Question: Why did the Torah say Oso (implying the father) and Beno (implying the mother)? Let is merely say Ben (and we will know it applies to offspring plus either one of its parents)!

Answer: Chananyah does not derive from the fact that the Pasuk says, "Beno" and not "Ben." Rather, Ben would also indicate the one the son follows around (i.e. the mother).

Implied Question: This is incomparable to a half slave and half free man who the Gemara in Chagigah (2b) says is forbidden to a half maidservant and half free woman because his half that is a slave is having relations with her half that is free. (Why not?)

Answer: In our case, the Torah says Kilayim implying two separate types of animals. Being that all mules come from a union of a horse and donkey, all mules are considered one type of animal.

Opinion #1: This implies that Rebbi Abba holds like Rebbi Yehudah (who holds "Ain Choshishin l'Zera ha'Av"). This also seems to be the position of Abaye who says that if it has a deep voice its mother is a horse, and the position of Rav Papa who says that big ears and a small tail indicates that it is the son of a horse.

Opinion #1 (cont.): In Kesuvos (111b), we say that the law follows Rebbi Yehudah regarding mules. Additionally, the Targum translates Oso v'Es Beno as "Torsa Oh Shisa" (as opposed to Tora which would be male) indicating that it does not apply to males. This is unlike Chananyah.

Opinion #2: However, Shmuel rules like Chananyah (who holds "Choshishin l'Zera ha'Av"). Additionally, the Stam Mishnah in Bechoros (45b) says that the following are valid for a man and invalid for an animal...Oso v'Es Beno. This Mishnah is established as being according to Chananyah. Additionally, Chananyah holds like Rebbi Yonasan. In Bava Metzia (95b), the Gemara says that Abaye holds like Rebbi Yoshiyah and Rava holds like Rebbi Yonasan. We (almost always) hold like Rava when he argues with Abaye.

Observation: Even if we hold like Rebbi Yehudah regarding mules as is the ruling of the Gemara at the end of Kesuvos (111b), one cannot permit males regarding Oso v'Es Beno. This is because we conclude in our Gemara that even Rebbi Yehudah was unsure whether or not this was permitted.

Question: Our Gemara concludes later that both Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan are unsure whether or not we suspect that the father's status affects the offspring. What is their doubt?

Question (cont.): We say later (132a) regarding Matanos that Rebbi Eliezer requires the Pasuk, "Im Shor Im Seh" in order to separate the two (showing that even if either an ox or sheep is brought, Matanos must be given). The Rabbanan derive this teaching from "mei'Eis Zovchei ha'Zevach." Rebbi Eliezer holds that this Pasuk teaches that the Kohen can demand Matanos from the butcher (even though the animal slaughtered does not belong to the butcher).

Question (cont.): If so, being that they required a Pasuk to separate the two (as explained above), this implies that the father's status does not affect the offspring as implied earlier. (Being that the Tana Kama who argued on Chananyah holds that we need a Pasuk to teach that two items mentioned in a Pasuk do not have to be done together in order for the law to apply, unlike Chananyah, and he held Ain Choshishin, it must be that both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Eliezer hold Ain Choshishin!)

Answer: Certainly if we suspect that the father affects the status of the offspring (as does Chananyah) one would not need a Pasuk to differentiate. However, being that they are unsure whether or not the father's status affects the status of its offspring, they do need a Pasuk because it is possible it does not affect the status of the offspring. This is why the Pasuk differentiates.

Answer (cont.): If we indeed suspect that father's status affects the status of the offspring, the Pasuk "mei'Eis Zovchei ha'Zevach" teaches Rava's law that the Kohen can demand Matanos from the butcher. According to Rebbi Eliezer, "Im Seh" makes this type of animal obligated in Matanos as taught by the Rabbanan. Being that Rebbi Eliezer is unsure whether the Pasuk is coming to divide (that one type of animal is sufficient for the law to apply) or to say it is obligated in Matanos he rules it is exempt due to the principle, "one who wants to take away from his friend must bring proof."

Question: Rebbi Yochanan there (132a) said that the Rabbanan learn from "Im Seh" that a Koy is obligated in Matanos. What is the case (i.e. a Koy)? If it is a male deer that mated with a female sheep, as is the conclusion of our Gemara that this is the case of their argument and this is discussed as being the case in the beginning of the Gemara later (132a), it must be they hold we suspect that the father's status affects the offspring. The Pasuk teaches us to include such an animal as being obligated in Matanos (as opposed to what we would think, that the fact that the father is a deer means that it should be exempt). If one holds we do not suspect etc., we would not need a Pasuk to include this or a Pasuk to divide.

Answer: The explanation must be that according to Rebbi Yochanan the case of a Koy is a male sheep that mates with a female deer. Accordingly, whether one suspects or does not suspect the father's status affects the offspring, we certainly require a Pasuk to teach that it is obligated in Matanos (as the mother herself is exempt from Matanos).

Question: The Gemara there (132a) implies that Rebbi Eliezer only says that the offspring of this animal is exempt from Matanos and Kisuy ha'Dam. However, he does not argue on the Rabbanan's statement that the Cheilev of the offspring is forbidden like that of a domesticated animal, being that he does not say its Cheilev is permitted.

Question (cont.): Even if we suspect etc., Rebbi Eliezer holds that "Seh" means not a partial sheep but rather a sheep (from both parents). If so, the fat of the offspring of a male sheep who mates with a female deer should be permitted!

Question (cont.): If you will say that Rebbi Yochanan holds that Rebbi Eliezer also understands that "Seh" means even a partial sheep, why does Rebbi Eliezer here say that Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to this animal?

Answer #1: Rebbi Yochanan holds that they argue here regarding one receiving lashes for this animal for transgressing Oso v'Es Beno. When a male deer mates with a female sheep, the Rabbanan hold that one would even receive lashes for Oso v'Es Beno because of the teaching from "Seh" that this even applies to a partial sheep.

Answer #1 (cont.): Rebbi Eliezer says one is exempt from lashes, as he is in doubt regarding whether or not we say "Seh" means even a partial sheep. However, he admits that it is prohibited.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible that Rebbi Eliezer holds that we do not derive that "Seh" means even a partial sheep. However, Cheilev is different, as the Pasuk included the Cheilev of this animal. This is as the Gemara states in Yoma (74a), "All fat" includes a Koy and a Chatzi Shiur (eating half a Kzayis of Cheilev).

Question: However, there is a difficulty regarding a male sheep who mates with a female deer. Why does Rebbi Eliezer say it is exempt from Kisuy ha'Dam? Perhaps we do not suspect etc. and it is entirely a deer?

Answer: It must be that when Rebbi Eliezer says it is exempt, he only means that it is exempt from Matanos.

Proof: This is implied by the terminology of the Mishnah in Bikurim (2:10) that says, "Rebbi Eliezer says it is exempt because one who wants to take away from his friend must bring proof."

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam writes regarding mules that we follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. He also says that Oso v'Es Beno is forbidden for male animals, but one does not receive lashes if he does so.

Question: This is difficult. Perhaps the case is where he slaughtered the male sheep and its son, and they argue regarding whether or not we suspect that the father's status affects the offspring and accordingly whether or not Oso v'Es Beno applies to fathers.

Implied Question: They argue regarding a Koy. (Why would they argue regarding a Koy if they could just clearly argue regarding the laws of Choshishin and fathers regarding Oso v'Es Beno?)

Answer: This is to teach us that any type of son would be included (not just a son of the same type of animal).

Implied Question: It is possible to say that according to everyone we hold "Choshishin l'Zera ha'Av" (we suspect that the father's status affects the offspring). Their argument is regarding whether the word "Seh" implies even if it is a partial sheep. Accordingly, even if a male deer mated with a female sheep producing a female animal which later gave birth to a male animal, it could be called a partial sheep. (Why doesn't the Gemara say that this could be the argument between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara prefers to say that the argument is regarding Choshishin l'Zera ha'Av, as we find such an argument among the Tanaim. However, we do not know of an argument among Tanaim regarding whether "Seh" means even a partial sheep.

Question: Rebbi Shmuel from Vardun asked that regarding Matanos we see that "Seh" meaning a partial Seh does not cause the entire animal to be considered like a sheep that is fully obligated in Matanos. If so, in our case we should also consider only half of the blood to be the blood of a deer!

Question (cont.): In Beitzah (8b), we say that this does not only apply to a Koy. Even if he slaughtered a domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, and a bird and their blood mingled, it is forbidden to cover it on Yom Tov. (Accordingly, the Gemara's question can be easily answered that even though a partial deer is included in Kisuy ha'Dam, this is a mixture of blood that is forbidden to be covered!)

Answer: We say in Beitzah (ibid.) that this is only true if he would have to take two "coverings" (i.e. bunches) of earth in order to cover all of the blood. However, if he could cover it with one covering he would be obligated to cover the blood. Here, too, being that each drop of blood contains half a drop of deer blood, one would be obligated to cover it.

Explanation: The Gemara implies that being that this is obvious according to Rebbi Eliezer, he has a difficulty with the Beraisa regarding Matanos.

Question: This is difficult. Even if Rebbi Eliezer is also unsure, the Gemara can still ask its question as long as we do not say that their argument hinges on "Seh" meaning even a partial sheep!

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rav Asi says the following in Bava Kama (9a) and Bava Basra (107a) regarding brothers who split their father's estate. He says that if a creditor (of their father) took away one of the brother's portions, this brother can take one quarter of the other brother's land and money that he inherited.

Implied Question (cont.): This is because he is unsure whether the brothers (due to their division of the estate) are considered like inheritors or people who purchased from each other. Therefore, the brother can take half of what he should have taken from what remains from the estate (one quarter of the other brother's total inheritance), and the other brother cannot say that (he will not give anything unless) his brother should bring proof that they should be considered like inheritors, and only then can he take anything. (Why does our Gemara imply that in a case of doubt one would receive nothing being that he cannot prove his side, while Rav Asi in Bava Basra indicates that in such a case one would split the amount in doubt?)

Answer: Sometimes Chazal decreed that one should take half when in doubt. This is explained at length in Bava Basra (70a, see Tosfos in Bechoros 48a, DH "d'Amar").