חולין 79 — Soncino English Talmud

¹According to Hananiah, however, [the implication of the verse is this]: It says: ‘it’, which indicates the male parent, and it also says: ‘its young’, which relates to that parent to whom the young clings; hence it is clear that the law applies both to the male and female parent. R. Huna b. Hiyya said in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in accordance with Hananiah's view. Moreover, Samuel is consistent in his opinion. For we have learnt: R. Judah says. The offspring of a mare, even though their sire was an ass, are permitted [to interbreed]; but the offspring of a she-ass may not [interbreed] with the offspring of a mare. But Rab Judah had stated in the name of Samuel that this was the view of R. Judah only. who maintained that we do not take into consideration the seed of the male parent, the Sages however say. All mules are one kind. Who is meant by the ‘Sages’? It is Hananiah, who maintains that we must take into consideration the seed of the male parent; accordingly the one is the offspring of a mare and an ass-stallion and the other is the offspring of a she-ass and a horse, but they are both one kind. The question was raised: Was R. Judah certain that we do not take into consideration the seed of the male parent or was he in doubt about it? What practical difference would this make? — On the question of permitting the offspring to breed with the [species of the] dam. If you say that he [R. Judah] was certain of it, then the offspring is permitted to breed with the [species of the] dam; but if you say that he was in doubt about it, then it is forbidden for the offspring to breed with the [species of the] dam. What [is to be said about this]? — Come and hear. R. Judah says. All the offspring of a mare, even though their sire was an ass, are permitted to interbreed. Now what are the circumstances of the case? If you say that the sire of this offspring was an ass-stallion and of that also an ass-stallion; then was it necessary to state this? You must therefore say that the sire of this offspring was a horse and of that an ass-stallion, and [R. Judah] declares that they may interbreed, hence is it clear that he [R. Judah] was certain about it! — It is not so. I still say that the sire of this offspring was an ass-stallion and of that also an ass-stallion, and as to your retort, ‘Was it necessary to state this?’ [I reply that] you might have argued that the horse in the one copulates with the ass in the other, and the ass in the one copulates with the horse in the other; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. Come and hear: R. Judah says: If a mule was on heat it may not be mated with a horse or an ass, but only with one of its own kind. Now if you say that [R. Judah] was certain about it, why may it not be mated with the species of its dam? — Because we know not the species of its dam. But it says ‘Only with one of its own kind’! — It means this: It may not be mated with any kind of horse or any kind of ass, because we do not know its true species. Then let us examine it by the following signs? For Abaye has stated: If its voice is harsh, it is the offspring of a she-ass; if its voice is shrill, it is the offspring of a mare. And R. Papa has stated: If its ears are long and its tail short, it is the offspring of a she-ass; if its ears are short and its tail long, it is the offspring of a mare! — We must suppose here that it was dumb and mutilated. What has been decided then? — Come and hear: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: All agree that the offspring is forbidden to breed with the dam. Hence it is clear that [R. Judah] was in doubt about it. This proves it. R. Abba said to his servant, ‘When you harness the mules to my carriage see that they are very like each other and then harness them’. This shows that he is of the opinion that we do not take into consideration the seed of the male parent;16^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:So MS.M. Cur. edd., the law is t,fkv.
^ᵇnote:Or ‘be yoked together’. V. Kil. VIII, 4.
^ᶜnote:I.e., it is the female parent only which determines the species of the offspring, irrespective of the species of the sire; therefore, the offspring of a mare may not interbreed with the offspring of a she-ass. For the prohibition, cf. Lev. XIX. 19.
^ᵈnote:Since each is the offspring of a horse and an ass, whether the one is a mule and the other a hinny, they may interbreed. The fact that Samuel gives this view of Hananiah as that of the Sages proves that he accepts it as the halachah.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘fruit’, Heb. hrp in MS.M. the word is srp, ‘mule’. The question is whether a mule, the offspring of a mare and an ass-stallion, may breed with a mare.
^ᶠnote:Since from the aspect of the male parent the offspring is an ass, it may not interbreed with a mare.
^ᵍnote:Since the offspring are alike, in that each is half horse on the maternal side and half ass on the paternal side, they may certainly interbreed, whether we take into consideration the seed of the male parent or not.
^ʰnote:In each case, however, the dam was a mare.
^ⁱnote:That we do not take into consideration the seed of the male parent; that is to say, it is only the female parent that determines the species of the offspring, and the species of the sire is immaterial.
^ʲnote:Since each offspring is half horse and half ass, it might be argued that in copulation the half horse in the one unites with the half ass in the other, and vice versa, hence there is breeding of diverse kinds which would be forbidden.
^ᵏnote:And if we do not know the species of its dam with what kind can this mule be mated?
^ˡnote:Whether thoroughbred or mule.
^ᵐnote:But if the species of the dam were known this mule could be mated with one of that species.
^ⁿnote:I.e., it could not utter any sound and its tail and ears were cut off. It is therefore impossible to examine the mule by the abovementioned criteria.
^ᵒnote:In the matter of ears and tail.
^ᵖnote:For if we did take into account the seed of the male he would not have been so meticulous about the mules that were to be harnessed since each is part horse and part ass.

²and also that the [aforementioned] signs are [reliable by] Biblical law. Our Rabbis taught: [The law of] ‘It and its young’ applies to a hybrid and a koy. R. Eliezer says. 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 its young’ does not apply. R. Hisda said: What is the koy about which R. Eliezer and the Rabbis differ? It is the offspring of a he-goat and a hind. What are the circumstances? 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 . . . and its young, and not ‘a hind and its young’. 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’. [it implies any offspring] whatever it is! — 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]. 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. 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. 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? — If they were to differ on that issue only. 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]. Consider then the following case. We have learnt: A person may not slaughter a koy on a festival, and if he did slaughter it he may not cover up its blood. Now of what [koy] are we speaking here? 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. 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, and according to R. Eliezer he may slaughter it [on the festival] and need not cover the blood! — 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. It follows, does it not, that since the Rabbis are undecided on this point. R. Eliezer has no doubts at all about it? Consider then the following case. It was taught: The law of The shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw applies to a koy and to a hybrid. R. Eliezer says. A hybrid, the offspring of a goat and a ewe, is subject to these dues; a koy is not subject to these dues. Now of what [koy] are we speaking here? 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 that which is a sheep in part only. 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 one half [of the dues] and even as regards the other half he could say to him, ‘Bring proof that we take into consideration the seed of the male parent and then you shall have it’. 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. But according to R. Eliezer it ought to be subject to the whole of the dues! — 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. But if the Rabbis are undecided about it and R. Eliezer too is undecided, wherein do they differ? —^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵠnote: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).
^ʳnote: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.
^ˢnote: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.
^ᵗnote:Lev. XXII, 28.
^ᵘnote:Even though its sire was of a different species.
^ᵛnote:The female young, therefore, by reason of its sire, is partly a sheep, and the law of ‘It and its young’ applies to it.
^ʷnote: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.
^ˣnote: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.
^ʸnote:Introducing a second issue, namely, whether or not the term ‘sheep’ includes a sheep in part.
^ᶻnote:Bez. 8a.
^ᵃᵃnote: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.
^ᵃᵇnote: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.).
^ᵃᶜnote: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.
^ᵃᵈnote: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.
^ᵃᵉnote: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.
^ᵃᶠnote:R. Eliezer is convinced in his view that the seed of the male is of no consequence.
^ᵃᵍnote: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.
^ᵃʰnote:Moreover, according to R. Eliezer, this koy is entirely a deer for he holds that we ignore the seed of the male parent.
^ᵃⁱnote:Sc. The priest.
^ᵃʲnote: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.
^ᵃᵏnote:That half of the dues which represents the male parent, i.e., the goat.
^ᵃˡnote: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.