Chullin

They 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,1 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.2 — 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] prohibition3 [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;4 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 creature5 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 goats6 are fit for the altar.7 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.8 Now si nce these [forest goats] are not reckoned among the wild animals mentioned, it follows that they are of the species of goats.9 R. Aha b. Jacob demurred, [saying]. Perhaps we should say that ‘the hart and the gazelle [etc.]’10 are particular terms, and every beast10 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.11 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 Teo11 or Zemer.11 R. Hanan said to R. Ashi: Amemar permitted the fat of these [forest goats to be eaten].12 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 ox13 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 Targum14 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. Hanan15 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.16 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 dispute is as to the significance of the term ‘sheep’ to include, that which is sheep in part only. 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. precede the wrongful act is in this case dubious, since the act might not have been prohibited at all. the altar but not wild animals. 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. 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.