## Chullin Daf 78b

###### Chullin 78b:1
[Chullin 78b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:1)

זֶה בָּנָה אָב – כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״שֶׂה״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַכִּלְאַיִם. אָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכִּלְאַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
concerning the verse: “These are the animals that you may eat: An ox, a *seh* of sheep, and a *seh* of goats” (Deuteronomy 14:4), that **this** verse **establishes a paradigm** for other cases: **Wherever** the word ***seh* is stated** in the Torah, **it** serves **only to exclude** an animal of **diverse kinds.** The Hebrew word *seh* denotes either a sheep or a goat. The offspring of diverse kinds, which is neither a sheep nor a goat, does not qualify as a *seh*. The Gemara answers that with regard to a mother and its offspring, **the verse states:** “Whether it be a bull **or** a sheep” (Leviticus 22:28), and the “or” is superfluous there and serves **to include** the offspring of **diverse kinds.**


###### Chullin 78b:2
[Chullin 78b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:2)

הַאי ״אוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק, דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עַד דְּשָׁחֵיט שׁוֹר וּבְנוֹ שֶׂה וּבְנוֹ לָא מִיחַיַּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. לְחַלֵּק – מִ״בְּנוֹ״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **This** word **“or” is necessary to separate** the prohibitions, **as** it might **enter your mind to say: One is not liable unless he slaughters** both **a bull and its offspring** and **a sheep and its offspring** in a single day. Therefore, the word “or” **teaches us** that one is liable for slaughtering either type of animal with its offspring. The Gemara responds: **Separating** the prohibitions **is derived from** the use of the words **“its offspring”** instead of their offspring.


###### Chullin 78b:3
[Chullin 78b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:3)

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה וּבְנוֹ״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה וּבְנוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״. מַאי לָאו מֵ״אוֹ״ נָפְקָא לֵיהּ? לָא, מֵ״אוֹתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** the word “or” **is still necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **If it were stated: A bull, and a sheep, and its offspring** you shall not slaughter in one day, **I would say:** One is not liable **unless he slaughters a bull, and a sheep, and the offspring** of one of them in a single day. Therefore, **the verse states: “A bull or a sheep…it and its offspring”** (Leviticus 22:28), to teach that one is liable even for slaughtering either of them and its offspring. **What, is it not from** the word **“or”** that the *baraita* **derives** this *halakha*? The Gemara responds: **No,** it is derived **from** the word **“it,”** and the offspring of diverse kinds are included in the prohibition due to the word “or.”


###### Chullin 78b:4
[Chullin 78b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:4)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן, דִּמְיַיתַּר לְהוּ ״אוֹתוֹ״, אֶלָּא לַחֲנַנְיָה, דְּלָא מְיַיתַּר לֵיהּ ״אוֹתוֹ״, לְחַלֵּק מְנָא לֵיהּ? לְחַלֵּק לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, דְּסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** cited further in the discussion, **for whom** the word **“it” is superfluous** and can be used for this derivation, leaving the word “or” available to include the offspring of diverse kinds; **but according to** the opinion of **Ḥananya, for whom** the word **“it” is not superfluous, from where does he** derive that one is **to separate** into two prohibitions slaughtering either a bull with its offspring or a sheep with its offspring? The Gemara answers that there is **no need** for **a verse to separate** them into two prohibitions, **as** Ḥananya **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yonatan.**


###### Chullin 78b:5
[Chullin 78b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:5)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יְקַלֵּל אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, אָבִיו שֶׁלֹּא אִמּוֹ וְאִמּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא אָבִיו מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ קִלֵּל״ – אָבִיו קִלֵּל, אִמּוֹ קִלֵּל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: From the verse: **“A man who curses his father and his mother** shall die” (Leviticus 20:9), **I have** derived **only** that one is liable if he curses both **his father and his mother. From where** do I derive that if one curses **his father but not his mother,** or **his mother but not his father,** he is liable? The continuation of **the verse states: “His father and his mother he has cursed,** his blood is upon him.” In the first part of the verse, the word “curses” is in proximity to “his father,” and in the last part of the verse, “cursed” is in proximity to “his mother.” This teaches that the verse is referring to both a case where **he cursed** only **his father** and a case where **he cursed** only **his mother;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.** Rabbi Yoshiya maintains that conjunctions are interpreted strictly unless the verse indicates otherwise.


###### Chullin 78b:6
[Chullin 78b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:6)

רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: מַשְׁמָע שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד, וּמַשְׁמָע אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרוֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ״יַחְדָּו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yonatan says:** There is no need for this derivation, because the phrase “his father and his mother” **indicates** that one is liable if he curses **both of them together, and it** also **indicates** that he is liable if he curses either **one** of them **on their own, unless the verse specifies** that one is liable only if he curses both **together.** An example of a verse where the Torah specifies that the *halakha* applies only to the two elements in conjunction is: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10). According to Rabbi Yonatan, had the verse stated with regard to a mother and its offspring: A bull and a sheep, and not: A bull or a sheep, one would still be liable for slaughtering each with its own offspring independently. Therefore, the word “or” is superfluous, and is utilized by Ḥananya, who agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, to include the offspring of diverse kinds in this prohibition.


###### Chullin 78b:7
[Chullin 78b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:7)

מַאי חֲנַנְיָה, וּמַאי רַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים. חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר: נוֹהֵג בֵּין בִּזְכָרִים וּבֵין בִּנְקֵבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the opinion of **Ḥananya, and what** is the opinion of **the Rabbis** that were mentioned earlier? Their opinions are elucidated **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: Despite the fact that the verse is written in the masculine form, the prohibition against slaughtering **itself and its offspring** in a single day **applies to females,** i.e., to a mother and its offspring, **but** it **does not apply to males,** i.e., a male animal and its offspring. **Ḥananya says: It applies both to males and to females.**


###### Chullin 78b:8
[Chullin 78b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:8)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בֵּין בִּזְכָרִים וּבֵין בִּנְקֵבוֹת? וְדִין הוּא: חִיֵּיב כָּאן, וְחַיָּיב בְּאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים; מָה כְּשֶׁחִיֵּיב בְּאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים – בִּנְקֵבוֹת וְלֹא בִּזְכָרִים, אַף כְּשֶׁחִיֵּיב כָּאן – בִּנְקֵבוֹת וְלֹא בִּזְכָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of the Rabbis,** i.e., the first *tanna*? Their reasoning is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that the prohibition against slaughtering **a mother and its offspring would apply both to males and to females.** But could one not derive **this** by **logical inference,** reaching the opposite conclusion: The Torah **rendered one obligated here** not to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, **and** the Torah **rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks** not to seize them together, but to dispatch the mother. **Just as when it rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks,** the obligation applies **to female** birds **but not to males,** as the verse states: “And the mother sitting on the chicks” (Deuteronomy 22:6), **so too, when it rendered one obligated here,** with regard to an animal and its offspring, the obligation should apply **to female** animals, **but not to males.**


###### Chullin 78b:9
[Chullin 78b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:9)

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא עָשָׂה בָּהּ מְזוּמָּן כְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן, תֹּאמַר בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, שֶׁעָשָׂה בּוֹ מְזוּמָּן כְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One may respond: **No, if you say** that this is so **with regard to a mother bird with its chicks, for which** the Torah **did not render prepared** ones equivalent **to unprepared** ones, as the obligation to dispatch the mother bird applies only where one happens to encounter a mother bird with its chicks spontaneously, but not to ones that he keeps in his property, **shall you** also **say** that this is so **with regard to** the prohibition of an animal **itself and its offspring,** for **which** the Torah **rendered prepared** ones equivalent **to unprepared** ones, prohibiting an animal and its offspring even if they are prepared? If so, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring should apply to both males and females.


###### Chullin 78b:10
[Chullin 78b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:10)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתוֹ״ – אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם. אַחַר שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב, זָכִיתִי לְדִין: חִיֵּיב כָּאן וְחִיֵּיב בְּאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים – מָה כְּשֶׁחִיֵּיב בְּאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים – בִּנְקֵבוֹת וְלֹא בִּזְכָרִים, אַף כְּשֶׁחִיֵּיב כָּאן – בִּנְקֵבוֹת וְלֹא בִּזְכָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states:** “A bull or a sheep, **it** and its offspring” (Leviticus 22:28). The superfluous word “it” indicates that this applies to only **one** parent, **but not** to **two.** The *baraita* continues: **After the verse separated** the parents, rendering the prohibition applicable to only one of them, **I merited** returning **to the logical inference** mentioned earlier: The Torah **rendered one obligated here** not to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, **and** the Torah **rendered one obligated** to dispatch the mother **with regard to a mother bird with its chicks. Just as when it rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks,** the obligation applies **to females but not to males, so too, when it rendered one obligated here,** the obligation applies **to females but not to males.**


###### Chullin 78b:11
[Chullin 78b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:11)

וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר, ״בְּנוֹ״ – מִי שֶׁבְּנוֹ כָּרוּךְ אַחֲרָיו, יָצָא זָכָר שֶׁאֵין בְּנוֹ כָּרוּךְ אַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is your wish to say** that one can refute this, that refutation can be countered by the following derivation: The verse states: “It and **its offspring”** (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that this applies to **that** parent **whose offspring clings to it.** This serves to **exclude** the **male** parent, **whose offspring does not cling to it.**


###### Chullin 78b:12
[Chullin 78b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/78b:12)

מָה אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר? וְכִי תֵּימָא ״אוֹתוֹ״ זָכָר מַשְׁמַע, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״בְּנוֹ״ – מִי שֶׁבְּנוֹ כָּרוּךְ אַחֲרָיו, יָצָא זָכָר שֶׁאֵין בְּנוֹ כָּרוּךְ אַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: To **what** possible refutation is the expression: **If it is your wish to say,** referring? The Gemara explains that the possible refutation is: **And if you would say** that the word **“it,”** in the verse **denotes a male,** as it is expressed in the masculine gender in the Hebrew, the response is that the verse also **states “its offspring”** in that verse, indicating that this applies to **that** parent **whose offspring clings to it.** This serves to **exclude** the **male** parent, **whose offspring does not cling to it.**