Chullin 79

Sugya Map

• Issue: Does the prohibition of Oto Ve’et Beno (Leviticus 22:28) or the definition of species (Kilayim) hinge on the father’s biological contribution (Zera Ha’Av)?
• Primary Sources: Chullin 79a, Mishnah Kilayim 8:4, Leviticus 22:28.
• Nafka Mina: Whether a mule (offspring of horse/donkey) can mate with the species of its mother, and whether the prohibition of slaughtering a parent/child includes a father and his offspring.

Text Snapshot

Chullin 79a: "וכתוב 'בנו' – מי שבנו כרוך אחריו, דמשמע נקבה." Nuance: The Gemara parses the text dikduk-style. Ḥananya reads "its offspring" (bno) not as "his son," but as a possessive indicator of the parent whose young clings to it—the mother. By isolating "male" (oto) and "female" (bno), he expands the prohibition to include the father-offspring bond.

Readings

• Rosh (Chullin 5:1:2): Notes that while Ḥananya’s reading is linguistically aggressive, the halakha generally follows him here, acknowledging that the paternal line is not halakhically inert.
• Rashba (Chullin 79a:1): Addresses the kushya: If the Torah wanted to include both, why not just write "child"? He explains that Ḥananya’s midrashic exegesis transforms the word "son" into a status-indicator of dependency.

Friction

• Kushya: If we rely on physical characteristics (voice, ears) to determine species (as per Abaye), are we not merely guessing? How does this override the potential Torah-level prohibition of Kilayim?
• Terutz: The Gemara establishes that these characteristics are de’oraita (Torah-level indicators). We treat the lack of information as a safek (doubt); in matters of issur, we follow the stricture of the doubt, hence the prohibition.

Intertext

• Leviticus 22:28: The source of the parent-offspring prohibition.
• Deuteronomy 18:3: Regarding priestly gifts; the Gemara struggles with whether partial-species ownership obligates the owner to split the gifts.

Psak/Practice

While the halakha nominally follows Ḥananya regarding Oto Ve'et Beno, the practical application is tempered by the safek (uncertainty) regarding paternity. Meta-halakhically, when biological nature is obscured (like the "mute/earless mule"), we default to stringency to avoid potential Kilayim.

Takeaway

Biological paternity is not a mere scientific abstraction in Halakha; it is a legal category that, when blurred, forces a move from certainty to stringency. Shabbat Chazon reminds us that when the identity of "the offspring" is obscured by mixed origins, the Torah demands we prioritize caution over convenience.