## Bava Kamma Daf 78a

###### Bava Kamma 78a:1
[Bava Kamma 78a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:1)

הָא גַּבֵּי קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי נֶאֱמַר: ״שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב״ – שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא כִּלְאַיִם מִבֵּינֵיהֶם, וּנְרַבֵּי! מִדְּסֵיפָא לְמַעֵט, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי לְמַעֵט. אַדְּרַבָּה; מִדְּרֵישָׁא לְרַבּוֹת, סֵיפָא נָמֵי לְרַבּוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But with regard to sacrificial** animals **it is also stated** in the first part of the verse: **“A bull or a sheep”** (Leviticus 22:27), which are two animals **from which you cannot produce diverse kinds. And** accordingly, **let us include** an animal of diverse kinds as being fit for sacrifice on the altar on that account. The Gemara answers: **From** the fact **that the latter clause** of the verse: “Or a goat,” serves **to exclude** a type of animal from being fit for sacrifice on the altar, it may be inferred that the **first clause:** “A bull or a sheep,” also serves **to exclude** a type of animal from being fit for sacrifice on the altar. The Gemara asks: **On the contrary,** one could equally argue that **from** the fact **that the first clause** of the verse serves **to include** a type of animal as being fit for sacrifice on the altar, the **latter clause also** serves **to include** a type of animal as being fit for sacrifice on the altar.


###### Bava Kamma 78a:2
[Bava Kamma 78a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:2)

הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַעֵט – הוּא דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ תְּרֵי מִיעוּטֵי; דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִימַּעַט כִּלְאַיִם, אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמַעוֹטֵי נִדְמֶה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְרַבּוֹת – תְּרֵי רִיבּוּיֵי לְמָה? הַשְׁתָּא כִּלְאַיִם אִירַבִּי לֵיהּ, נִדְמֶה מִבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **What** is **this** comparison? **Granted, if you say** that both expressions serve **to exclude** types of animals from being fit for sacrifice on the altar, **this is** why **two exclusions were necessary:** One exclusion is referring to diverse kinds and the other is referring to an animal that resembles another species, **as even though** an animal of **diverse kinds is excluded, it was** still **necessary to exclude** an animal that **resembles** another. **But if you say** that both phrases serve **to include** types of animals as being fit for sacrifice on the altar, **why are two inclusions** required? **Now that** an animal of **diverse kinds has been included,** in the first inclusion, is it **necessary** to say that an animal that **resembles** another is also included? There is more justification for including an animal that resembles another, whose parentage is entirely of one species, than for including an animal of diverse kinds.


###### Bava Kamma 78a:3
[Bava Kamma 78a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:3)

אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: זֶה בָּנָה אָב – כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״שֶׂה״, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַכִּלְאַיִם; לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אִי לְקָדָשִׁים, בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ ״שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב״ – פְּרָט לְכִלְאַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara has established that when the Torah uses the word *seh* (Exodus 21:37) in the context of theft it does not serve to exclude animals of diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: **If so,** what is meant by **this** statement **that Rava says** with regard to the verse: “The ox, the *seh* of a sheep, and the *seh* of a goat” (Deuteronomy 14:4), that **this establishes a paradigm** for other cases, teaching that **wherever** the word ***seh* is stated** in the Torah, **it** serves **to exclude only** an animal of **diverse kinds. With regard to what *halakha*** did Rava state this principle? **If** this principle is referring **to** the *halakha* concerning **sacrificial** animals, **it is written explicitly with regard to them: “A bull or a sheep”** (Leviticus 22:27), which, as taught in the aforementioned *baraita*, serves to **exclude diverse kinds.**


###### Bava Kamma 78a:4
[Bava Kamma 78a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:4)

אִי לְמַעֲשֵׂר, ״תַּחַת״–״תַּחַת״ יָלֵיף, מִקֳּדָשִׁים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** this principle is referring **to** the *halakha* concerning **animal tithe,** concerning which it is written: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock [*tzon*], any one that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), this principle is not necessary either. The reason is that the exclusion of diverse kinds can be **derived** by means of a verbal analogy **from** the term **“under”** in this verse, and the word **“under”** in a verse that deals with **sacrificial** animals: “When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother” (Leviticus 22:27). This verbal analogy, from which many *halakhot* of animal tithe are derived, indicates that diverse kinds are not subject to animal tithe, just as they cannot be used for an offering.


###### Bava Kamma 78a:5
[Bava Kamma 78a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:5)

אִי לִבְכוֹר, ״הַעֲבָרָה״–״הַעֲבָרָה״ יָלֵיף, מִמַּעֲשֵׂר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** this principle is referring **to firstborn** animals, concerning which it is written: “However, the firstborn among animals, which is born as a firstling to the Lord, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox or *seh*, it is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 27:26), it is not necessary in that context either. The reason is that this can be **derived** by a verbal analogy between the term **passing,** in the verse: “And you shall cause to pass to the Lord all that open the womb” (Exodus 13:12), and the same term **passing, from** a verse concerning **animal tithe:** “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, any one that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This verbal analogy teaches that if the firstborn of a ewe or a she-goat is an animal of diverse kinds it is not considered a firstborn with regard to the *halakhot* of firstborn animals, which means that Rava’s principle is not necessary here.


###### Bava Kamma 78a:6
[Bava Kamma 78a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:6)

אִי נָמֵי, נִדְמֶה אָמְרַתְּ לָא – דִּכְתִיב: ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר; כִּלְאַיִם מִבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively, you** must **say** that an animal that **resembles** another is **not** subject to the *halakhot* of a firstborn, **as it is written: “But the firstborn of a bull,** or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy” (Numbers 18:17). This indicates that the *halakhot* of the firstborn are not applicable **unless** the fathering animal **is a bull** and **its firstborn is also a bull.** This excludes an animal that resembles another species, rather than its father. Once it is established that an animal that resembles another is not subject to the *halakhot* of a firstborn, is it **necessary** for the Torah to state the same with regard to **diverse kinds?** Since it is evident that firstborn status does not apply to diverse kinds, Rava’s principle is not required here either.


###### Bava Kamma 78a:7
[Bava Kamma 78a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:7)

אֶלָּא כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּרָבָא – לְעִנְיַן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר. כְּדִתְנַן: אֵין פּוֹדִין לֹא בְּעֵגֶל וְלֹא בְּחַיָּה וְלֹא בִּשְׁחוּטָה וְלֹא בִּטְרֵיפָה וְלֹא בְּכִלְאַיִם וְלֹא בְּכוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava’s** principle **was stated with regard to** the redemption of **a firstborn donkey,** concerning which it is written: “And every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a *seh*” (Exodus 13:13), **as we learned** in a mishna (*Bekhorot* 12a): **One may not redeem** a firstborn donkey **neither with a calf, nor with a non-domesticated animal, nor with a slaughtered** animal, **nor with a *tereifa*** animal, **nor with diverse kinds,** i.e., a sheep-goat hybrid, **nor with a *koy*.** Rava’s principle is referring to the source for the prohibition against using an animal of diverse kinds for the redemption of a firstborn donkey.


###### Bava Kamma 78a:8
[Bava Kamma 78a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:8)

וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּמַתִּיר בְּכִלְאַיִם – דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַתִּיר בְּכִלְאַיִם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שֶׂה, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** what about **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, who** disagrees with this ruling and **permits** the use **of** an animal of **diverse kinds** for the redemption of a firstborn donkey? **As we learned** in the same mishna: **Rabbi Elazar permits diverse kinds** for use in the redemption of a firstborn donkey **because it is** considered **a *seh*.** Accordingly, **with regard to what *halakha*** is Rava’s principle relevant?


###### Bava Kamma 78a:9
[Bava Kamma 78a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:9)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּרָבָא – לְטָמֵא שֶׁנּוֹלַד מִן הַטָּהוֹר וְעִיבּוּרוֹ מִן הַטָּמֵא, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ; דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מִ״שֵּׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים״ נָפְקָא לֵיהּ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אָבִיו כֶּבֶשׂ וְאִמּוֹ כִּבְשָׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar** could have **said to you: Rava’s** principle **was stated with regard to a non-kosher** animal **that was born from a kosher** mother, **whose impregnation was from a non-kosher** animal. Rava is saying that this animal is not kosher. **And** this is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, as, if** it were in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua,** although he would agree with this *halakha*, **he derives** this *halakha* (see *Bekhorot* 7a) **from** the phrase: **“The *seh* of sheep [*kevasim*], and the *seh* of goats [*izzim*]”** (Deuteronomy 14:4). The plural forms “*kevasim*” and “*izzim*” indicate that a lamb is not kosher **unless** both **its father is a sheep and its mother is a ewe,** and the same *halakha* applies to a kid.


###### Bava Kamma 78a:10
[Bava Kamma 78a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/78a:10)

וּטְהוֹרָה מִטְּמֵאָה מִי מִיעַבְּרָא?! אִין; דְּקַיְימָא לַן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to the case under discussion: **But can a kosher** animal **become impregnated by a non-kosher** animal in the first place? Is it even possible for this to occur? Why did Rabbi Yehoshua and Rava have to find a biblical source to deem this offspring as non-kosher? The Gemara answers: **Yes,** it is possible. **As we maintain** elsewhere (*Bekhorot* 7a)