1) WHOM DOES THE HALACHAH FOLLOW?

(a) (Shmuel): The Halachah follows Chananyah.
1. This is consistent with another teaching of Shmuel.
(b) (Mishnah – R. Yehudah): One may work or mate together offspring of a female horse, even if the fathers were donkeys;
(c) A mule born from a (female) horse is forbidden with one born from a (female) donkey.
1. (Shmuel): This is R. Yehudah’s opinion – he holds, we are not concerned for the seed of the father; Chachamim say, all mules are one species (and are permitted with each other.)
2. Question: Who are the Chachamim he refers to?
3. Answer: He refers to Chananyah, who says that we are concerned for the seed of the father;
i. Every mule is a half-donkey, half-horse.
2) THE OPINION OF R. YEHUDAH
(a) Question: Is R. Yehudah certain that we are not concerned for the seed of the father, or is he in doubt?
1. If he is certain, even a hybrid child is the same species as its mother, and is permitted with its mother’s species;
2. If he is in doubt, a hybrid child is forbidden with its mother’s species.
(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah – R. Yehudah): One may work or mate together offspring of a female horse, even if the fathers were donkeys.
1. Question: What is the case?
i. If the fathers of both offspring were donkeys, there is no need to teach that they are permitted together!
2. Answer: Rather, a mule from a female horse is permitted with the child of two horses – this shows that R. Yehudah is certain.
(c) Rejection: Really, the fathers of both offspring were donkeys;
1. One might have thought that they are forbidden together, because we view it the donkey side of each animal like (working or mating with) the horse side of the other – he teaches that this is not so.
(d) Answer #2 (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): If a mule desires to mate, we may not mate it with a horse or donkey, only with its own kind.
1. If R. Yehudah was certain, he should permit mating it with its mother’s species!
2. Rejection: The case is, we do not know what its mother was.
3. Question: But the Beraisa says, we may (only) mate it with its own kind, implying that we know what its mother was!
4. Answer: The Beraisa means, because we do not know what its mother was, we may not mate it with a horse nor with a donkey, since it may only be mated with its own kind.
5. Objection: There are signs to tell what a mule’s mother was!
i. (Abaye): If it has a thick voice, its mother was a horse; if not, it was born to a donkey.
ii. (Rav Papa): A mule from a (female) donkey has big ears and a small tail, a mule born from a horse is vice-versa.
6. Answer: The case is, the mule lost its ears and tail and is mute (so we cannot determine the mother.)
(e) Answer #3 (Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua): All agree that a mule is forbidden with its mother.
1. We conclude, R. Yehudah was in doubt.
(f) R. Aba told his servant, if you lead my wagon with mules, check that they have the same mothers.
(g) Inference: He holds that we are not concerned for the seed of the father; he also holds that we may rely on the signs given.
79b—————————————79b
3) “OSO V’ES BENO” WHEN SLAUGHTERING “KIL’AYIM”

(a) (Koy is a Kosher animal, it is not known whether it is a Chayah or Behemah. Our Sugya discusses Koyimborn from a goat and deer.)
(b) Beraisa): Oso v’Es Beno applies to Kil’ayim and to a Koy;
(c) R. Eliezer says, it applies to Kil’ayim born from a goat and sheep, but not to a Koy.
(d) (Rav Chisda): They refer to a Koy born from a male goat and a female deer.
(e) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: Such a Koy had a child, and one slaughtered the Koy and its child on the same day.
2. Rejection: Rav Chisda said, in such a case all agree that he is exempt!
i. The Torah forbids a Seh and its child, not a deer and its child.
(f) Answer #1: Rather, a Koy from a male deer and a female goat had a child; the Koy and its child were slaughtered on the same day.
(g) Rejection: Rav Chisda said, in such a case all agree that he is liable!
1. The Torah forbids a Seh and its child, no matter what the child is!
(h) Answer #2: Really, a male goat and a female deer had a daughter, and the daughter had a son; the daughter and her son were slaughtered on the same day.
1. Chachamim are Mechayev – we are concerned for the seed of the father, the Torah forbids a Seh and its son, even a partial Seh;
2. R. Eliezer exempts – we are not concerned for the seed of the father, so the Koy is not even a partial Seh.
(i) Question: Why don’t they (directly) argue in the case of Chananyah and Chachamim, whether or not we are concerned for the seed of the father?
(j) Answer: If so, one might have thought that Chachamim would exempt in our case, we would not know that the Torah forbids even a partial Seh.
(k) (The following question is based on the final understanding of a Mishnah.)
(l) Question (Mishnah): One may not slaughter a Koy on Yom Tov (perhaps it is a Chayah, its blood must be covered; perhaps it is a Behemah, its blood need not (and therefore, on Yom Tov may not) be covered);
1. If it was slaughtered, he may not do Kisuy (cover the blood.)
2. Question: What is the case?
i. Suggestion: The Koy was born from a male goat and a female deer.
ii. Rejection: If so, all would permit to slaughter it and do Kisuy on Yom Tov – Kisuy applies even to a partial deer (Chayah)!
3. Answer #1: Rather, it is the child of a female goat and a male deer.
4. Rejection: If so, all would permit slaughtering it!
i. Chachamim hold that the blood must certainly be covered; R. Eliezer holds, it certainly is exempt!
5. Answer #2: Really, it is the child of a female goat and a male deer; Chachamim are unsure whether or not we are concerned for the seed of the father.
6. Inference: If so, R. Eliezer (who argues) must be certain that we are not concerned for the seed of the father!
7. (Development of question – Beraisa): Matanos (the foreleg, jaw and stomach) of a Koy or (other) hybrids must be given to a Kohen;
8. R. Eliezer says, Matanos must be given from a crossbreed of a goat and sheep, but not from a Koy.
9. Question: What is the case?
10. Answer #1: The Koy is from a male goat and a female deer;
i. R. Eliezer exempts from Matanos, they do not apply to a partial Seh.
11. Rejection: Why would Chachamim obligate?
i. Surely, they do not obligate full Matanos (it is at most a half-Seh);
ii. He should be exempt even from half Matanos, for the Kohen cannot prove that we are concerned for the seed of the father (Chachamim themselves are unsure!)
12. Answer #2: The Koy is from a female goat and a male deer.
13. We understand Chachamim – they obligate half Matanos (since it is at least a half-Seh.)
14. Summation of question: R. Eliezer should obligate full Matanos!
(m) Answer: Really, also R. Eliezer is unsure whether or not we are concerned for the seed of the father.
(n) Question: If so, what do they argue about?
(o) Answer: They argue whether or not a partial Seh is called a Seh – Chachamim say that it is, R. Eliezer says that it is not.