THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
Previous daf
Chulin, 79
CHULIN 79 (20 Nisan) - Today's Daf has been sponsored by Martin Fogel of
Carlsbad, California in memory of his father, Yaakov ben Shlomo Fogel, on
the day of his Yahrzeit.
|
INSITES OF THE DAY - Chulin, Daf 80
(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material as long as
this header and the footer at the end are included.) |
THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
Previous daf
Chulin, 80
CHULIN 80 - dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld's father in memory of his aunt,
Malka Gitel bas Reb Yakov Mordechai (Malvina Marmorstein), who took him
into her home and raised him like her own child after the Holocaust. Her
Yahrzeit is 20 Nisan.
|
1) BREEDING MULES
QUESTION: Rebbi Yehudah says that a male offspring of a horse and a donkey
may be bred with a female offspring of a horse and a donkey. The Gemara
explains that we do not consider this to be crossbreeding the maternal
side of the male offspring (the horse) with the paternal side of the
female offspring (the donkey), which would be prohibited as Kil'ayim.
However, there seems to be a Halachah in a similar case that contradicts
this. The Gemara in Bava Basra (13a) discusses a person who is half-Eved
and half-free ("Chatzyo Eved v'Chatzyo Ben Chorin"; such a person was
originally an Eved owned by two partners, and then one of the owners freed
his share of the Eved). Such a person is not permitted to marry any woman,
and not even a woman who is herself half-Eved and half-free, because we
say that the free half of him will be having relations with the slave half
of her, which is prohibited. Similarly, in the case of our Gemara, we
should say that the half of the mule that came from the horse is breeding
with the half of the other animal that came from the donkey, which is
forbidden because of Kil'ayim!
ANSWER: RASHI (DH Ka Mashma Lan) writes that in this case, each offspring
of the horse and donkey is not considered to be a hybrid comprised of an
element of horse and an element of donkey. Rather, the concept of
"Mevalbel Zar'ei" (see 69a) -- the mixing of the maternal side (horse) and
the paternal side (donkey) -- results in an entirely new species, and not
in a half-horse, half-donkey. Although it is similar in some ways to a
horse and similar in other ways to a donkey, it is a distinct, independent
species.
TOSFOS (DH Mahu) explains this further. When the Torah forbids Kil'ayim,
it forbids only crossbreeding two separate species. Two mules that were
produced from a horse and a donkey are considered to be a single species,
and, therefore, it is permitted to breed a mule with another mule. Two
species are not being mixed together.
The RAMBAN cites the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (29a) that says that a
half-freed slave cannot blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah, even to fulfill
the Mitzvah for himself, because the half of him that is an Eved (which is
exempt from the Mitzvah) cannot blow the Shofar for the half of him that
is free and obligated to perform the Mitzvah. Why is that case different
from the case of breeding two mules? The Ramban answers, like Rashi and
Tosfos, that when the parenthood of the animal is "mixed in" and the side
of the horse and the side of the donkey are no longer recognizable, there
is no Isur of crossbreeding. In contrast, in the case of a half-Eved,
half-free person, the two halves never "mix" with each other, but they
remain two distinct parts.
The Ramban adds that this is the reason why one is permitted to ride on,
or plow with, a mule (see also Tosfos to Bava Basra 13a, DH Kofin). We do
not say that one who rides on a mule is riding on a horse and a donkey at
the same time, transgressing the prohibition of working with two different
types of animals together. Since the horse-side has blended with the
donkey-side, the two sides are no longer considered separate elements but
have formed a new type of animal.
Accordingly, the Ramban writes that the Halachah does not follow the view
of Isi in the Yerushalmi (Kil'ayim 18:2), who rules that one is *not*
permitted to ride a mule. Isi presents a Kal v'Chomer to support his
ruling: It is permitted to wear a garment of wool and a garment of linen,
one on top of the other, but it is forbidden to wear a garment of wool and
linen mixed together. Consequently, since it is forbidden to lead two
animals of two different species together, it certainly is forbidden to
lead an animal that itself is comprised of a horse and a donkey. Isi
asserts that the mule that David ha'Melech said that his son should ride
(Melachim I 1:39) was a special animal created during the six days of
Creation and was not born from a horse and donkey, because otherwise it
would have been forbidden for Shlomo to ride on it.
The Halachah does not follow the view of Isi, because we say that the
horse-side and donkey-side mix together and lose their separate
identities, merging into a new species. In contrast, in a garment
containing wool and linen, each material retains its separate identity
after being sewn into the garment. (D. Bloom)
79b
2) RELYING ON "SIMANIM"
QUESTION: The Gemara relates that Rebbi Aba said to his attendant, "If you
fasten mules to my wagon, check that they are similar to each other" in
the appearance of their ears and tails (RASHI DH d'Damyan; see also
SHULCHAN ARUCH YD 297:9, who adds that the voices of the mules must also
be similar). This will prove that they are not the offspring of two
different species of animal and there is no Isur in using them together to
pull the wagon.
The Gemara says that since Rebbi Aba relied on the Simanim of mules to
prove that they were of the same species and to permit working with them
together, this implies that "Simanin d'Oraisa" -- we may rely on Simanim
(external signs) to determine a Halachic practice, even when an Isur
d'Oraisa is involved.
However, the Gemara in Bava Metzia asks whether the ability to rely on
Simanim is mid'Rabanan or mid'Oraisa, and it does not reach a conclusion
in the matter. Moreover, the Gemara earlier in Bava Metzia (18b) cites Rav
Ashi who was in doubt whether Simanim are mid'Oraisa or not. Why, then,
does the Gemara here conclude unequivocally that Simanim are mid'Oraisa?
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI (DH v'Simanim) implies that the Gemara here indeed is answering
the question that it asked in Bava Metzia regarding whether Simanim are
mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan, and it is saying that Simanim are mid'Oraisa.
(b) The CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN cites the RAMBAN who disagrees with Rashi and
maintains that the case of Simanim mentioned here is not comparable to the
case of Simanim discussed in Bava Metzia. The Gemara there discusses
relying on Simanim for the purpose of returning lost objects to their
owners. It could be that we do not rely on Simanim in cases of lost
objects, because there is a concern that the claimant might not be the
real owner and merely might have seen the object once or is guessing about
its Simanim. In contrast, the Simanim used to determine the species of
mules are much more reliable, because the Chachamim possessed a tradition
that these Simanim may be used to determine the identity of the species.
The case of the Gemara here is more similar to the case of the Gemara
earlier (64a) which concludes that one may not rely on Simanim --
different natural features -- to determine whether or not eggs came from a
Kosher bird. In that case, the Chachamim did not possess a tradition
regarding the Simanim of Kosher eggs.
The dispute between Rashi and the Ramban seems to be reflected in a
dispute between later authorities. The KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN (CM 259:2) cites
the SHULCHAN ARUCH (EH 17:24) who rules that one may not rely on Simanim
of a corpse in order to determine the identity of the dead man and permit
his widow to remarry. The Ketzos ha'Choshen cites other authorities who
question this ruling on the basis of the Gemara here in Chulin. He cites
RABEINU OZER who answers that in the Gemara here, there are two signs (the
ears and tails) that must be similar in order to permit working with the
two animals together. Similarly, if two signs of the corpse can identify
it, then we may rely on those Simanim to permit the widow to remarry.
Rabeinu Ozer apparently sides with Rashi who maintains that we may compare
the case of Simanim here with the case of Simanim in Bava Metzia. The
Ketzos ha'Choshen, on the other hand, apparently agrees with the Ramban,
who maintains that the Simanim of the mules are natural signs on which the
Chachamim said we may rely, while we may not rely on the Simanim of a
corpse, because perhaps the widow saw the body before, or she is merely
guessing.
(c) The MAHARATZ CHAYOS cites the NODA B'YEHUDAH who says that we may
always rely on Simanim except when they oppose an existing Chazakah.
Consequently, a woman who was known to be married until now ("Chezkas
Eshes Ish") cannot be permitted to remarry based on signs on the corpse
(or based on signs on a Get that was found). In contrast, the mules have
no Chazakah of being of different species, and, therefore, we may rely on
the Simanim to identify them as being of one species. (See also Maharatz
Chayos to 96a.) (D. Bloom)
Next daf
|
Index
For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il
|