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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.