Bekhorot 6

תלמוד לומר פטר חמור פטר חמור שני פעמים פטרי חמורים אמרתי לך ולא פטרי סוסים וגמלים

Therefore, the verse states the phrase: “Firstborn of a donkey” (Exodus 13:13), “firstborn of a donkey” (Exodus 34:20), mentioning it a total of two times. The additional usage of the term indicates I said to you that firstborn status applies only to firstborns of donkeys, but not to firstborns of horses or camels.

פריך רב אחאי אי כתב רחמנא חד הוה אמינא דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא ולעולם בשה

Rav Aḥai refutes this claim: How can the extra verse alone indicate that other firstborn non-kosher animals do not have firstborn status? If the Merciful One had written the term “firstborn of a donkey” once, I would say a firstborn donkey is an item that was included in a generalization of all non-kosher animals, but emerged from the generalization to teach that it must be redeemed by means of a lamb. According to the principles of exegesis, it emerged from the generalization to teach not just about itself, but emerged to teach about the entire generalization. And accordingly, all non-kosher animals should actually be redeemed by means of a lamb as well.

כתב רחמנא פטר חמור אחרינא פטרי חמורים ולא פטרי סוסים וגמלים ואימא מעטינהו משה ולעולם בכל דבר

Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Firstborn of a donkey,” another time, to teach that only firstborn donkeys must be redeemed by means of a lamb, but not firstborn horses or camels. And therefore I can say that perhaps the earlier suggestion is correct: The Torah excluded firstborn horses and camels from being redeemed by means of a lamb, but actually, they must still be redeemed by means of any other item.

אם כן לכתוב רחמנא פטר חמור תפדה בשה וחמור תפדה בשה פטר חמור תפדה בשה פטר חמור תפדה בשה למה לי פטרי חמורים אמרתי לך ולא פטרי סוסים וגמלים

The Gemara answers: If it is so that the Torah excludes horses and camels only from redemption by means of a lamb but not from redemption in general, let the Merciful One write: Firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and: A donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, which would suffice. Why do I need the verse to state: “A firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” “a firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” using the same phrase both times? It is necessary to teach that I said to you that firstborn status applies only to firstborns of donkeys, but not to firstborns of horses or camels.

ותנא דידן למעוטי סוסים וגמלים מנא ליה

The Gemara asks: And as for the tanna of our mishna, who derived from the repetition of the phrase “firstborn of a donkey” that the mitzva of redeeming a firstborn donkey applies only if the mother and offspring are both donkeys, from where does he derive that the Torah excludes horses and camels from firstborn status?

אמר רב פפא כל מקנך תזכר כלל שור ושה וחמור פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שור ושה וחמור אין מידי אחרינא לא

Rav Pappa said it is derived from the verse: “From all your livestock you shall take the males, the firstborn of the ox and lamb. And the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:19–20). The phrase “From all your livestock you shall take the males” is a generalization, and the reference to an ox and a lamb and a donkey is a detail. According to the principles of exegesis, in the case of a generalization and a detail, the generalization is referring only to that which is specified in the detail.Therefore, an ox and a lamb and a donkey, yes, their offspring have firstborn status, but anything else, no, it does not have firstborn status.

ורבי יוסי הגלילי פטר הפסיק הענין ורבנן ויו הדר ערביה קרא

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, how does he respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: He holds that a donkey is not included in the generalization “From all your livestock you shall take the males,” as the word “firstborn” in the phrase “and the firstborn of a donkey,” indicates that the Torah interrupts the matter, i.e., the list of details. The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: The letter vav, meaning “and,” in the phrase “and the firstborn of a donkey,” indicates that the verse returns and combines the donkey with the other animals as having firstborn status.

ורבי יוסי הגלילי לא לכתוב לא ויו ולא פטר

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, how does he respond? The Gemara answers: He holds that if the donkey was indeed included in the delineation of the other animals that follows the generalization, the Torah would write neither the letter vav nor the word “firstborn,” and it still would be included.

ורבנן איידי דהא קדושת דמים והא קדושת הגוף פסיק להו והדר עריב להו

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Since this, a firstborn donkey, has sanctity that inheres in its value and must be redeemed by means of a lamb, and that, a firstborn ox and lamb, possess inherent sanctity and are sacrificed upon the altar, the word “firstborn” must interpose between them, and the verse must combine them again with the letter vav for “and,” which indicates that a donkey is also included in the delineation that defines the generalization “From all your livestock you shall take the males.”

איבעיא להו פרה שילדה מין חמור ויש בו מקצת סימנין מהו

§ The Gemara previously cited the mishna (16b) that rules that a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. And if the offspring has some of the characteristics of its mother, it is subject to the obligations of firstborn status. A dilemma was raised before the Sages about a related matter: In the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, where the mishna (5b) ruled that the offspring does not have firstborn status, and it has some of the characteristics of the mother, what is the halakha?

עז שילדה מין רחל ורחל שילדה מין עז דכי יש מקצת סימנין חייבת בבכורה דהא טהורה והא טהורה הא קדושת הגוף והא קדושת הגוף

The Gemara explains the dilemma: When the mishna states with regard to a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts and a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts, that when it has some of the characteristics of the mother, it is obligated, i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status, perhaps this is because a ewe and a goat are somewhat similar; as this one is a kosher animal and that one is a kosher animal. Likewise, this one has inherent sanctity and may be sacrificed on the altar, and that one has inherent sanctity.

הכא דהא טמאה והא טהורה הא קדושת הגוף והא קדושת דמים לא או דלמא כיון דאידי ואידי בני מיקדש בבכורה קדוש

But here, in the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, perhaps the halakha would be different, as this, the offspring, resembles a non-kosher animal, and that, the mother, is a kosher animal. Likewise, the firstborns of this species, the cow, possess inherent sanctity, and the firstborns of that species, the donkey, have sanctity that inheres in its value. Therefore, perhaps the offspring does not have firstborn status, even if it has some of the characteristics of the mother. Or perhaps it can be reasoned that since both this cow and that donkey are sanctified with firstborn status, the offspring is sanctified with firstborn status.

ואם תמצי לומר כיון דאידי ואידי מיקדש בבכורה קדוש חמור שילדה מין סוס מהו הכא ודאי לא בת מיקדש בבכורה הוא או דלמא כיון דמין טמאה הוא קדוש

And if you say that since both this cow and that donkey are sanctified with firstborn status, the offspring is also sanctified with firstborn status if it has some characteristics of the mother, then what is the halakha in a case of a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts? Perhaps here the offspring certainly does not have firstborn status, as a horse is not sanctified with firstborn status. Or perhaps one can reason that since the mother is a member of a non-kosher species, as is the offspring, the offspring should be sanctified with firstborn status, as it has some characteristics of the mother, which is a donkey.

אם תמצא לומר כיון דמין טמאה הוא קדוש פרה שילדה מין סוס מהו הכא ודאי הא טהורה והא טמאה הא בת מיקדש בבכורה והא לא בת מיקדש בבכורה או דלמא סימנין מילתא היא

The Gemara raises an additional dilemma about a related case: If you say in the previous case that since it is a non-kosher species it is sanctified, then what is the halakha in the case of a cow that gave birth to a horse of sorts? Here, one can say there certainly is no reason for the offspring to have firstborn status, as this cow is kosher and that horse is non-kosher. And in addition, this cow is sanctified with firstborn status and that horse is not sanctified with firstborn status. Or perhaps one can reason that having some of the characteristics of the mother is a significant matter and the offspring does have firstborn sanctity.

תא שמע בהמה טהורה שילדה מין בהמה טמאה פטורה מן הבכורה אם יש בו מקצת סימנין חייבת בבכורה מאי לאו אפילו פרה שילדה מין סוס לא פרה שילדה מין חמור

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: A kosher animal that gave birth to a non-kosher animal of sorts is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn. If the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother it is obligated, i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status. What, does this not include even the case of a cow that gave birth to a horse of sorts? No, it is referring to a case such as where a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, where both species are subject to the sanctity of the firstborn.

תא שמע פרה שילדה מין חמור וחמור שילדה מין סוס פטורה מן הבכורה אם יש בו מקצת סימנין חייבת בבכורה מאי לאו אתרוייהו לא אפרה שילדה מין חמור

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: In the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts or a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts, each of the mothers is exempt from their offspring being counted a firstborn. If the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother, it is obligated, i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status. What, is the last clause not referring to both cases of the baraita? If so, this resolves two of the dilemmas about offspring that have some characteristics of the mother. The Gemara responds: No, it is referring only to the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, so only that dilemma is resolved.

אבל חמור שילדה מין סוס למאי קתני לה לפטורא פשיטא השתא ומה פרה שילדה מין חמור דאידי ואידי בני מיקדש בבכורה נינהו אמרת אם יש בו מקצת סימנין אין ואי לא לא חמור שילדה מין סוס מיבעיא

The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the baraita teach the case of a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts? If it is to exempt the offspring from being accounted firstborn status when it does not have some of the characteristics of its mother, that halakha is obvious for the following reason: And now, if in the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, where both this species and that species are sanctified with firstborn status, you said that if the offspring has some of the characteristics of its mother then yes, it has firstborn status, and if it does not have such characteristics, then no, the offspring does not have firstborn status, then in the case of a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts, which generally is not sanctified with firstborn status, is it necessary to state that the horse does not have firstborn status unless it has some of the characteristics of its mother?

איצטריך סלקא דעתך התם הוא דיש לה קרנים והא אין לה קרנים הא פרסותיה סדוקות והא פרסותיה קלוטות

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach that case in addition to that of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, as it might enter your mind that there, in the case of the cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, the offspring does not have firstborn status because a cow and donkey are entirely different from one another, as a cow has horns, and this animal, a donkey, does not have horns. Moreover, with regard to that animal, a cow, its hooves are split, but with regard to this animal, a donkey, its hooves are closed [kelutot].

אבל הכא דאידי ואידי אין לה קרנים אידי ואידי פרסותיה קלוטות אימא חמור אדום בעלמא הוא קמשמע לן

But here, in the case of a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts, where a similarity does exist between the mother and its offspring, as this one and that one both do not have horns, and with regard to both this one and that one its hooves are closed, I can say that this offspring is merely a red donkey, i.e., a donkey with the coloring of a horse, and has firstborn status. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is a different species from that of the mother, and does not have firstborn status.

ומה הן באכילה כו׳ למה לי למיתני שהיוצא

§ The mishna teaches with regard to an animal whose offspring resembles a different species: And what is the offspring’s halakhic status with regard to its consumption? In the case of a kosher animal that gave birth to a non-kosher animal of sorts, its consumption is permitted. And in the case of a non-kosher animal that gave birth to a kosher animal of sorts, its consumption is prohibited. This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach the concluding phrase: This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher?

סימנא בעלמא הוא דלא תיחלף לך דלא תימא זיל בתריה דידיה והאי טהור מעליא הוא והאי טמא מעליא הוא אלא זיל בתר אימיה

The Gemara answers: It is merely a mnemonic to ensure that you do not mistakenly reverse the halakha in these two cases, so that you do not say: Follow its appearance, and therefore this offspring that looks like a kosher animal is a full-fledged kosher animal, despite being born to a non-kosher animal; and that one that looks like a non-kosher animal is a full-fledged non-kosher animal, despite its mother being a kosher animal. Rather, the mishna teaches that one must follow the status of its mother.

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן אך את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה יש לך שהוא מעלה גרה ומפריס פרסה ואי אתה אוכלו ואיזה זה טהור שנולד מן הטמא או אינו אלא טמא הנולד מן הטהור ומאי ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught that when the verse states: “Nevertheless these shall you not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of them that split the hoof” (Leviticus 11:4), this verse indicates that you have an animal that chews the cud and has split hooves, but nevertheless you may not eat it. And which is this? It is a kosher animal that was born from a non-kosher animal. Or perhaps it excludes only a non-kosher animal that does not chew the cud or have split hooves that was born from a kosher animal, and if so what is the explanation of the verse “of them that chew the cud, or of them that split the hoof”?

הכי קאמר דבר הבא ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה לא תיכול תלמוד לומר גמל טמא הוא הוא טמא ואין טמא הנולד מן הטהור טמא אלא טהור

This is what it is saying: You shall not eat a being that comes from one of those animals that chew their cud and have split hooves if it itself does not have the signs of being kosher. To counter this, the continuation of the verse states: “The camel…is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:4). This indicates that a camel itself is non-kosher, but a non-kosher animal that is born from a kosher animal is not non-kosher; rather, it is kosher.

רבי שמעון אומר גמל גמל שני פעמים אחד גמל הנולד מן הגמלה ואחד גמל הנולד מן הפרה

Rabbi Shimon says it is stated: “Camel” (Leviticus 11:4), “camel” (Deuteronomy 14:7), teaching the term two times with regard to the prohibition of consumption. This teaches that both a camel that is born from a camel and a camel that is born from a cow are non-kosher. According to Rabbi Shimon, a non-kosher animal born to a kosher animal is forbidden for consumption, in contrast to the ruling in the mishna.

ורבנן האי גמל גמל מאי עבדי ליה חד לאסור עצמו וחד לאסור חלבו ורבי שמעון לאסור חלבו מנא ליה נפקא ליה מאת הגמל ורבנן אתים לא דרשי

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis in the baraita, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, what do they do with this repetition of “camel,” “camel”? The Gemara answers that one of the verses is written to prohibit the camel itself and one is written to prohibit the female camel’s milk. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive that a camel’s milk is forbidden? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase “the camel [et hagamal].” The verse could have stated just the term “hagamal.” The addition of the word “et” teaches that the prohibition applies also to its milk. And the Rabbis do not interpret instances of “et” as a means to derive new halakhot; they consider it to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition.

כדתניא שמעון העמסוני היה דורש כל את ואת שבתורה כיון שהגיע לאת ה׳ אלהיך תירא פירש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כל אתין שדרשת מה תהא עליהם אמר להם כשם שקבלתי שכר על הדרישה כך אני מקבל שכר על הפרישה

As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni would interpret each and every occurrence of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God? His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of “et” that you interpreted until now? Shimon HaAmasoni said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I receive reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition.

עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד את ה׳ אלהיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים

The word “et” in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: “You shall fear the Lord your God”; the word “et” in the verse serves to include Torah scholars, i.e., that one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any event, Shimon HaAmasoni no longer derived additional halakhot from “et.” The Rabbis follow the conclusion of Shimon HaAmasoni that “et” is not expounded.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי אלא מעתה טעמא דרבנן מגמל גמל ורבי שמעון מאת הגמל הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא חלב דבהמה טמאה שרי

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, that the reason of the Rabbis for the halakha that a camel’s milk is forbidden is that it is derived from the words “camel,” “camel,” written twice, and Rabbi Shimon derives it from “the camel [et hagamal],” then could it be reasoned that if not for this derivation I would say that milk of a non-kosher animal is permitted?

מאי שנא מהא דתניא הטמאים לאסור צירן ורוטבן וקיפה שלהן

In what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: The Torah states with regard to the prohibition against eating creeping animals: “These are they that are impure [hateme’im] to you among all the creeping animals” (Leviticus 11:31). The Sages interpret the letter heh in the term “that are impure [hateme’im]” to prohibit their juice that oozes from their body and their gravy that is produced when they are cooked, and sediments of their flesh that congeal at the bottom of the dish when cooked. Evidently, any liquid that emerges from a non-kosher animal is forbidden.

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל דבהמה טהורה נמי חידוש הוא דאמר מר דם נעכר ונעשה חלב וכיון דחידוש הוא בבהמה טמאה נמי לישתרי קא משמע לן

Rav Ashi responded: The additional exposition to derive that camel’s milk is forbidden was necessary, because it might enter your mind to say it may be permitted, since the permissibility of consumption of the milk of a kosher animal is also a novelty. The milk originates from the blood, which is forbidden for consumption, as the Master said that the reason a nursing woman does not experience menstruation is because the blood is spoiled and becomes milk. Since it is a novelty that the Torah permits milk despite its origins, it might enter your mind to say that with regard to a non-kosher animal it should also be permitted. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is forbidden.

הניחא למאן דאמר דם נעכר ונעשה חלב אלא למאן דאמר איבריה מתפרקין הימנה ואין נפשה חוזרת עליה עד עשרים וארבעה חדש מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who says that a nursing woman does not menstruate because the blood is spoiled and becomes milk. But according to the one who says that the milk does not originate from blood, but rather the reason she does not menstruate is because her limbs become disjointed and her soul, i.e., her health, does not return to her until twenty-four months later, what is there to say? Why does the Torah employ a verse to render forbidden the milk of a non-kosher animal?

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וליכא מידי דאתי מחי ושרייה רחמנא והאי חלב כי אבר מן החי הוא ושרי והילכך אפילו בבהמה טמאה לישתרי קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers: It was necessary, because it might enter your mind to say it may be permitted; since generally speaking there is nothing that comes from a living animal that the Merciful One permits, and yet this milk of a kosher animal is similar to a limb severed from the living and is nevertheless permitted, the permissibility of milk is a novelty of the Torah. And consequently it might enter your mind to say that even the milk of a non-kosher animalshould be permitted in line with that novelty. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is forbidden.

וחלב דבהמה טהורה מנלן דשרי אילימא מדאסר רחמנא בשר בחלב הא לחודיה שרי ואימא חלב לחודיה אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה בשר בחלב בהנאה נמי אסור

§ The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the milk of a kosher animal is in fact permitted? If we say that it is derived from the fact that the Merciful One prohibits eating meat that was cooked in milk, indicating that milk by itself is permitted, one can reject this proof and say that milk alone is forbidden only for consumption but permitted with regard to deriving benefit from it. By contrast, meat that was cooked in milk is forbidden with regard to deriving benefit from it as well.

ולרבי שמעון דשרי בהנאה משכחת לה למילקי על בישוליה

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who deems meat that was cooked in milk permitted with regard to deriving benefit from it, you find a reason for the Torah to mention the prohibition of meat and milk together, even if milk alone is forbidden as well, and that is in order to render one liable to receive lashes for cooking them together, which would not apply to cooking milk alone.

אלא מדגלי רחמנא דבפסולי המוקדשין תזבח ולא גיזה בשר ולא חלב הא דחולין שרי

Rather, one can prove that milk is permitted for consumption since the Merciful One revealed that with regard to disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed: “You may slaughter and eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:15). This verse is interpreted in the following manner: “You may slaughter,” but you may not use its wool from shearing. You may eat its “meat,” but you may not consume its milk. It can be inferred from here that milk of non-sacred kosher animals is permitted.

ואימא דחולין אסור באכילה ושרי בהנאה דקדשים בהנאה נמי אסור

The Gemara rejects this proof: But one could say the distinction between non-sacred milk and milk from sacrificial animals is not with regard to the permissibility of consumption. Rather, milk of non-sacred animals is forbidden for consumption but is permitted with regard to deriving benefit from it, but the milk of sacrificial animals is forbidden with regard to deriving benefit as well.

אלא מדכתיב ודי חלב עזים ללחמך ללחם ביתך וחיים לנערותיך

Rather, proof may be brought that milk is permitted from the fact that it is written: “And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household, and maintenance for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:27). According to the verse, goats’ milk serves as food, and therefore must be kosher.

ודילמא לסחורה אלא מדכתיב ואת עשרת חריצי החלב

The Gemara rejects the proof: But perhaps the verse is referring to selling the milk as merchandise and using the money to buy food, and not to consuming the milk itself. Rather, proof may be brought from the fact that it is written with regard to Jesse’s instructions to his son David upon sending him with provisions for his brothers, who were at war against the Philistines: “And these ten cheeses you shall bring to the captain of their thousand” (I Samuel 17:18), which indicates they ate dairy products.

ודלמא לסחורה אטו דרכה של מלחמה לסחורה

The Gemara rejects this proof as well: But perhaps this verse too means the captain can sell the cheese as merchandise. The Gemara responds: Is that to say that it is the norm during war to engage in commerce? Clearly the cheese was meant for consumption, which proves it is permitted to eat dairy products.

ואיבעית אימא מהכא ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ואי לא דשרי משתבח לן קרא במידי דלא חזי ואיבעית אימא מהכא לכו שברו ואכלו ולכו שברו בלא כסף ובלא מחיר יין וחלב

And if you wish, say instead that proof may be brought from here: The Torah praises Eretz Yisrael as: “A land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:17), and if milk was not permitted, would the verse praise the land to us with an item that is not suitable for consumption? And if you wish, say instead a proof from here: “Come, buy, and eat; and come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1).

אלא מעתה שפן שפן ארנבת ארנבת חזיר חזיר להני הוא דאתו

§ The Gemara returns to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, who interpret the repetition of the word “camel” as indicating the prohibitions against eating a camel born from a cow and consuming its milk, respectively, and asks: But if that is so, that the repetition indicates these halakhot, then with regard to the words: “Hare,” “hare,” “rock badger,” “rock badger,” “swine,” “swine” (see Leviticus 11:5–7; Deuteronomy 14:7–8), which are all mentioned twice as being forbidden, do these words come to teach these halakhot as well?

אלא לכדתניא למה נשנו בבהמה מפני השסועה ובעופות מפני הראה

The Gemara explains: They are necessary only for that which is taught in a baraita: Why were all of the non-kosher animals and birds repeated in Deuteronomy (14:7–20), after having been mentioned already in Leviticus (11:10–20)? With regard to the animals, it is because of the shesua (see Deuteronomy 14:7), an animal with two backs and two spines, which is not mentioned in Leviticus, and with regard to the birds, it is because of the ra’a (see Deuteronomy 14:13).

גמל גמל נמי להכי הוא דאתא כל היכא דאיכא למידרש דרשינן

The Gemara challenges: If so, then the double reference of “camel,” “camel,” also comes for this purpose of teaching about the shesua, and not to teach a separate halakha about the camel. The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, anywhere that it is possible to interpret the verse as teaching an additional halakha, we interpret it in that manner. Only where there is no possibility of such an interpretation is the concept of repeating the passage merely to introduce one additional detail invoked.

תנו רבנן רחל שילדה מין עז ועז שילדה מין רחל פטורה מן הבכורה ואם יש בו מקצת סימנים חייבת רבי שמעון אומר עד שיהא ראשו ורובו דומה לאמו

§ The Gemara discusses an additional source that cites the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: The Sages taught in a baraita that in the case of a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts, in each case the mother is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn. And if it has some of the characteristics of its mother, the mother is obligated, i.e., subject to accounting its offspring a firstborn. Rabbi Shimon says: The offspring does not have firstborn status unless its head and the majority of its body are similar to the appearance of its mother.

איבעיא להו לאכילה מי בעי רבי שמעון ראשו ורובו או לא

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the permissibility of eating a non-kosher animal that was born to a kosher animal, does Rabbi Shimon require its head and most of its body to resemble its mother, or not, and possessing some of the characteristics of its mother suffices?

לענין בכורה כתיב אך בכור שור עד שיהא הוא שור ובכורו שור אבל לאכילה גמל הוא דאמר רחמנא דאסיר הא

The Gemara explains: With regard to the halakha of firstborn status, it is written: “But the firstborn of an ox” (Numbers 18:17), which indicates that it does not have firstborn status unless it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox. If its head and most of its body do not resemble an ox, it does not have firstborn status according to Rabbi Shimon. But with regard to consumption, where Rabbi Shimon holds a camel born to a kosher animal is forbidden, perhaps it is only an ordinary-looking camel that the Merciful One states is forbidden, but if