If both animals were sired by donkeys, the ruling is trivial — they are identical hybrids, and nothing needs saying. It must be that one was sired by a horse and the other by a donkey — a pairing that mixes a pure horse with a half-donkey.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע = ‘Come and hear’ — the formula introducing a proposed proof from a tannaitic source
- צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר = ‘Does it need to be said?’ — the argument that a trivial reading would make the ruling superfluous
Segment 8
TYPE: ראיה
If so, Rabbi Yehuda permits the mix — evidently he is certain paternity is irrelevant
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקָתָנֵי מוּתָּרִים זֶה עִם זֶה, אַלְמָא מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
And yet it is taught that they are permitted to mate with each other. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the offspring. If he were uncertain, he would deem their mating prohibited, as the father of one is a horse while the father of the other is a donkey.
קלאוד על הדף:
The inference is drawn: if the mishna permits mating a mare’s offspring sired by a horse with a mare’s offspring sired by a donkey, Rabbi Yehuda must be certain that the father contributes nothing to species. Were he in doubt, the pairing would join a possible horse with a possible half-donkey — a potential violation of kilayim — and he would have forbidden it.
Key Terms:
- אַלְמָא = ‘Evidently’ — the formula drawing an inference from the cited source
- מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ = ‘It is certain to him’ — the confident reading of Rabbi Yehuda’s position
Segment 9
TYPE: דחייה
The proof is deflected: both fathers may be donkeys, and the ruling teaches about the two ‘sides’ of a mule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, לְעוֹלָם דַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי חֲמוֹר, וַאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי חֲמוֹר. וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אָתֵי צַד דְּסוּס מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּצַד חֲמוֹר, וְצַד חֲמוֹר מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּצַד סוּס, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, one cannot cite proof from this, as it can be said that actually, the father of this male animal is a donkey, and the father of that female animal is also a donkey. And with regard to that which you say: Does it need to be said that these two may mate? It does need to be said, lest you say: The horse component of the male mule comes and copulates with the donkey component of the female mule, and the donkey component of the male mule copulates specifically with the horse component of the female mule, which would violate the prohibition of diverse kinds. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that they are both of the same species and may mate.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the proof. Perhaps both animals were indeed sired by donkeys — and the ruling is still necessary, to counter a surprising worry: within a pairing of two identical mules, one might fear that the ‘horse side’ of one mates with the ‘donkey side’ of the other, a microscopic act of crossbreeding inside the hybrid pair. Rabbi Yehuda teaches that the hybrids are a single species and no such internal dissection is made. The proof of his certainty collapses.
Key Terms:
- צַד דְּסוּס = The ‘horse component’ of a mule — the notion that each side of a hybrid retains its own identity
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = ‘It teaches us’ — the ruling is needed to dispel precisely this worry
Segment 10
TYPE: תא שמע
Second proof attempt: the mule in heat may be mated only with ‘her own kind’ — suggesting doubt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, פִּרְדָּה שֶׁתָּבְעָה – אֵין מַרְבִּיעִין עָלֶיהָ לֹא סוּס וְלֹא חֲמוֹר, אֶלָּא מִינָהּ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לַרְבַּע עֲלַהּ מִינָא דְּאִמַּהּ! דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן מִינָא דְּאִמַּהּ מַאי נִיהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a possible resolution from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a female mule in heat, one may not mate a horse or a donkey with her, due to the prohibition against crossbreeding diverse kinds of livestock. Rather, one mates her with one of her kind, another mule. And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the offspring, then why not mate her with the species of her mother? Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain and therefore deems it prohibited to mate her with either a horse or a donkey. The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where we do not know what the mother’s species is.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita is cited in the opposite direction: Rabbi Yehuda rules that a female mule in heat may not be mated with a horse or a donkey — only with ‘her own kind,’ another mule. If Rabbi Yehuda were certain that species follows the mother, mating her with her mother’s species should be permitted; the blanket prohibition suggests he is in doubt. The Gemara deflects: the baraita deals with a mule whose maternal species is unknown, so both horse and donkey are off-limits as possible violations.
Key Terms:
- פִּרְדָּה שֶׁתָּבְעָה = A female mule in heat
- אֶלָּא מִינָהּ = ‘Only her own kind’ — another mule, the one safe pairing
Segment 11
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
But ‘her kind’ implies a known species! The answer: unknown lineage — and the simanim of Abaye and Rav Pappa fail here
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא ״אֶלָּא מִינַּהּ״ קָתָנֵי? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין מַרְבִּיעִין עָלֶיהָ לֹא מִין סוּס וְלֹא מִין חֲמוֹר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין בְּמִינָהּ. וְלִיבְדּוֹק בְּסִימָנִין? דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: עָבֵי קָלֵיהּ – בַּר חַמָּרָא, צְנִיף קָלֵיהּ – בַּר סוּסְיָא. וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: רַבְרְבָן אוּדְנֵיהּ וְזוּטְרָא גְּנוּבְתֵיהּ – בַּר חַמָּרָא, זוּטְרָן אוּדְנֵיהּ וְרַבָּה גְּנוּבְתֵיהּ – בַּר סוּסְיָא. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּאִלֶּמֶת וְגִידֶּמֶת.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But the baraita teaches: Rather, one mates her with one of her kind, indicating that her species is known. The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: One may not mate the species of a horse or the species of a donkey with her, because one does not usually know the species of the mother of a mule that one encounters. The Gemara suggests: But let one check her species by her distinguishing characteristics, as Abaye says: If its voice is deep, it is the offspring of a female donkey; if its voice is shrill, it is the offspring of a female horse. And Rav Pappa says: If its ears are large and its tail is small, it is the offspring of a female donkey; if its ears are small and its tail is large, it is the offspring of a female horse. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a mule who is mute, and whose ears and tail are lopped off, and whose species cannot be determined. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion cannot be proven from this case.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses: ‘only her kind’ implies we know what she is. The baraita is reread: neither horse-kind nor donkey-kind may be brought upon her because a mule’s maternal species is generally unknown. But surely one can check the distinguishing signs — Abaye taught that a deep voice marks a donkey’s offspring and a shrill voice a mare’s, and Rav Pappa added: large ears and a short tail mark a donkey’s offspring, small ears and a long tail a mare’s. The Gemara answers: the baraita deals with a mule that is mute and has lopped ears and tail (ilemet v’gidemet) — the signs are unreadable, so nothing can be proven about Rabbi Yehuda’s certainty.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִין = Distinguishing physical signs — voice, ears, and tail — that reveal a mule’s maternal species
- אִלֶּמֶת וְגִידֶּמֶת = Mute and with lopped ears and tail — a mule whose signs cannot be read
Segment 12
TYPE: פסק
Resolution: all agree pri im ha’em is forbidden — Rabbi Yehuda is in doubt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בִּפְרִי עִם הָאֵם שֶׁאָסוּר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it? Come and hear a resolution, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: All, including Rabbi Yehuda, agree with regard to mating the offspring with the species of its mother that it is prohibited. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain. If he were certain that one need not be concerned with its paternity, he would deem mating the offspring with the species of its mother permitted, since the father’s species would not matter. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma is resolved. Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua reports: all agree — including Rabbi Yehuda — that mating the hybrid offspring with its mother’s species is forbidden. Had Rabbi Yehuda been certain that the father’s seed is irrelevant, that pairing would be permitted outright; the universal prohibition proves that his rule is built on doubt. The Gemara affirms: conclude from this that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain.
Key Terms:
- הַכֹּל מוֹדִין = ‘All concede’ — even Rabbi Yehuda forbids mating the hybrid with its mother’s species
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = ‘Conclude from it’ — the formula sealing the resolution of the dilemma
Segment 13
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Abba instructs his attendant: harness only mules that match each other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: אִי מְעַיְּילַתְּ לִי כּוּדַנְיָיתָא בְּרִיסְפַּק, עַיֵּין לְהָנָךְ דְּדָמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי, וְעַיֵּיל לִי. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates with regard to this issue that Rabbi Abba said to his servant: If you bring me mules attached to a wagon [rispak], look for those that are similar to each other in their voices and the sizes of their ears and tails, and bring those for me, in order not to violate the prohibition of diverse kinds. Evidently, Rabbi Abba holds that with regard to the offspring of diverse kinds, one need not be concerned with its paternity, since, as explained earlier, these distinguishing characteristics indicate only the species of the mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya closes with practice. Rabbi Abba tells his attendant: when you harness mules to my wagon (rispak), examine them and take only those that resemble each other — in voice, ears, and tail. Matching signs indicate matching maternal species, and only maternal species matters: evidently Rabbi Abba holds that one need not be concerned with the father’s seed. His reliance on the signs themselves carries into the next amud.
Key Terms:
- רִיסְפַּק = A wagon or carriage drawn by animals
- דְּדָמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי = ‘That resemble each other’ — matching signs showing the mules share a maternal species
Amud Bet (79b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
And the simanim are Torah-level: reliable even against a Torah prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְסִימָנִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
English Translation:
And in addition, he holds that these distinguishing characteristics apply by Torah law, such that they may be relied upon to allay concerns of violating even a prohibition that is mandated by Torah law.
קלאוד על הדף:
The conclusion of the Rabbi Abba episode: by pairing mules on the strength of their matching signs, he showed not only that species follows the mother but that the distinguishing signs are deoraita — legally probative by Torah law. Kilayim of livestock is a Torah prohibition, and Rabbi Abba relied on voice, ears, and tail to avoid it; the signs must therefore be strong enough to resolve even a Torah-level concern.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = The distinguishing signs are of Torah force — reliable even where a Torah prohibition is at stake
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
The baraita on kilayim and koy — and Rav Chisda defines the disputed koy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּכִלְאַיִם וּבְכוֹי. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִן הָעֵז וּמִן הָרָחֵל – אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ, כּוֹי – אֵין אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֵיזֶהוּ כּוֹי שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בּוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים? זֶה הַבָּא מִן הַתַּיִישׁ וּמִן הַצְּבִיָּיה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to oto v’et beno. The baraita taught: the prohibition applies to kilayim (a goat-ewe hybrid) and to a koy; Rabbi Eliezer disagrees in part — the goat-ewe hybrid is included, but the koy is not. Rav Chisda sharpens the dispute: which koy do Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabanan argue about? The offspring of a male goat (tayish) and a doe (tzviyah) — a hybrid of a domesticated and an undomesticated animal, which is where the definitions begin to strain.
Key Terms:
- כּוֹי = A creature of ambiguous status between beheimah (domesticated) and chayah (wild) — here, a goat-doe hybrid
- תַּיִישׁ / צְבִיָּיה = A male goat / a doe — the parents of the disputed koy
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
It cannot be the simple case of slaughtering the doe and her koy — all concede exemption there
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּתַיִישׁ הַבָּא עַל הַצְּבִיָּיה, וְיָלְדָה, וְקָא שָׁחֵיט לַהּ וְלִבְרַהּ – וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּהִיא צְבִיָּיה וּבְנָהּ תַּיִישׁ, שֶׁפָּטוּר! שֶׂה וּבְנוֹ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא צְבִי וּבְנוֹ!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the definition. If the case is a male goat who mated with a doe, and one slaughters the doe and her offspring — Rav Chisda himself said all concede there is no liability: the Torah said ‘a seh and its offspring,’ not ‘a deer and its offspring.’ The mother must be a domesticated animal for the prohibition to attach; a doe mother is outside the verse entirely, so this cannot be the disputed case.
Key Terms:
- שֶׂה וּבְנוֹ וְלֹא צְבִי וּבְנוֹ = ‘A seh and its offspring’ — not a deer and its offspring; the mother must be a domesticated animal
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Nor the reverse case of the goat mother and deer-sired offspring — all concede liability there
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה וְיָלְדָה, וְקָא שָׁחֵיט לַהּ וְלִבְרַהּ, וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּהִיא תְּיָישָׁה וּבְנָהּ צְבִי – שֶׁחַיָּיב, ״שֶׂה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וּבְנוֹ כֹּל דְּהוּ!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The opposite case fails too: a deer who mated with a female goat, and one slaughters the goat and her offspring. There Rav Chisda said all concede liability: the Torah said ‘seh’ — and ‘its offspring’ of whatever kind (beno kol dehu). Once the slaughtered mother is a full domesticated animal, the offspring’s mixed lineage is irrelevant. Neither simple mother-offspring case leaves room for a dispute — so where do Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabanan differ?
Key Terms:
- בְּנוֹ כֹּל דְּהוּ = ‘Its offspring of any kind’ — once the mother is a seh, the offspring counts regardless of its own status
Segment 5
TYPE: אוקימתא
The disputed case: the koy’s own offspring — a second-generation slaughter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם, בְּתַיִישׁ הַבָּא עַל הַצְּבִיָּיה, וְיָלְדָה בַּת, וּבַת יָלְדָה בֵּן, וְקָא שָׁחֵיט לַהּ וְלִבְרַהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara relocates the dispute a generation down: a male goat mated with a doe, who bore a female koy; that koy grew and bore a male offspring; and one slaughters the koy and her son on one day. The koy mother is herself half-goat, half-deer — is she enough of a ‘seh’ for the prohibition of oto v’et beno to attach to her and her child? That is the question dividing Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabanan.
Key Terms:
- אוֹקִימְתָּא = A reframing of the case that locates the dispute precisely
- בַּת יָלְדָה בֵּן = The koy daughter herself gave birth to a son — the second-generation case
Segment 6
TYPE: ביאור המחלוקת
The two axes of the dispute: paternity, and ‘a seh — even a partial seh’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, וְשֶׂה – וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, וְ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ – לָא אָמְרִינַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The positions are now stated. The Rabanan hold two things: one must be concerned with the father’s seed — so the koy carries her goat father’s domesticated identity — and the word ‘seh’ covers even a partial seh (miktzat seh), so a half-goat mother triggers the prohibition. Rabbi Eliezer denies both: paternity is ignored, so the koy is her doe mother’s daughter only; and there is no partial-seh rule — the verse requires a full seh. On his view, slaughtering the koy and her offspring involves no prohibition at all.
Key Terms:
- שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה = ‘A seh — even a partial seh’ — the Rabanan’s rule that a half-domesticated animal is within the verse
- חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב = ‘One is concerned with the father’s seed’ — paternity contributes to the offspring’s legal species
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Why not frame this as the general Chananyah-Rabanan dispute about paternity?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיפְלוֹג בְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דַּחֲנַנְיָה וְרַבָּנַן?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks a structural question: if the dispute turns on whether paternity matters, why present it in the exotic koy case rather than as the already-familiar dispute of Chananyah and the Rabanan — whether oto v’et beno applies to a father and his offspring? The baraita seems to have manufactured a hybrid scenario for a question that already had a standard address.
Key Terms:
- וְלִיפְלוֹג בְּ… = ‘Let them dispute about…’ — why was the dispute not framed in the standard case?
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The koy case teaches the full reach of the Rabanan’s view: paternity plus the partial-seh rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי פְּלִיגִי בְּהָהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בְּהָא אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ, דְּ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ לָא אָמְרִינַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer: had the dispute been framed only in the standard case, one might think the Rabanan concede in the koy case — that even they do not say ‘a seh, even a partial seh,’ since the mother is half-wild. The koy framing teaches the Rabanan’s position at full strength: they hold both that paternity counts and that a partial seh is within the verse. The exotic case is precisely the one that reveals the doctrine’s outer boundary.
Key Terms:
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = ‘It teaches us’ — the framing was chosen to convey the maximal chiddush
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ממשנה
The mishna on the koy and Yom Tov: no slaughter ab initio, and no covering of the blood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא דִּתְנַן: כּוֹי אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ – אֵין מְכַסִּין אֶת דָּמוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now tests the whole structure against the mishna (83b): one may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, and if one did, one does not cover its blood. Covering the blood (kisui hadam) applies to wild animals and birds, not to domesticated animals; digging or carrying earth on Yom Tov is permitted only for a definite mitzvah. The mishna’s double stringency — no slaughter ab initio, no covering after the fact — encodes an uncertainty that must now be located.
Key Terms:
- כִּסּוּי הַדָּם = Covering the blood of a slaughtered wild animal or bird (Vayikra 17:13) — a mitzvah that applies to chayot, not beheimot
- יוֹם טוֹב = A Festival — carrying or digging earth is permitted only for a definite obligation
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
If the koy’s mother is a doe, everyone should treat it as a wild animal and cover the blood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּתַיִישׁ הַבָּא עַל הַצְּבִיָּיה וְיָלְדָה, בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן בֵּין לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – לִשְׁחוֹט וְלִיכַסֵּי, צְבִי וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת צְבִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the mishna’s koy is the offspring of a goat who mated with a doe, the mother is a deer — and on everyone’s view species follows the mother at least in part: the koy is at minimum partially a deer (‘a deer, even a partial deer’). Its blood should require covering, and one should be permitted to slaughter it on the Festival and cover the blood outright. The mishna’s hesitation is inexplicable in this case.
Key Terms:
- צְבִי וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת צְבִי = ‘A deer — even a partial deer’ — the mirror-image of the partial-seh rule, applied to kisui hadam
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
And if the mother is a goat, each side should rule definitively — cover, or do not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה וְיָלְדָה, אִי לְרַבָּנַן – לִשְׁחוֹט וְלִיכַסֵּי, אִי לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – לִשְׁחוֹט וְלָא לִיכַסֵּי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The alternative fares no better. If the koy is the offspring of a deer who mated with a female goat: according to the Rabanan, who reckon with the deer father, the koy is partially wild — slaughter it and cover the blood. According to Rabbi Eliezer, who ignores the father, it is simply a goat — slaughter it and do not cover. Either way the mishna should rule definitively; its refusal to allow the slaughter ab initio fits neither confident position.
Key Terms:
- לִשְׁחוֹט וְלִיכַסֵּי = ‘Let him slaughter and cover’ — the definitive ruling the mishna conspicuously avoids
Segment 12
TYPE: אוקימתא
The resolution: the Rabanan themselves are in doubt about paternity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה, וְרַבָּנַן סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ אִי חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב אִי אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concludes: the mishna follows the Rabanan, in the case of a deer who mated with a female goat — and the Rabanan are not certain that paternity counts; they are in doubt (safukei mesapka lehu). Hence the double stringency: one may not slaughter the koy on Yom Tov ab initio, lest the covering not be obligatory and the digging be a needless violation; and if one slaughtered, one does not cover on the Festival, lest the mitzvah not apply. The Rabanan’s ‘concern’ for the father’s seed is literally that — a concern, not a conviction.
Key Terms:
- סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ = ‘They are in doubt’ — the Rabanan’s position on paternity is an unresolved uncertainty
- לְעוֹלָם = ‘Actually’ — the formula introducing the sustained reading
Segment 13
TYPE: דיוק
The inference: if the Rabanan are in doubt, Rabbi Eliezer must be certain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִדִּלְרַבָּנַן מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ, לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
From the resolution a symmetry is inferred: since the Rabanan’s inclusion of the koy in oto v’et beno rests on doubt, Rabbi Eliezer’s exclusion of the koy should rest on certainty — he is sure that paternity is irrelevant, so the koy is purely her mother’s child and outside the prohibition. This tidy picture — doubtful Rabanan, certain Rabbi Eliezer — is about to be tested against a third source.
Key Terms:
- מִדְּ… מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ = ‘From the fact that they are in doubt…’ — the inference assigning certainty to Rabbi Eliezer
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא מברייתא
The matnot kehunah baraita: the priestly gifts apply to koy and kilayim — with Rabbi Eliezer exempting the koy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה נוֹהֲגִים בְּכוֹי וּבְכִלְאַיִם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִן הָעֵז וּמִן הָרָחֵל – חַיָּיב בְּמַתָּנוֹת, מִן הַכּוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita about the priestly gifts (Devarim 18:3) is brought: the foreleg, jaw, and maw (zeroa, lechayayim, keivah) must be given from a koy and from kilayim; Rabbi Eliezer says the goat-ewe hybrid is obligated, but from a koy one is exempt. The gifts apply to domesticated animals (‘shor o seh’), not to wild ones — so each opinion must again be located in a specific parentage of the koy.
Key Terms:
- הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה = The foreleg, the jaw, and the maw — the gifts from every slaughtered non-sacred beheimah given to a kohen (Devarim 18:3)
- מַתָּנוֹת = The priestly gifts
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
If the mother is a doe: Rabbi Eliezer’s exemption is coherent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּתַיִישׁ הַבָּא עַל הַצְּבִיָּיה וְיַלְדָּה, בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּפָטַר, קָסָבַר ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Test the goat-father, doe-mother case first for Rabbi Eliezer. His exemption works perfectly: he holds no partial-seh rule, and if paternity is ignored, the koy is solely the offspring of a doe — a wild animal, from which no priestly gifts are due. So far, this parentage seems viable for his position.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא = ‘Granted’ — the formula conceding that one side of the analysis is coherent
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
But the Rabanan collapse in that case: the owner can demand proof for the paternal half
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, נְהִי דְּקָסָבְרִי ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״, בִּשְׁלָמָא פַּלְגָא לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ, אִידַּךְ פַּלְגָא לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי רְאָיָיה דְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, וּשְׁקוֹל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabanan, however, cannot obligate this koy in gifts. Grant them the partial-seh rule — at most that reaches the goat father’s half. For the mother’s half the owner tells the kohen: bring proof that paternity counts, and take it. Since the burden of proof rests on the claimant, the kohen collects at most half — yet the baraita says the koy simply ‘is obligated.’ The doe-mother case must therefore be wrong.
Key Terms:
- אַיְיתִי רְאָיָיה וּשְׁקוֹל = ‘Bring proof and take’ — the owner keeps the doubtful portion until the claimant proves his right
- פַּלְגָא = Half — the maximum the kohen could claim in the doubtful case
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
If the mother is a goat: the Rabanan’s ‘obligated’ means half-gifts — but Rabbi Eliezer should obligate in full
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה וְיָלְדָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי ״חַיָּיב״ – בַּחֲצִי מַתָּנוֹת; אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, לִיחַיַּיב בְּכוּלְּהִי מַתָּנוֹת?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
So reverse the parentage: deer father, goat mother. Now the Rabanan work perfectly: ‘obligated’ means obligated in half the gifts — the goat-mother’s half is certain, and for the father’s half the owner says to the kohen: bring proof that paternity does not count, and take it. But Rabbi Eliezer collapses: if he is certain that only the mother matters, the koy is simply a goat — he should obligate the owner in all the gifts. Why does he exempt entirely?
Key Terms:
- חַיָּיב בַּחֲצִי מַתָּנוֹת = Obligated in half the gifts — the certain maternal half only
- לִיחַיַּיב בְּכוּלְּהִי = ‘Let him be obligated in all of them’ — the challenge to Rabbi Eliezer’s total exemption
Segment 18
TYPE: אוקימתא וקושיא
The final turn: Rabbi Eliezer too is in doubt — so what do they disagree about?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה וְיָלְדָה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב אוֹ לָא, וְכֵיוָן דִּלְרַבָּנַן מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ וּלְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s answer dismantles the earlier symmetry: in the deer-father, goat-mother case, Rabbi Eliezer is also in doubt about whether paternity counts. His ‘exemption’ from the gifts is the practical posture of doubt — the owner holds the property, and the kohen cannot extract without proof. But now both camps stand in identical uncertainty, and the amud closes on the obvious question: if the Rabanan are in doubt and Rabbi Eliezer is in doubt, in what do they actually disagree? The resolution waits for the next daf.
Key Terms:
- סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ = ‘He is in doubt’ — Rabbi Eliezer’s position, like the Rabanan’s, rests on uncertainty
- בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי = ‘About what do they disagree?’ — the closing question, carried into daf 80