Chullin Daf 78 צולין דַף 78

The fifth Perek discusses the prohibition of "אותו ואת בנו", shechting an animal and one of its offspring on the same day. The Mishnah states: אותו ואת בנו נוהג בין בארץ בין בח"ל – the prohibition of “it and its offspring” applies both in Eretz Yisroel and outside Eretz Yisroel, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית – both when the Mikdash exists and when it does not exist, בחולין ובמוקדשין – and to both unconsecrated [animals] and consecrated [animals]. The Mishnah analyzes twelve different combinations of chullin and kodashim, shechted inside or outside the Mikdash, and details when the animal may be eaten, and what punishment might be incurred for the shechitah. A hekesh between a passuk about bringing a korban and the next passuk about אותו ואת בנו teaches that אותו ואת בנו applies to kodashim. It also applies to chullin, because שור הפסיק הענין – the word “a cow” in the second passuk interrupts the topic, indicating that it is not a continuation about kodashim. Still, kodashim are also included, because the word "ושור" – “and” a cow is written with a “vav,” teaching that this passuk is מוסיף על ענין ראשון – adding onto the previous topic.

The Gemara asks, since אותו ואת בנו is compared to kodashim, we should say that just as כלאים – a crossbred animal is not valid as a korban, it should also not be subject to the law of אותו ואת בנו. Yet a Baraisa teaches that אותו ואת בנו does apply to כלאים!? Furthermore, the passuk of אותו ואת בנו mentions "שה" (a sheep or goat), and Rava taught that כל מקום שנאמר שה – wherever the word "שה" is mentioned, אינו אלא להוציא את הכלאים – it is only to exclude כלאים from that law!? The Gemara answers that the word "או" – a שור “or” a שה, teaches to include כלאים in this law. The Gemara objects that the word "או" is needed לחלק – to divide the words "שור" and "שה", so that one does not think that one must shecht both a שור and its offspring and a שה and its offspring. It answers that this law is derived from the singular "בנו" – “its” offspring. Although one still might have thought that one must shecht both a שור and a שה, and the offspring of one of them, the word "אותו" – it teaches otherwise.

In a Baraisa, the Tanna Kamma says: אותו ואת בנו נוהג בנקבות – the prohibition of אותו ואת בנו applies to females and their offspring, ואינו נוהג בזכרים – but does not apply to males and their offspring (i.e., it is permitted to shecht a father and its offspring on the same day). Chananya says it applies to both males and females. A Baraisa explains the Rabbonon’s opinion: one cannot derive from אם על הבנים – one who takes a mother with her offspring from a nest, which only applies to female birds, that אותו ואת בנו would similarly only apply to females, because that law has another leniency, in that it does not apply to מזומן – a “prepared” (i.e., owned) nest. Therefore, the passuk says "אותו" – it, implying one parent, not both. אחר שחלק הכתוב זכיתי לדין – After the passuk distinguished between the parents, I gain the logical source above, to derive from אם על הבנים that it is the male parent which is excluded. Although "אותו" is masculine, and might imply the father, the word "בנו" – its offspring implies מי שבנו כרוך אחריו – the [parent] whose offspring clings to it, i.e., the mother. Chananya holds that "אותו" implies the male father, and "בנו" indicates the mother (as above), so the law applies to both.