Chullin — Daf 78b

זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר שה אינו אלא להוציא את הכלאים אמר קרא או לרבות את הכלאים

האי או מיבעי ליה לחלק דס"ד אמינא עד דשחיט שור ובנו שה ובנו לא מיחייב קמ"ל לחלק מבנו נפקא

ואכתי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא אילו נאמר שור ושה ובנו הייתי אומר עד שישחוט שור ושה ובנו ת"ל (ויקרא כב, כח) שור או שה אותו ואת בנו מאי לאו מאו נפקא ליה לא מאותו

הניחא לרבנן דמייתר להו אותו אלא לחנניה דלא מייתר ליה אותו לחלק מנא ליה לחלק לא צריך קרא דסבר לה כר' יונתן

דתניא (ויקרא כ, ט) איש אשר יקלל את אביו ואת אמו אין לי אלא אביו ואמו אביו שלא אמו ואמו שלא אביו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כ, ט) אביו ואמו קלל אביו קלל אמו קלל דברי ר' יאשיה

ר' יונתן אומר משמע שניהם כאחד ומשמע אחד בפני עצמו עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב יחדו

מאי חנניה ומאי רבנן דתניא אותו ואת בנו נוהג בנקבות ואינו נוהג בזכרים חנניה אומר נוהג בין בזכרים ובין בנקבות

מ"ט דרבנן דתניא יכול יהא אותו ואת בנו נוהג בין בזכרים ובין בנקבות ודין הוא חייב כאן וחייב באם על הבנים מה כשחייב באם על הבנים בנקבות ולא בזכרים אף כשחייב כאן בנקבות ולא בזכרים

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

ת"ל אותו א' ולא ב' אחר שחלק הכתוב זכיתי לדין חייב כאן וחייב באם על הבנים 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

This1 verse establishes the rule that wherever ‘sheep’ is stated the hybrid is excluded! — Since the verse states ‘or’,2 it includes the hybrid. But is not ‘or’ necessary to indicate disjunction?3 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, it4 therefore teaches us [that it is not so]! — Disjunction is indicated in the expression ‘its young’.5 But it4 is still necessary for the following [teaching]. It was taught: Had Scripture stated: ‘An ox and a sheep and its young [ye shall not kill]’. 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. And whether it be an ox or a sheep, ye shall not kill it and its young. Now presumably [this teaching] is derived from the expression ‘or’! — No, it is derived from the expression ‘it’ [and its young’]. This is well according to the Rabbis — who regard ‘it’ as superfluous;6 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. For it was taught: For any man that curseth his father and his mother [shall surely be put to death]:7 from this I know only [that he is liable for cursing] his father and his mother;8 [if he curses] his father and not his mother, or his mother and not his father, whence do I know [that he is liable]? Because it also says. His father and his mother he hath cursed;7 that is, he has cursed his father, he has cursed his mother:9 so R. Josiah. R. Jonathan says. It may imply both together or each separately, unless the verse expressly states ‘together’.10 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.11 Hananiah says: It applies both to the male and female parent. 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 here12 and there is also a prohibition with regard to ‘The dam with the young’;13 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. But [it will be retorted] it is not so; for you may say this14 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;15 can you then say this of ‘It and its young’, seeing that [it has not this distinctiveness, for] the law places upon the same footing beasts that are at one's disposal and beasts that are not at one's disposal?16 The verse therefore states ‘it’,17 that is, it refers to one [parent] and not to both. Since therefore Scripture discriminates [between the parents]. 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;18 thus excluding the male parent to whom the young does not cling! (What is meant by. ‘But if you desire to say anything against this’? — If you say that ‘it’19 indicates the male parent. 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.) animals, either the ox or the sheep. ‘he hath cursed’ is in immediate proximity to ‘his mother’; thus showing that he who curses either parent is liable. as a conjunction, the word ‘together’, usjh is added; e.g., Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together (Deut. XXII, 10). of consequence, v. infra. eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young. and wild, but not to birds that are at one's disposal, ready at hand, i.e., captive birds; v. infra 138b. confined within one's close.