חולין 80 — Soncino English Talmud

¹They differ in this: whether or not the term ‘sheep’ includes that which is a sheep in part only. The Rabbis maintain that the term ‘sheep’ includes even that which is a sheep in part only, whereas R. Eliezer maintains that the term ‘sheep’ does not include that which is a sheep in part only. Therefore, 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. — 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. With regard to the law of ‘It and its young’ the dispute can arise both where a he-goat covered a hind and where a hart covered a she-goat. The dispute in the case where a he-goat covered a hind is as to [whether there is any] prohibition [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; 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]. 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. ‘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 part only. Rab Judah said: A koy is a separate creature but the Rabbis have not decided whether it belongs to the class of wild animals or cattle. R. Nahman said: A koy is a wild ram. Tannaim also differ about it, for it was taught: A koy is a wild ram. Others say: It is the offspring of a he-goat and a hind. R. Jose says. A koy is a separate creature but the Rabbis have not decided whether it belongs to the class of wild animals or cattle. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says. It is a species of cattle and the house of Dushai used to breed herds and herds of them. R. Zera said in the name of R. Safra who reported it in the name of R. Hamnuna: Forest goats are fit for the altar. He is of the same view as R. Isaac who said. Scripture has enumerated ten species of animals [that may be eaten], and no more. Now si nce these [forest goats] are not reckoned among the wild animals mentioned, it follows that they are of the species of goats. R. Aha b. Jacob demurred, [saying]. Perhaps we should say that ‘the hart and the gazelle [etc.]’ are particular terms, and every beast is a general proposition [which includes these particulars]. hence we have an enumeration of particulars followed by a general proposition in which case the scope of the proposition extends beyond the kinds specified. Thus there are many [animals that may be eaten although not enumerated in the Torah]! — If so, what is the purpose of the enumeration of all these particulars? R. Aha the son of R. Ika demurred, [saying:] Perhaps they [the forest goats] are included within the class Akko. R. Aba the son of Raba said to R. Ashi (others say: R. Aha the son of R. Awia said to R. Ashi). Perhaps they are included within the class Teo or Zemer. R. Hanan said to R. Ashi: Amemar permitted the fat of these [forest goats to be eaten]. Abba the son of R. Minjamin b. Hiyya enquired of R. Huna b. Hiyya. What is the law with regard to [the offering of] these forest goats upon the altar? — He replied. It was only with regard to the wild ox that R. Jose disagreed with the Rabbis, for we have learnt: The ‘wild ox’ is a species of cattle. R. Jose says. It is a species of wild animal. [And their arguments are these:] the Rabbis maintain, since the Targum 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. R. Aha the son of R. Ika demurred: Perhaps they are included within the class Akko! Rabina said to R. Ashi: Perhaps they are included within the class Teo or Zemer. R. Hanan said to R. Ashi: Amemar permitted the fat of these [to be eaten]. THUS, IF ONE PERSON SLAUGHTERED etc. R. Oshaia said: Our entire Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Simeon. 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. Now let us consider. We know that according to R. Simeon a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering. 17^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote: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.
^ᵇnote: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.
^ᶜnote:To slaughter the koy and its dam both on the same day.
^ᵈnote: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.
^ᵉnote:I.e., a distinct species of animal and not a hybrid, the offspring of a deer and a goat, as assumed above.
^ᶠnote:Rashi: goats of the Lebanon.
^ᵍnote: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.
^ʰnote: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 wild goat (uet) and the pygarg and the wild ox (ut,) and the chamois (rnz). These verses enumerate all the cattle and wild beasts that may be eaten.
^ⁱnote:And are therefore fit for sacrifices.
^ʲnote:Ibid. 5, 6.
^ᵏnote:V. p. 446, n. 4.
^ˡnote:For he regarded them as a species of wild animal.
^ᵐnote:This is the traditional identification of ut,.
^ⁿnote:V. Aramaic version of Onkelos ibid. 5.
^ᵒnote:So Bah. Cur. edd.: R. Nahman.
^ᵖnote:Whose view is soon given.
^ᵠnote: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.

²Accordingly as the first [animal] was merely killed the second is acceptable [as an offering] within, and he [who slaughtered it] should also incur the penalty of Kareth. Moreover, it reads: IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE UNCONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, BOTH ANIMALS ARE INVALID, AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES. Let us consider. We know that according to R. Simeon a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering. Accordingly the first [animal] was merely killed; why then should [he who slaughtered] the second have incurred forty stripes? Further, it reads: IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE CONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, THE FIRST IS VALID AND HE [WHO SLAUGHTERED IT IS] NOT CULPABLE, BUT HE WHO SLAUGHTERED THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES AND IT IS INVALID. Let us consider. We know that according to R. Simeon, a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering. Now the slaughtering of a consecrated animal is [by itself] a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit, for so long as the blood has not been sprinkled the flesh is not permitted to be eaten. Why is it then that [he who slaughtered] the second has incurred forty stripes? and why is it invalid? Indeed you may conclude that it is not in agreement with R. Simeon. Is it not obvious it is so? — It was only necessary [to have said it] on account of the clause dealing with the slaughtering of consecrated animals. For you might have submitted that the slaughtering of a consecrated animal is [by itself] a slaughtering which renders fit, for if one were to stab the animal and sprinkle its blood, the flesh would not thereby be permitted to be eaten, whereas if one were to slaughter it, the flesh would thereby be permitted to be eaten, consequently it is a slaughtering which renders the animal fit. He therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. Should he not have incurred stripes also on account of the prohibition of ‘out of time’? For it was taught: Whence do we know that [the offering of] a bullock or a sheep that has any disqualifying defect is a transgression of the prohibition of ‘It shall not be accepted’? From the verse: Either a bullock or a lamb that hath anything too long or too short . . . it shall not be accepted, implying, that [the offering of] a bullock or a sheep that has a disqualifying defect is a transgression of the prohibition of ‘It shall not be accepted’. — He [the Tanna in our Mishnah] only reckons the prohibition of ‘It and its young’, but not other prohibitions. Surely it is not so! For is not the slaughtering of a consecrated animal outside the Sanctuary another prohibition nevertheless he reckons it? For it says. IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE CONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY, [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE FIRST INCURS THE PENALTY OF KARETH, AND EACH INCURS FORTY STRIPES. The second one, I grant you, on account of the prohibition of ‘It and its young’; but why does the first one incur forty stripes if not on account of the prohibition of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Sanctuary? — Wherever there is no prohibition of ‘It and its young’ he then reckons other prohibitions, but wherever there is a prohibition of ‘It and its young’ he does not reckon other prohibitions. R. Zera answered: Leave alone the prohibition of ‘Out of time’, for Scripture^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ʳnote:Since the slaughtering of a consecrated animal outside the Sanctuary, although involving the penalty of Kareth, is not regarded as a slaughtering but a killing, its young may be slaughtered on the same day; consequently the second consecrated animal was fit for a sacrifice, and he who slaughtered it outside the Sanctuary should indeed have incurred Kareth.
^ˢnote:As the slaughtering of the first animal was no slaughtering, the second is not under the disability of inz rxujn, ‘too young’, and it is valid for sacrifice, and he who slaughters it most certainly does not incur stripes.
^ᵗnote:The one who slaughtered the second consecrated animal in the Sanctuary.
^ᵘnote:Since one animal has been slaughtered the second is ‘out of time’ and unfit for a sacrifice on that day, and he who slaughters as a sacrifice that which is unfit for a sacrifice incurs the penalty of stripes. V. Tem. 6b.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XXII, 23.
^ʷnote:For which the penalty of stripes is incurred.