Previous daf

1)

(a) When Shmuel rules like Chananya, we comment - that Shmuel follows his own reasoning elsewhere.

(b) We are referring to his statement with regard to a Mishnah in Kilayim, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that breeding a mule whose mother is a horse ...

1. ... but whose father is a donkey with an animal similar to itself - is permitted (because whether he holds 'Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av' or not, the two animals are of exactly the same species).
2. ... with one whose mother is a donkey - is forbidden, because he holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av'.

(c) Shmuel commented on this Mishnah - that is the individual opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, but that, according to the Chachamim, who hold 'Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av' (like Chananya), both cases are permitted.

(d) Since Shmuel refers to Chananya as the Chachamim - it is clear that this is what he considers the Halachah.

(a) We ask whether Rebbi Yehudah actually holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av' or whether it is only a Safek by him. The ramifications of the She'eilah are - whether one is permitted to breed a mule with its mother the horse (which will be permitted if he holds 'Ein Chosheshin', but forbidden if he is only in a Safek).

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa where Rebbi Yehudah says 'Kol ha'Noladin min ha'Sus, Af-al-Pi she'Avihen Chamor, Mutarin Zeh ba'Zeh'. We think that he must be speaking about regular horses with babies from mules whose fathers are donkeys (even though the Lashon does not imply that), a proof that he holds for sure 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av' - because otherwise, what is he coming to teach us?

(c) We answer that Rebbi Yehudah is indeed speaking when all the animals are born from horses whose fathers are donkeys, and what's more, he holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av', and what he is coming to teach us is - that even if we do contend with the seed of the father, we do not suspect that the seed of the horse of one combines with the seed of the donkey of the other and is therefore forbidden ...

(d) ... because what happens is that the two seeds mix, creating a new species, which is identical in both cases.

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah forbids providing either a horse or a donkey to a she-mule that wants to mate - only a mule.

(b) ... an apparent proof - that he is uncertain whether 'Chosheshin ... ' or 'Ein Chosheshin' (because otherwise why not give it whichever animal is of the same as its mother?).

(c) We answer that the owner does not know whether the mule was born from a horse or from a donkey, and what Rebbi Yehudah means when he says 'Ela Miynah' is - that one may provide it neither with an animal whose mother is a horse, nor one whose mother is a donkey, since the owner does not know what its mother was.

(d) Despite the clear Simanim regarding the voice, the ears and the tail (as we are about to explain), it is possible that the owner does not know what the mule's father was - because Rebbi Yehudah is speaking about a mule which is dumb, and whose ears and tail have been severed.

(a) The distinction that ...

1. ... Abaye draws between the voice of a mule whose father is a donkey and one whose father is a horse is - that the former is thick, and the latter resonant.
2. ... Rav Papa draws between the length of the ears and tail of a mule whose father is a donkey and one whose father is a horse is - that the former has long ears and a short tail, whereas the latter has short ears and a long tail.

(b) The significance of 'Tzanif Kaleih', the Lashon used by Abaye to describe the voice of a horse is - that 'Tzanif' is actually a derivative of the word for the neighing of a horse.

(c) We resolve our She'eilah from a statement by Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, in whose opinion everyone agrees - that it is forbidden to breed a mule whose father is a donkey, with its own mother, as we learned earlier, assuming that Rebbi Yehudah holds that 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av' is only a Safek by him.

(a) Rebbi Aba instructed his servant that when the latter went to look for mules to hitch on to his (Rebbi Aba's) wagon - he should choose mules that had the same Simanim (regarding the voice, the ears and the tails) ...

(b) ... in which case Rebbi Aba must hold - 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av'.

(c) And we also prove from there that Simanim are d'Oraysa - because if they were only de'Rabbanan, what right would the Rabbanan have to create an institution that circumvents an Isur d'Oraysa (i.e. of Kil'ayim)?

(d) There would there be no problem in circumventing the Isur of Geneivah (by giving back a lost article to someone who may not be the owner, by means of Simanim) - because the Rabbanan have the power of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' (declaring a person's property Hefker, where necessary).

6)

(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa incorporates both Kil'ayim and a Coy in the Isur of 'Oso ve'es B'no'. The former is - a baby born from two different Beheimos (i.e. a goat and a sheep), whereas the latter is one that is born from a Beheimah and a Chayah (e.g. a goat and a deer).

(b) We might we have thought that a Coy is different than Kil'ayim - since the Pasuk in Emor (in the Parshah of 'Oso ve'es B'no') mentions "Shor O Kesev O Eiz", but not Tzvi ve'Ayal.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer indeed rules - that 'Oso ve'es B'no' applies to Kil'ayim, but not to a Coy.

(a) Rav Chisda establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan - by a Coy that is born from a goat and a deer.

(b) The significance of Rav Chisda's statement is - that this is considered a Coy, as others define a Coy as an independent species, as we shall see on the following Daf.

(c) Rav Chisda cannot be referring to Shechting the baby born to ...

1. ... a deer but whose father is a goat, on the same day as its mother, since Rav Chisda himself said - that everyone agrees that in such a case, the Isur of 'Oso ve'es B'no' does not apply (because the Torah writes "Seh", as we explained).
2. ... a goat but whose father is a deer, on the same day as its mother because there he says - that everyone agrees that it does (as we will explain shortly).

(a) We therefore re-establish the case with regard to Shechting the female child of a deer, but whose father is a goat. And the case is with regard to Shechting it (not on the same day as its mother, but) on the same day as its own child, to which it subsequently gave birth.

(b) The two points that form the basis of the Rabbanan's opinion are - 1. 'Choshesshin le'Zera ha'Av' which is a sheep), and 2. "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh' (in which case it is forbidden to Shecht an animal whose father is a Beheimah, on the same day as its child, even though both it and its child are Chayos).

(c) It does not matter that the child is a Chayah (and not one of the Beheimos listed in the Torah) - as long as the mother is at least partially a Beheimah (since the Torah only mentions the name of the species ["Shor, O Chesev ... "] with regard to the mother, whereas with regard to the child, it only writes "B'no").

(d) Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av', in which case the Darshen "Seh", va'Afilu Miktzas Seh' is not relevant.

(a) Despite the fact that their basic Machlokes is whether we say 'Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av' or not, Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan prefer to argue over the current case ('Oso ve'es B'no' by Kil'ayim) than over whether it applies to the father or not (like Chananya and the Rabbanan) - because we would have then said that in the current case, even the Rabbanan will concede that it does not, because they do not hold "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh'.

(b) The Mishnah in Bikurim forbids the Shechitah of a Coy on Yom-Tov - because, seeing as a Coy is a Safek Beheimah, one will not be able to fulfill the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam (since it involves digging a hole on Yom-Tov), and the Mitzvah is confined to a Chayah.

(c) In a case where one nevertheless Shechted it, the Tana rules - that one should leave its blood uncovered.

(d) The problem with establishing the Mishnah by a Coy whose mother is a ...

1. ... deer, but whose father is a goat is - that according to both Tana'im, one ought to be able to both Shecht it and cover the blood on Yom-Tov, since the mother is a deer, and everyone agrees that we contend with the mother. And even if we also contend with the father, we will say "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh' (even according to Rebbi Eliezer).
2. ... goat, but whose father is a deer - according to the Rabbanan, one should be permitted to Shecht and to cover the blood (as we explained), whereas according to Rebbi Eliezer, one ought to be permitted to Shecht, and Patur from covering the blood.

(a) So we establish it like the latter case (by a Coy whose mother is a goat, but whose father is a deer). The reason that, according to the Rabbanan, one cannot Shecht it on Yom-Tov and cover the blood (like we just asked) is - because they only hold 'Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av' mi'Safek (le'Chumra, but not le'Kula [like Rebbi Yehudah]).

(b) If that is what the Rabbanan hold (in connection with their Machlokes with Rebbi Eliezer regarding 'Oso ve'es B'no'), then Rebbi Eliezer, we initially assume, must hold - 'Ein Chosheshin ... '.

(a) The same Tana'im also argue in a Beraisa, over the Mitzvah of Matanos (i.e. Zero'a, Lechayayim and Keivah). Both agree that an animal of Kil'ayim is subject to Matanos. The Rabbanan - include a Coy in the Din of Matanos, whereas Rebbi Eliezer precludes it.

(b) If we establish the Beraisa by a Coy whose mother is a deer but whose father is a goat, there is no problem with establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer - because he holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av', in which case there is not even Miktzas Seh (as we explained above).

(c) We do however, have a problem, if the author is the Rabbanan, who when they rule that a Coy is subject to Matanos, must mean - half the Matanos, due to the S'vara of 'Miktzas Seh'.

(d) And the problem with the half that is Chayav is - that seeing as they only hold 'Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av' mi'Safek, even that half ought to be Patur, because of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah'.

(a) So we establish the Beraisa - by a Coy whose mother is a goat but whose father is a deer.

(b) There is no problem according to the Rabbanan - because the owner is Chayav half the Matanos, as we explained.

(c) On the other hand, the problem with Rebbi Eliezer, who holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av', is - that the owner ought to be Chayav to give the Kohen the full quota of Matanos.

(d) So we conclude that Rebbi Eliezer, like the Rabbanan, holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av', but only mi'Safek, and the basis of their Machlokes with regard to 'Oso ve'es B'no' (where the Rabbanan say 'Noheg bi'K'vi', and Rebbi Eliezer, 'Eino Noheg') is - whether we say "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh' (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Eliezer).

(a) Consequently, Kisuy ha'Dam and Matanos both speak in the case of a Coy whose mother is a goat but whose father is a deer, and their Machlokes in both cases is whether we say "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh' (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Eliezer), like we just explained. Regarding 'Oso ve'es B'no', we conclude, they argue in both possible scenarios. In the case of a Coy whose mother is ...

1. ... a deer, and his father, a goat, they are arguing over - whether the deer and its child are subject to the Isur of 'Oso ve'es B'no' or not.
2. ... a goat, and his father, a deer, they are arguing over - whether one will receive Malkos for Shechting them both on the same day or not.

(b) In the former case, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan, one does not receive Malkos - because perhaps we hold 'Ein Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av'.
2. ... Rebbi Eliezer, one may even Shecht the two animals Lechatchilah - because he does not hold ''Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh'.

(c) And the latter case is ...

1. ... subject to Malkos according to the Rabbanan - because even if we say 'Chosheshin ... ', they hold "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh', in which case, the Shochet is Chayav whatever the case.
2. ... not subject to Malkos, according to Rebbi Eliezer - because maybe we hold 'Chosheshin ... ', and he does not hold "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh'.

(d) One does not receive Malkos - because it is a Hasra'as Safek, and we have a principle that 'Hasra'as Safek Lo Sh'mah Hasra'ah'.