Chulin 79
Summary
- Today’s שיעור begins in מסכת חולין דף עט עמוד א with שמואל ruling הלכתא כחנניה that אותו ואת בנו applies to a father as well, and the שיעור traces how far that ruling extends through ספקות and later cases in כלאים and כוי. The ש"ך permits שחיטה at בין השמשות after slaughtering the father based on ספק ספיקא, while other אחרונים reject that approach because it is a דבר שיש לו מתירים. The גמרא then links disputes about פרדות, זרע האב, and identifying lineage through סימנים, and it develops a three-generation case to define the כוי dispute between רבי אליעזר and חכמים in terms of whether חוששין לזרע האב and whether שה ואפילו מקצת שה applies. The text then shifts to a new שיעור in מסכת בבא מציעא דף ב עמוד א where שנים אוחזין בטלית requires שבועה and חלוקה when claims conflict without עדים or שטר.
- A ruling is stated in the name of רב הונא בר חייא אמר שמואל that הלכתא כחנניה, so אותו ואת בנו applies to the father as well as the mother. A question is raised whether this psak is fully binding or only לחומרא, and the ש"ך applies it to permit שחיטת the offspring at בין השמשות after slaughtering the father because there is a ספק whether the father counts and an additional ספק whether it is already tomorrow. A group of אחרונים rejects the ש"ך’s permissive ruling on the grounds that the case is a דבר שיש לו מתירים, since waiting a short time removes the uncertainty and eliminates the need to act during בין השמשות.
- A פרד is defined as offspring of a horse and a donkey, with the parents possibly reversed, and a משנה in מסכת כלאים is cited: הנולדים מן הסוס אף על פי שאביהן חמור מותרים זה בזה, but הנולדים מן החמור עם הנולדים מן הסוס אסורים. שמואל explains that this reflects רבי יהודה’s view that אין חוששין לזרע אב, while חכמים say כל מיני פרדות אחת הן, and the גמרא identifies these חכמים as חנניה because he holds חיישינן לזרע האב. The text presents the consequence that two mules with opposite parentage are כולא חד מינא נינהו according to the view that both father and mother enter the definition of מין.
- A question is posed about רבי יהודה’s statement אין חיישינן לזרע האב: it may mean the father is never considered, or it may mean the father is considered when doing so is a חומרא while being ignored when it would create a קולא. A test case is given of allowing פרי עם אמו where the mother is a pure horse and the offspring is a mule from a horse mother and donkey father, which becomes a קולא if the father is ignored and a חומרא if the father is considered. A ברייתא of רבי יהודה stating כל הנולד מן הסוס אף על פי שאביו חמור מותרים זה בזה is brought, challenged, and reinterpreted as referring to identical parentage, with a concern raised that mixing “sides” might create a horse-donkey interaction; the conclusion is that the animals are treated as totalities rather than as separable halves.
- A contrast is drawn to the famous case of חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין where the גמרא requires freeing her because she cannot marry a בן חורין or an עבד, and תוספות notes that pairing her with a similarly mixed individual is not allowed because צד שפחה meets צד בן חורין and vice versa. A ראשון explains that an animal’s mixed status is its birth definition, while the human case reflects ownership status rather than innate identity, and this is presented as the רמב"ן תירוץ. רב אלחנן’s explanation of תוספות distinguishes כלאים as a דין of species, where identical ייחוס avoids two different מינם, from the שפחה/בן חורין prohibitions which are special תורה rules not dependent on redefining מין.
- A ברייתא states that a פרידה שטבעה cannot be mated with a horse or a donkey but only with מינה, and this is used to argue that if רבי יהודה were certain that only the mother matters then mating should follow the mother’s species. The gמרא answers that the case is where the mother’s species is unknown and the phrasing is read as forbidding horse or donkey mating because the type is not known, not because it is inherently impossible if known. אביי provides סימנים to identify maternal lineage by voice, and רב פפא adds סימנים by ear size and tail size, but the gמרא limits the case to באילמת וגידמת where those סימנים cannot be used. The unresolved question is then answered by רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: הכל מודים בפרי מן האם שאסור, which implies that רבי יהודה’s אין חוששין is not absolute and that he is חושש when it creates a חומרא.
- A directive is quoted from רב אבא לשמעיה to harness animals that look identical, עיין בהנך דדמי להדדי, which is read as relying on similarity to ensure the same maternal type. The text states וסימנים דאורייתא and presents רש"י’s reading that the use of סימנים here supports the claim that סימנים are reliable מדאורייתא, as in the sugya of identifying lost objects. A challenge is raised that typical סימנים cases involve removing an item from a מוחזק or removing a woman from the חזקה of אשת איש, while here סימנים establish status without breaking a חזקה, and the רמב"ן is cited as limiting reliance on סימנים to cases without חזקה. Later מפרשים are cited explaining that reliance requires סימן מובהק, that two סימנים can equal one סימן מובהק, and that רש"י can align the sugyos by treating multiple features as creating a strong sign, while the רמב"ן treats ear and tail together as one סימן and therefore distinguishes this from חזקה-based contexts.
- A ברייתא teaches that אותו ואת בנו applies to animals that are כלאיים and to animals that are כוי, and רבי אליעזר rules that it applies to כלאיים from עז and רחל but not to כוי. רב חסדא defines the disputed כוי as a case involving תיש and צביה, and the gמרא rejects framing it as תיש הבא על צביה because the mother is a חיה and the rule is שור או שה אותו ואת בנו, not צבי ובנו. The gמרא also rejects צבי הבא על תיישה as the direct case because all agree that when the mother is a בהמה the term בנו includes even a hybrid offspring and the חיוב applies.
- The gמרא sets the dispute in a multi-generation scenario: a תיישה הבאה מצבי gives birth to a daughter, and that daughter gives birth, and the question becomes whether slaughtering the mother and offspring the same day violates אותו ואת בנו. רבנן hold חוששין לזרע האב and apply שה ואפילו מקצת שה so the second-generation mother counts as a שה because her father is a תיש, while רבי אלעזר holds אין חוששין לזרע האב and rejects שה ואפילו מקצת שה so the second-generation mother is treated as צבי and exempt. The gמרא asks why the dispute is not stated simply as חוששין לזרע האב, and it answers that without introducing מקצת שה one might think that even if רבנן consider the father they would not go so far as to treat partial שה lineage as defining the mother as a שה because the father remains secondary to the mother.
- A parallel sugya is cited from מסכת ביצה about שחיטה on יום טוב and כיסוי הדם, where כוי may not be slaughtered and if slaughtered אין מכסין את דמו because moving earth could be מוקצה if the animal is actually a בהמה. The gמרא rejects identifying that כוי as תיש הבא על צביה because then it would be treated as צבי ואפילו מקצת צבי and would allow כיסוי, and it focuses on צבי הבא על תיישה. The resolution states that רבנן ספוקי מספקא להו whether חוששין לזרע האב applies, and they do not apply it when it would produce a קולא, so the case remains in doubt and leads to no כיסוי הדם on יום טוב.
- A new שיעור begins in מסכת בבא מציעא דף ב עמוד א with the משנה of שנים אוחזין בטלית where one or both parties claim full ownership or one claims half ownership. The דין requires each claimant to take a שבועה and then divide the garment according to the stated rules. The purpose of the שבועה is given as preventing people from grabbing items and lying, because swearing in the name of ה׳ makes false claims less likely. The sugya is framed as a foundational case in דיני ממונות for resolving disputes when there is no proof, no עדים, and no שטר.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions