Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 22, 2019 | 讬状讝 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 6

What do we derive from the repetition of “the firstborn donkey should be redeemed with a lamb?” A cow that gives birth to a donkey but the donkey slightly resembles the cow is it obligated in firstborn? From where do we derive that regarding kashrut, it goes by the mother in a case where the offspring is different than the mother? From where to we derive that milk of a non kosher animal is forbidden to eat and that milk from a kosher animal is permitted to eat?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 驻讟专讬 住讜住讬诐 讜讙诪诇讬诐

Therefore, the verse states the phrase: 鈥淔irstborn of a donkey鈥 (Exodus 13:13), 鈥渇irstborn of a donkey鈥 (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.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗讬 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讘专 砖讛讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 诇诇诪讚 诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 讛讻诇诇 讻讜诇讜 讬爪讗 讜诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讛

Rav A岣i 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 鈥渇irstborn of a donkey鈥 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.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讗讞专讬谞讗 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 驻讟专讬 住讜住讬诐 讜讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 诪注讟讬谞讛讜 诪砖讛 讜诇注讜诇诐 讘讻诇 讚讘专

Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淔irstborn of a donkey,鈥 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.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 转驻讚讛 讘砖讛 讜讞诪讜专 转驻讚讛 讘砖讛 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 转驻讚讛 讘砖讛 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 转驻讚讛 讘砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 驻讟专讬 住讜住讬诐 讜讙诪诇讬诐

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: 鈥淎 firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,鈥 鈥渁 firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,鈥 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.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 住讜住讬诐 讜讙诪诇讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the tanna of our mishna, who derived from the repetition of the phrase 鈥渇irstborn of a donkey鈥 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?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 诪拽谞讱 转讝讻专 讻诇诇 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讜讞诪讜专 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讜讞诪讜专 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

Rav Pappa said it is derived from the verse: 鈥淔rom 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鈥 (Exodus 34:19鈥20). The phrase 鈥淔rom all your livestock you shall take the males鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 驻讟专 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬讜 讛讚专 注专讘讬讛 拽专讗

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 鈥淔rom all your livestock you shall take the males,鈥 as the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 in the phrase 鈥渁nd the firstborn of a donkey,鈥 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 鈥渁nd,鈥 in the phrase 鈥渁nd the firstborn of a donkey,鈥 indicates that the verse returns and combines the donkey with the other animals as having firstborn status.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 诇讗 讜讬讜 讜诇讗 驻讟专

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 鈥渇irstborn,鈥 and it still would be included.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 讜讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜 讜讛讚专 注专讬讘 诇讛讜

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 鈥渇irstborn鈥 must interpose between them, and the verse must combine them again with the letter vav for 鈥渁nd,鈥 which indicates that a donkey is also included in the delineation that defines the generalization 鈥淔rom all your livestock you shall take the males.鈥

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专 讜讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讛讜

搂 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?

注讝 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 专讞诇 讜专讞诇 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 注讝 讚讻讬 讬砖 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 讚讛讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讛讗 讟讛讜专讛 讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讜讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝

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.

讛讻讗 讚讛讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讛讗 讟讛讜专讛 讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讜讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘谞讬 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 拽讚讜砖

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.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 拽讚讜砖 讞诪讜专 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讘转 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬谉 讟诪讗讛 讛讜讗 拽讚讜砖

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 the offspring should be sanctified with firstborn status, as it has some characteristics of the mother, which is a donkey.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬谉 讟诪讗讛 讛讜讗 拽讚讜砖 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讛讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讛讗 讟诪讗讛 讛讗 讘转 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讘转 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诇讗 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专 讜讞诪讜专 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讗驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专

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.

讗讘诇 讞诪讜专 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诇诪讗讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇驻讟讜专讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘谞讬 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专转 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞诪讜专 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讬砖 诇讛 拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽专谞讬诐 讛讗 驻专住讜转讬讛 住讚讜拽讜转 讜讛讗 驻专住讜转讬讛 拽诇讜讟讜转

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].

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽专谞讬诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻专住讜转讬讛 拽诇讜讟讜转 讗讬诪讗 讞诪讜专 讗讚讜诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜诪讛 讛谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 砖讛讬讜爪讗

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to an animal whose offspring resembles a different species: And what is the offspring鈥檚 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?

住讬诪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 转讬讞诇祝 诇讱 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讟讛讜专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讟诪讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讝讬诇 讘转专 讗讬诪讬讛

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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讱 讗转 讝讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪注诇讬 讛讙专讛 讜诪诪驻专讬住讬 讛驻专住讛 讬砖 诇讱 砖讛讜讗 诪注诇讛 讙专讛 讜诪驻专讬住 驻专住讛 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇讜 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讟讛讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讟诪讗 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟诪讗 讛谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专 讜诪讗讬 诪诪注诇讬 讛讙专讛 讜诪诪驻专讬住讬 讛驻专住讛

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: 鈥淣evertheless these shall you not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of them that split the hoof鈥 (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 鈥渙f them that chew the cud, or of them that split the hoof鈥?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪诪注诇讬 讛讙专讛 讜诪诪驻专讬住讬 讛驻专住讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙诪诇 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讟诪讗 讛谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讛讜专

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: 鈥淭he camel鈥s impure for you鈥 (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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙诪诇 讙诪诇 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 讗讞讚 讙诪诇 讛谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讙诪诇讛 讜讗讞讚 讙诪诇 讛谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛驻专讛

Rabbi Shimon says it is stated: 鈥淐amel鈥 (Leviticus 11:4), 鈥渃amel鈥 (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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讙诪诇 讙诪诇 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 诇讗住讜专 注爪诪讜 讜讞讚 诇讗住讜专 讞诇讘讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗住讜专 讞诇讘讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗转 讛讙诪诇 讜专讘谞谉 讗转讬诐 诇讗 讚专砖讬

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis in the baraita, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, what do they do with this repetition of 鈥渃amel,鈥 鈥渃amel鈥? The Gemara answers that one of the verses is written to prohibit the camel itself and one is written to prohibit the female camel鈥檚 milk. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive that a camel鈥檚 milk is forbidden? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase 鈥渢he camel [et hagamal].鈥 The verse could have stated just the term 鈥hagamal.鈥 The addition of the word 鈥et鈥 teaches that the prohibition applies also to its milk. And the Rabbis do not interpret instances of 鈥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.

讻讚转谞讬讗 砖诪注讜谉 讛注诪住讜谞讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讻诇 讗转 讜讗转 砖讘转讜专讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 驻讬专砖 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬 讻诇 讗转讬谉 砖讚专砖转 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻砖诐 砖拽讘诇转讬 砖讻专 注诇 讛讚专讬砖讛 讻讱 讗谞讬 诪拽讘诇 砖讻专 注诇 讛驻专讬砖讛

As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni would interpret each and every occurrence of the word et鈥 in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word 鈥et,鈥 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鈥 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.

注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讬诪讚 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 诇专讘讜转 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐

The word 鈥et鈥 in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God鈥; the word 鈥et鈥 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 鈥et.鈥 The Rabbis follow the conclusion of Shimon HaAmasoni that 鈥et鈥 is not expounded.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讙诪诇 讙诪诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗转 讛讙诪诇 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞诇讘 讚讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖专讬

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, that the reason of the Rabbis for the halakha that a camel鈥檚 milk is forbidden is that it is derived from the words 鈥渃amel,鈥 鈥渃amel,鈥 written twice, and Rabbi Shimon derives it from 鈥渢he camel [et hagamal],鈥 then could it be reasoned that if not for this derivation I would say that milk of a non-kosher animal is permitted?

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇讗住讜专 爪讬专谉 讜专讜讟讘谉 讜拽讬驻讛 砖诇讛谉

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: 鈥淭hese are they that are impure [hateme鈥檌m] to you among all the creeping animals鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). The Sages interpret the letter heh in the term 鈥渢hat are impure [hateme鈥檌m]鈥 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.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 谞诪讬 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讚诐 谞注讻专 讜谞注砖讛 讞诇讘 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讬砖转专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Ashi responded: The additional exposition to derive that camel鈥檚 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诐 谞注讻专 讜谞注砖讛 讞诇讘 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬讘专讬讛 诪转驻专拽讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讗讬谉 谞驻砖讛 讞讜讝专转 注诇讬讛 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗转讬 诪讞讬 讜砖专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 讞诇讘 讻讬 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讛讜讗 讜砖专讬 讜讛讬诇讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讬砖转专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜讞诇讘 讚讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪谞诇谉 讚砖专讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讛讗 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讞诇讘 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讘讛谞讗讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

搂 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.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚砖专讬 讘讛谞讗讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇诪讬诇拽讬 注诇 讘讬砖讜诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讚讘驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 转讝讘讞 讜诇讗 讙讬讝讛 讘砖专 讜诇讗 讞诇讘 讛讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 砖专讬

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: 鈥淵ou may slaughter and eat meat鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:15). This verse is interpreted in the following manner: 鈥淵ou may slaughter,鈥 but you may not use its wool from shearing. You may eat its 鈥渕eat,鈥 but you may not consume its milk. It can be inferred from here that milk of non-sacred kosher animals is permitted.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖专讬 讘讛谞讗讛 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛谞讗讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

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.

讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讚讬 讞诇讘 注讝讬诐 诇诇讞诪讱 诇诇讞诐 讘讬转讱 讜讞讬讬诐 诇谞注专讜转讬讱

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

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇住讞讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 注砖专转 讞专讬爪讬 讛讞诇讘

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鈥檚 instructions to his son David upon sending him with provisions for his brothers, who were at war against the Philistines: 鈥淎nd these ten cheeses you shall bring to the captain of their thousand鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:18), which indicates they ate dairy products.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇住讞讜专讛 讗讟讜 讚专讻讛 砖诇 诪诇讞诪讛 诇住讞讜专讛

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讗专抓 讝讘转 讞诇讘 讜讚讘砖 讜讗讬 诇讗 讚砖专讬 诪砖转讘讞 诇谉 拽专讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 诇讻讜 砖讘专讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讜诇讻讜 砖讘专讜 讘诇讗 讻住祝 讜讘诇讗 诪讞讬专 讬讬谉 讜讞诇讘

And if you wish, say instead that proof may be brought from here: The Torah praises Eretz Yisrael as: 鈥淎 land flowing with milk and honey鈥 (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: 鈥淐ome, buy, and eat; and come, buy wine and milk without money and without price鈥 (Isaiah 55:1).

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖驻谉 砖驻谉 讗专谞讘转 讗专谞讘转 讞讝讬专 讞讝讬专 诇讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, who interpret the repetition of the word 鈥渃amel鈥 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: 鈥淗are,鈥 鈥渉are,鈥 鈥渞ock badger,鈥 鈥渞ock badger,鈥 鈥渟wine,鈥 鈥渟wine鈥 (see Leviticus 11:5鈥7; Deuteronomy 14:7鈥8), which are all mentioned twice as being forbidden, do these words come to teach these halakhot as well?

讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇诪讛 谞砖谞讜 讘讘讛诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛砖住讜注讛 讜讘注讜驻讜转 诪驻谞讬 讛专讗讛

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鈥20), after having been mentioned already in Leviticus (11:10鈥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鈥檃 (see Deuteronomy 14:13).

讙诪诇 讙诪诇 谞诪讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖 讚专砖讬谞谉

The Gemara challenges: If so, then the double reference of 鈥渃amel,鈥 鈥渃amel,鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讞诇 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 注讝 讜注讝 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 专讞诇 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讗诪讜

搂 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬 讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讗讜 诇讗

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?

诇注谞讬谉 讘讻讜专讛 讻转讬讘 讗讱 讘讻讜专 砖讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讛讜讗 砖讜专 讜讘讻讜专讜 砖讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讙诪诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗住讬专 讛讗

The Gemara explains: With regard to the halakha of firstborn status, it is written: 鈥淏ut the firstborn of an ox鈥 (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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 6

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 驻讟专讬 住讜住讬诐 讜讙诪诇讬诐

Therefore, the verse states the phrase: 鈥淔irstborn of a donkey鈥 (Exodus 13:13), 鈥渇irstborn of a donkey鈥 (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.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗讬 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讘专 砖讛讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 诇诇诪讚 诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 讛讻诇诇 讻讜诇讜 讬爪讗 讜诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讛

Rav A岣i 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 鈥渇irstborn of a donkey鈥 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.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讗讞专讬谞讗 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 驻讟专讬 住讜住讬诐 讜讙诪诇讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 诪注讟讬谞讛讜 诪砖讛 讜诇注讜诇诐 讘讻诇 讚讘专

Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淔irstborn of a donkey,鈥 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.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 转驻讚讛 讘砖讛 讜讞诪讜专 转驻讚讛 讘砖讛 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 转驻讚讛 讘砖讛 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 转驻讚讛 讘砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 驻讟专讬 住讜住讬诐 讜讙诪诇讬诐

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: 鈥淎 firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,鈥 鈥渁 firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,鈥 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.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 住讜住讬诐 讜讙诪诇讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the tanna of our mishna, who derived from the repetition of the phrase 鈥渇irstborn of a donkey鈥 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?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 诪拽谞讱 转讝讻专 讻诇诇 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讜讞诪讜专 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 砖讜专 讜砖讛 讜讞诪讜专 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

Rav Pappa said it is derived from the verse: 鈥淔rom 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鈥 (Exodus 34:19鈥20). The phrase 鈥淔rom all your livestock you shall take the males鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 驻讟专 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬讜 讛讚专 注专讘讬讛 拽专讗

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 鈥淔rom all your livestock you shall take the males,鈥 as the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 in the phrase 鈥渁nd the firstborn of a donkey,鈥 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 鈥渁nd,鈥 in the phrase 鈥渁nd the firstborn of a donkey,鈥 indicates that the verse returns and combines the donkey with the other animals as having firstborn status.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 诇讗 讜讬讜 讜诇讗 驻讟专

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 鈥渇irstborn,鈥 and it still would be included.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 讜讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜 讜讛讚专 注专讬讘 诇讛讜

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 鈥渇irstborn鈥 must interpose between them, and the verse must combine them again with the letter vav for 鈥渁nd,鈥 which indicates that a donkey is also included in the delineation that defines the generalization 鈥淔rom all your livestock you shall take the males.鈥

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专 讜讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讛讜

搂 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?

注讝 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 专讞诇 讜专讞诇 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 注讝 讚讻讬 讬砖 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 讚讛讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讛讗 讟讛讜专讛 讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讜讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝

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.

讛讻讗 讚讛讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讛讗 讟讛讜专讛 讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讜讛讗 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘谞讬 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 拽讚讜砖

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.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 拽讚讜砖 讞诪讜专 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讘转 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬谉 讟诪讗讛 讛讜讗 拽讚讜砖

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 the offspring should be sanctified with firstborn status, as it has some characteristics of the mother, which is a donkey.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬谉 讟诪讗讛 讛讜讗 拽讚讜砖 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讛讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讛讗 讟诪讗讛 讛讗 讘转 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讘转 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诇讗 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专 讜讞诪讜专 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讗驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专

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.

讗讘诇 讞诪讜专 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诇诪讗讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇驻讟讜专讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 驻专讛 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讞诪讜专 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘谞讬 诪讬拽讚砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专转 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬谉 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞诪讜专 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 住讜住 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讬砖 诇讛 拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽专谞讬诐 讛讗 驻专住讜转讬讛 住讚讜拽讜转 讜讛讗 驻专住讜转讬讛 拽诇讜讟讜转

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].

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽专谞讬诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻专住讜转讬讛 拽诇讜讟讜转 讗讬诪讗 讞诪讜专 讗讚讜诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜诪讛 讛谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 砖讛讬讜爪讗

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to an animal whose offspring resembles a different species: And what is the offspring鈥檚 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?

住讬诪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 转讬讞诇祝 诇讱 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讟讛讜专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讟诪讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讝讬诇 讘转专 讗讬诪讬讛

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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讱 讗转 讝讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪注诇讬 讛讙专讛 讜诪诪驻专讬住讬 讛驻专住讛 讬砖 诇讱 砖讛讜讗 诪注诇讛 讙专讛 讜诪驻专讬住 驻专住讛 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇讜 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讟讛讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讟诪讗 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟诪讗 讛谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专 讜诪讗讬 诪诪注诇讬 讛讙专讛 讜诪诪驻专讬住讬 讛驻专住讛

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: 鈥淣evertheless these shall you not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of them that split the hoof鈥 (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 鈥渙f them that chew the cud, or of them that split the hoof鈥?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪诪注诇讬 讛讙专讛 讜诪诪驻专讬住讬 讛驻专住讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙诪诇 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讟诪讗 讛谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讛讜专

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: 鈥淭he camel鈥s impure for you鈥 (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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙诪诇 讙诪诇 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 讗讞讚 讙诪诇 讛谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛讙诪诇讛 讜讗讞讚 讙诪诇 讛谞讜诇讚 诪谉 讛驻专讛

Rabbi Shimon says it is stated: 鈥淐amel鈥 (Leviticus 11:4), 鈥渃amel鈥 (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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讙诪诇 讙诪诇 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 诇讗住讜专 注爪诪讜 讜讞讚 诇讗住讜专 讞诇讘讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗住讜专 讞诇讘讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗转 讛讙诪诇 讜专讘谞谉 讗转讬诐 诇讗 讚专砖讬

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis in the baraita, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, what do they do with this repetition of 鈥渃amel,鈥 鈥渃amel鈥? The Gemara answers that one of the verses is written to prohibit the camel itself and one is written to prohibit the female camel鈥檚 milk. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive that a camel鈥檚 milk is forbidden? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase 鈥渢he camel [et hagamal].鈥 The verse could have stated just the term 鈥hagamal.鈥 The addition of the word 鈥et鈥 teaches that the prohibition applies also to its milk. And the Rabbis do not interpret instances of 鈥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.

讻讚转谞讬讗 砖诪注讜谉 讛注诪住讜谞讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讻诇 讗转 讜讗转 砖讘转讜专讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 驻讬专砖 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬 讻诇 讗转讬谉 砖讚专砖转 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻砖诐 砖拽讘诇转讬 砖讻专 注诇 讛讚专讬砖讛 讻讱 讗谞讬 诪拽讘诇 砖讻专 注诇 讛驻专讬砖讛

As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni would interpret each and every occurrence of the word et鈥 in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word 鈥et,鈥 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鈥 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.

注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讬诪讚 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 诇专讘讜转 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐

The word 鈥et鈥 in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God鈥; the word 鈥et鈥 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 鈥et.鈥 The Rabbis follow the conclusion of Shimon HaAmasoni that 鈥et鈥 is not expounded.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讙诪诇 讙诪诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗转 讛讙诪诇 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞诇讘 讚讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖专讬

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, that the reason of the Rabbis for the halakha that a camel鈥檚 milk is forbidden is that it is derived from the words 鈥渃amel,鈥 鈥渃amel,鈥 written twice, and Rabbi Shimon derives it from 鈥渢he camel [et hagamal],鈥 then could it be reasoned that if not for this derivation I would say that milk of a non-kosher animal is permitted?

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇讗住讜专 爪讬专谉 讜专讜讟讘谉 讜拽讬驻讛 砖诇讛谉

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: 鈥淭hese are they that are impure [hateme鈥檌m] to you among all the creeping animals鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). The Sages interpret the letter heh in the term 鈥渢hat are impure [hateme鈥檌m]鈥 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.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 谞诪讬 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讚诐 谞注讻专 讜谞注砖讛 讞诇讘 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讬砖转专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Ashi responded: The additional exposition to derive that camel鈥檚 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诐 谞注讻专 讜谞注砖讛 讞诇讘 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬讘专讬讛 诪转驻专拽讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讗讬谉 谞驻砖讛 讞讜讝专转 注诇讬讛 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗转讬 诪讞讬 讜砖专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 讞诇讘 讻讬 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讛讜讗 讜砖专讬 讜讛讬诇讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讬砖转专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜讞诇讘 讚讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪谞诇谉 讚砖专讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讛讗 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讞诇讘 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讘讛谞讗讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

搂 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.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚砖专讬 讘讛谞讗讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇诪讬诇拽讬 注诇 讘讬砖讜诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讚讘驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 转讝讘讞 讜诇讗 讙讬讝讛 讘砖专 讜诇讗 讞诇讘 讛讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 砖专讬

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: 鈥淵ou may slaughter and eat meat鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:15). This verse is interpreted in the following manner: 鈥淵ou may slaughter,鈥 but you may not use its wool from shearing. You may eat its 鈥渕eat,鈥 but you may not consume its milk. It can be inferred from here that milk of non-sacred kosher animals is permitted.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖专讬 讘讛谞讗讛 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛谞讗讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

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.

讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讚讬 讞诇讘 注讝讬诐 诇诇讞诪讱 诇诇讞诐 讘讬转讱 讜讞讬讬诐 诇谞注专讜转讬讱

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

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇住讞讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 注砖专转 讞专讬爪讬 讛讞诇讘

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鈥檚 instructions to his son David upon sending him with provisions for his brothers, who were at war against the Philistines: 鈥淎nd these ten cheeses you shall bring to the captain of their thousand鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:18), which indicates they ate dairy products.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇住讞讜专讛 讗讟讜 讚专讻讛 砖诇 诪诇讞诪讛 诇住讞讜专讛

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讗专抓 讝讘转 讞诇讘 讜讚讘砖 讜讗讬 诇讗 讚砖专讬 诪砖转讘讞 诇谉 拽专讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 诇讻讜 砖讘专讜 讜讗讻诇讜 讜诇讻讜 砖讘专讜 讘诇讗 讻住祝 讜讘诇讗 诪讞讬专 讬讬谉 讜讞诇讘

And if you wish, say instead that proof may be brought from here: The Torah praises Eretz Yisrael as: 鈥淎 land flowing with milk and honey鈥 (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: 鈥淐ome, buy, and eat; and come, buy wine and milk without money and without price鈥 (Isaiah 55:1).

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖驻谉 砖驻谉 讗专谞讘转 讗专谞讘转 讞讝讬专 讞讝讬专 诇讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, who interpret the repetition of the word 鈥渃amel鈥 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: 鈥淗are,鈥 鈥渉are,鈥 鈥渞ock badger,鈥 鈥渞ock badger,鈥 鈥渟wine,鈥 鈥渟wine鈥 (see Leviticus 11:5鈥7; Deuteronomy 14:7鈥8), which are all mentioned twice as being forbidden, do these words come to teach these halakhot as well?

讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇诪讛 谞砖谞讜 讘讘讛诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛砖住讜注讛 讜讘注讜驻讜转 诪驻谞讬 讛专讗讛

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鈥20), after having been mentioned already in Leviticus (11:10鈥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鈥檃 (see Deuteronomy 14:13).

讙诪诇 讙诪诇 谞诪讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖 讚专砖讬谞谉

The Gemara challenges: If so, then the double reference of 鈥渃amel,鈥 鈥渃amel,鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讞诇 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 注讝 讜注讝 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬谉 专讞诇 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪拽爪转 住讬诪谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讗诪讜

搂 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬 讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讗讜 诇讗

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?

诇注谞讬谉 讘讻讜专讛 讻转讬讘 讗讱 讘讻讜专 砖讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讛讜讗 砖讜专 讜讘讻讜专讜 砖讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讙诪诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗住讬专 讛讗

The Gemara explains: With regard to the halakha of firstborn status, it is written: 鈥淏ut the firstborn of an ox鈥 (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

Scroll To Top