## Chullin Daf 80a

###### Chullin 80a:1
[Chullin 80a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:1)

בְּשֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה, רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״שֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: ״שֶׂה״ – וְלֹא מִקְצָת שֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
They disagree **concerning** whether the word **“sheep”** mentioned in the verses indicates that **even** if it is **partially a sheep,** it is considered a domesticated animal. **The Rabbis hold** that the word **“sheep”** indicates that **even** if it is **partially a sheep** it is considered a domesticated animal, **and Rabbi Eliezer holds** that the word **“sheep”** indicates that it must be descended entirely from sheep or other domesticated animals, **but not partially** descended from **sheep.**


###### Chullin 80a:2
[Chullin 80a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:2)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ, לְעִנְיַן כִּסּוּי הַדָּם וּמַתָּנוֹת, לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ אֶלָּא בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says: Therefore,** the cases relating to a *koy* must be interpreted in accordance with this understanding of the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. **With regard to the matter of covering the blood** of a *koy*, which the mishna indicates is performed due to uncertainty as to whether a *koy* is an undomesticated animal, **and** with regard to **the gifts** of the priesthood, which the Rabbis require to be given from a *koy* as from a domesticated animal, but Rabbi Eliezer does not, **you find** a way to interpret the cases **only** if they are referring **to** a *koy* resulting from **a deer who mates with a female goat.**


###### Chullin 80a:3
[Chullin 80a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:3)

דְּבֵין לְרַבָּנַן, וּבֵין לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ אִי חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב אוֹ לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is so **because,** according to the aforementioned conclusions about their opinions, **both according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis and according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer it is uncertain whether one** needs **to be concerned with paternity,** and the *koy* is considered partially an undomesticated animal, **or** one need **not** be concerned, and it is considered entirely domesticated.


###### Chullin 80a:4
[Chullin 80a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:4)

וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And they disagree as to** whether the word **“sheep”** means that **even** if it is **partially a sheep** it is considered a domesticated animal. Therefore, the mishna, which requires one to cover the blood of a *koy* whose father is a deer due to uncertainty, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, because they, as opposed to Rabbi Eliezer, hold that if an animal has a domesticated component, it is considered a domesticated animal, and with regard to covering the blood if the animal has an undomesticated component, the animal is considered undomesticated. As for the gifts of the priesthood, the Rabbis require half of them to be given from this *koy*, as it has a domesticated component from its mother, while Rabbi Eliezer exempts one from giving them, as he holds that an animal’s parents must both be domesticated to qualify the animal as domesticated.


###### Chullin 80a:5
[Chullin 80a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:5)

לְעִנְיַן אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בֵּין בְּתַיִישׁ הַבָּא עַל הַצְּבִיָּיה, וּבֵין בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa continues: **With regard to the matter of** the prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring** on the same day, which the Rabbis hold applies to a *koy* but Rabbi Eliezer does not, **you find** such a case **either with regard to** a *koy* who is the daughter of **a goat who mates with a doe, or with regard to** a *koy* who is the daughter of **a deer who mates with a female goat.**


###### Chullin 80a:6
[Chullin 80a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:6)

בְּתַיִישׁ הַבָּא עַל הַצְּבִיָּיה, וּלְאִיסּוּרָא דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: דִּילְמָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ אָמְרִינַן, וְאָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa explains: The case may be referring **to** a *koy* who is the daughter of **a goat who mates with a doe, and** it relates **to a prohibition,** i.e., whether slaughtering it and its offspring in one day is prohibited *ab initio*, **as the Rabbis hold: Perhaps one** needs **to be concerned with its paternity,** and this *koy* is therefore considered part domesticated, **and we say** that the word **“sheep”** means that **even** if it is **partially a sheep** this prohibition applies, **and** its slaughter on the same day as its daughter is **prohibited** *ab initio*, although one does not receive lashes for it as it is not a definite transgression.


###### Chullin 80a:7
[Chullin 80a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:7)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: נְהִי נָמֵי דְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Though one indeed** needs **to be concerned with its paternity,** and this *koy* is considered partially domesticated, **we do not say** that the word **“sheep”** means that **even** if it is **partially a sheep** the prohibition applies. Therefore, its slaughter on the same day as its offspring is permitted.


###### Chullin 80a:8
[Chullin 80a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:8)

בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה, וּלְמַלְקוּת. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: נְהִי נָמֵי דְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ אָמְרִינַן, וּמַלְקֵינַן לֵיהּ. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, מַלְקוּת לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Additionally, the case under dispute may be referring **to** a *koy* who is the daughter of **a deer who mates with a female goat, and** it relates **to** whether slaughtering it and its offspring in one day renders one liable to receive **lashes. The Rabbis hold: Though one indeed** needs **to be concerned with its paternity,** and this *koy* is considered partially undomesticated, **we say** that the word **“sheep”** means that the prohibition applies **even** if it is **partially a sheep,** such as this *koy*, **and** one who slaughters it and its offspring on one day **is flogged. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: There is a prohibition** against slaughtering this *koy* and its offspring on the same day, but if one slaughtered them **there are no lashes.**


###### Chullin 80a:9
[Chullin 80a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:9)

אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, דִּלְמָא אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, וְהַאי שֶׂה מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. מַלְקוּת לֵיכָּא, דִּלְמָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **There is a prohibition** in the case of this *koy* that is itself a mother, since **perhaps one** need **not be concerned with its paternity, and** therefore **this** *koy* **is a full-fledged sheep,** like its mother. Due to uncertainty, **there are no lashes** for violating the prohibition **because perhaps one** needs **to be concerned with its paternity,** in which case this *koy* is only a partial sheep.


###### Chullin 80a:10
[Chullin 80a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:10)

וְ״שֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה״ לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** according to Rabbi Eliezer, **we do not say** that the word **“sheep”** means that **even** if it is **partially a sheep** it is subject to the prohibition. Therefore, one is not flogged for slaughtering this *koy* on the same day as its offspring, as lashes are administered only when the witnesses give the transgressor a definite forewarning against violating the prohibition. Since the prohibition in this case is uncertain, any forewarning would be uncertain.


###### Chullin 80a:11
[Chullin 80a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:11)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כּוֹי – בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הִיא, וְלֹא הִכְרִיעוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים אִם מִין בְּהֵמָה הִיא אִם מִין חַיָּה הִיא. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: כּוֹי – זֶה אֵיל הַבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Until this point, the Gemara considered the *koy* to be the result of interbreeding a deer and a goat. The Gemara now cites other opinions as to its identity: **Rav Yehuda says: A *koy* is a distinct entity, and the Sages did not determine whether it is a species of domesticated animal or a species of undomesticated animal. Rav Naḥman says: The *koy* is the wild ram.**


###### Chullin 80a:12
[Chullin 80a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:12)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: כּוֹי – זֶה אַיִל הַבָּר, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: זֶה הַבָּא מִן הַתַּיִישׁ וּמִן הַצְּבִיָּיה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כּוֹי בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הִיא, וְלֹא הִכְרִיעוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים אִם מִין חַיָּה אִם מִין בְּהֵמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִין בְּהֵמָה הִיא, וְשֶׁל בֵּית דּוּשַׁאי הָיוּ מְגַדְּלִין מֵהֶן עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that this dispute is **like** a dispute between ***tanna’im*** cited in a *baraita*: **The *koy* is the wild ram, and there are** those **who say:** It is **that which results from** the mating of **a goat with a doe. Rabbi Yosei says: A *koy* is a distinct entity, and the Sages did not determine whether** it is **a species of undomesticated animal or a species of domesticated animal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is a species of domesticated animal, and** the members **of the house of Dushai would raise flocks** and **flocks of them,** as with other domesticated animals.


###### Chullin 80a:13
[Chullin 80a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הָנֵי עִזֵּי דְּבָאלָא כְּשֵׁרוֹת לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת מָנָה הַכָּתוּב, וְתוּ לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a statement with regard to goats: **Rabbi Zeira says** that **Rav Safra says** that **Rav Hamnuna says** that **these forest goats,** i.e., wild goats, **are fit** to be sacrificed **on the altar,** as they are considered a type of goat. The Gemara comments that Rav Hamnuna **holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The verse lists ten** kosher **animals, and no more.** He is referring to the verses: “These are the animals that you may eat: An ox, a *seh* of sheep, and a *seh* of goats, a deer, and a gazelle, and a fallow deer, and a wild goat, and an oryx, and an aurochs, and a wild sheep” (Deuteronomy 14:4–5). The first three are domesticated animals, while the other seven are undomesticated animals.


###### Chullin 80a:14
[Chullin 80a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:14)

וְהָנֵי מִדְּלָא קָחָשֵׁיב לְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי חַיּוֹת – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּעֵז נִינְהוּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: וְאֵימָא ״אַיָּל וּצְבִי״ – פָּרַט, ״כׇּל בְּהֵמָה״ – כָּלַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **these** forest goats, **since they are not reckoned among the undomesticated animals, learn from it that they are** a type **of goat,** as they are also called goats and have a goat-like appearance. **Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov objects to this:** Perhaps wild goats are a different species of undomesticated animal not explicitly mentioned in the verse, as the next verse provides a more general description, **and I will say** that the verse: **“A deer and a gazelle,** etc.,” is a list of undomesticated animals, each of which is a specific **detail.** The next verse: “And **any animal,”** is **a generalization.**


###### Chullin 80a:15
[Chullin 80a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:15)

פָּרַט וְכָלַל – נַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל מוּסָף עַל הַפְּרָט, אִיכָּא טוּבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to the principles for explicating verses, when there is **a detail and** then **a generalization,** the **generalization was made to expand beyond the detail.** Therefore, **there are more** species of kosher undomesticated animals than the verse lists, one of which may be forest goats.


###### Chullin 80a:16
[Chullin 80a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:16)

אִם כֵּן, כֹּל הָנֵי פְּרָטֵי לְמָה לִי? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: וְדִלְמָא מִינָא דְּאַקּוֹ נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If so, why do I** need **all of these details?** The mention of a single undomesticated animal and then the generalization should suffice for applying the principle of: A detail and a generalization. Rather, these are the only kosher undomesticated animals, and the forest goat must therefore be a type of domesticated goat. **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, objects to this: But** even if forest goats are not a different type of undomesticated animal from those mentioned in the verse, **perhaps they are a type of wild goat,** one of the undomesticated animals mentioned in the verse, rather than a type of domesticated goat.


###### Chullin 80a:17
[Chullin 80a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: דִּלְמָא מִינָא דִּתְאוֹ אוֹ מִינָא דְּזֶמֶר נִינְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַמֵּימָר שָׁרֵי תַּרְבַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this topic, **Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi, and some say** it was **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya,** who said **to Rav Ashi: Perhaps they are a type of aurochs [*te’o*], or a type of wild sheep,** which are also undomesticated animals. **Rav Ḥanan said to Rav Ashi:** Differing from Rav Hamnuna’s opinion, **Ameimar deems** the consumption of **their fat permitted,** which is prohibited with regard to domesticated animals, indicating that he considers forest goats a species of undomesticated animal.


###### Chullin 80a:18
[Chullin 80a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:18)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מִנְיָמִין בַּר חִיָּיא מֵרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא: הָנֵי עִזֵּי דְּבָאלָא מַהוּ לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא בְּשׁוֹר הַבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abba, son of Rav Minyamin bar Ḥiyya, inquired of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya: What is** the *halakha* **with regard to** offering **these forest goats [*izei devala*] on the altar?** Are they domesticated animals that may be sacrificed? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya **said to him: Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the wild ox.**


###### Chullin 80a:19
[Chullin 80a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:19)

דִּתְנַן: שׁוֹר הַבָּר מִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִין חַיָּה. דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִדִּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן ״תּוֹרְבָּלָא״, מִינָא דִּבְהֵמָה הוּא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: מִדְּקָא חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ בַּהֲדֵי חַיּוֹת, מִינָא דְּחַיָּה הוּא. אֲבָל הָנֵי, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מִינָא דְּעֵז נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Kilayim* 8:6): **The wild ox is a species of domesticated animal. Rabbi Yosei says:** It is **a species of undomesticated animal. As the Rabbis hold** that **from** the fact **that** “aurochs” (Deuteronomy 14:5) **is translated** into Aramaic as: **Forest ox [*turbala*],** it can be understood that the wild ox **is a species of domesticated animal, and Rabbi Yosei holds: From** the fact **that it is reckoned among the undomesticated animals,** it can be derived that **it is a species of undomesticated animal. But** with regard to **these** forest goats, which are not reckoned among the undomesticated animals, **all agree** that **they are a type of goat** and are fit to be sacrificed upon the altar.


###### Chullin 80a:20
[Chullin 80a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:20)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: וְדִלְמָא מִינָא דְּאַקּוֹ נִינְהוּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא מִינָא דְּתָאוֹ, אוֹ מִינָא דְּזֶמֶר נִינְהוּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַמֵּימָר שָׁרֵי תַּרְבַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, objects to this: But perhaps they are a type of wild goat.** Similarly, **Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps they are a type of aurochs, or a type of wild sheep.** Additionally, **Rav Naḥman said to Rav Ashi: Ameimar deems** the consumption of **their fat permitted,** which is prohibited with regard to domesticated animals, as he considers them undomesticated animals.


###### Chullin 80a:21
[Chullin 80a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/80a:21)

כֵּיצַד הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כּוּלַּהּ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָא תָנֵי: קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב כָּרֵת, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִים, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם סוֹפְגִים אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. מִכְּדִי שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה – לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **How so? One who slaughters** an animal itself and its offspring, etc. **Rabbi Oshaya says: The entire mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. From where** is this derived? It is derived **from that** which the mishna **teaches:** If both animals were **sacrificial** animals slaughtered **outside** the Temple courtyard, **then** for slaughtering **the first** animal, **one is liable** to receive ***karet*. And both** animals **are disqualified** for use as offerings, **and** for the slaughter of **both of them, one incurs forty** lashes. **Since we have heard that Rabbi Shimon says:** An act of **slaughter that is unfit** to permit consumption of the meat **is not considered** to have the halakhic status of an act of **slaughter.**