Bava Kamma 78a — the Talmud in English

And we still raise an objection:

But regarding sacrificial offerings as well—

apart from “a sheep or a goat,”

it is stated

further:

“an ox or a sheep,”

from among which you cannot exclude a hybrid, and

if so,

let us include

even the hybrid through this “or”!?

And we answer:

The

“or”

at the end

of the verse—“a sheep or a goat”—

comes to exclude.

to exclude something.

If so, the “or”

at the beginning—

“an ox or a sheep”—

also comes to exclude

hybrids.

And we object:

On the contrary,

it may be said in reverse:

Since the

“or”

at the beginning—

“an ox or a sheep”—

comes to include,

for you cannot exclude a hybrid from between them, if so, let us say that the “or” at the

end—

“a sheep or a goat”—

also comes to include

it!?

What is this!?

And what sort of objection is this!?

But surely,

if you grant

that the two “or”s

come to exclude,

they do come to exclude,

it is that two exclusions were needed,

that is why two exclusions were needed, because:

Even though it was excluded

by the first “or”—

a hybrid, it was necessary to have

another “or”

to exclude a nidmeh.

But if you grant that the

“or”

comes to include, and you say: one comes to include a hybrid and one comes to include a nidmeh,

then why are two inclusions necessary?

Why two inclusions!?

But surely,

now that a hybrid has been included for him

by the first “or,”

a nidmeh

which is less severe than a hybrid,

is it necessary [A0065]—all the more so!?

to include it [all the more so]!?

And the Gemara asks:

But

according to what you say, that hybrids were included with regard to sacrificial offerings, then

that which

Rava said: This is a foundational derivation: Everywhere that it is stated

“sheep”

it is only to exclude a hybrid—what practical halakhic purpose does it serve,

for which law was the binyan av needed to teach that it does not apply to hybrids!?

Perhaps,

you will say: to teach us

with regard to sacrificial offerings—

as it is stated in the passage concerning libations [Numbers 15:11]: “So shall it be done for one ox or for one ram, or for a sheep among the sheep or among the goats”—that hybrids are disqualified for an offering?

This cannot be said, for:

Sacrificial offerings,

surely

it is explicitly written concerning them!?

As it is stated:

“an ox or a sheep

or a goat when it is born, and it shall be seven days under its mother, and from the eighth day onward it will be acceptable as an offering made by fire to the Lord”; and for this reason Scripture made the “or” superfluous, in order to teach:

excluding a hybrid.

Perhaps,

you will say:

for the animal tithe,

as it is stated concerning it [Leviticus 27:32]: “And every tithe of cattle and flock, every one that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord”; and since “flock” is stated, it is as though “sheep” were stated in it, and it comes to teach us that hybrids are exempt from the animal tithe?

This too cannot be said, for the animal tithe, by the gzera shava

“under, under”

learns from sacrificial offerings

to exempt hybrids from the animal tithe, just as they are disqualified for sacrificial offerings.

Perhaps,

you will say:

for the firstborn,

as it is stated concerning it [Leviticus 27:26]: “However, a firstborn that is born as a firstborn to the Lord among animals, no man shall consecrate it; whether an ox or a sheep, it is the Lord’s,”

and it comes to teach us that hybrids are exempt from the firstborn status!?

This too cannot be said, for an animal that is a firstborn, by the gzera shava

“passing, passing”

learns from the animal tithe,

to exempt it from the firstborn status, just as it is exempt from the animal tithe.

Alternatively,

you can learn that hybrids are exempt from the firstborn status by a kal va-chomer:

Now,

a nidmeh

you have said is not

liable for the firstborn status,

for

it

is written

in the verse [Numbers 18:17]:

“However, the firstborn of an ox”,

and we learned:

until he himself is

an ox,

and his firstborn is an ox,

and a nidmeh was excluded from the firstborn status—

a hybrid,

which is exempt from the firstborn status,

is it necessary!?

Rather, when Rava’s statement was stated, it was with regard to

the redemption

of a firstborn donkey,

for one does not redeem with a hybrid, and

as we learned:

It is stated in the Torah: “And you shall redeem a firstborn donkey with a sheep,” and

one may not redeem with a calf,

for it is not a sheep,

nor with a wild animal, nor with a slaughtered animal

[a slaughtered sheep],

nor with a

sheep

that is a tereifa

[whose legs were severed above the knee],

nor with a hybrid,

even when its father and mother are of the species sheep,

nor with a koi

which is uncertainly a wild animal and uncertainly a domesticated animal—but only with living sheep and goats.

And the law concerning a hybrid in the redemption of a firstborn donkey is learned from Rava’s binyan av.

And

we still raise an objection

against Rabbi Elazar

in the Mishna there,

who permits

the redemption of a firstborn donkey

with a hybrid, because it is a sheep,

for its father and mother are of the species sheep.

If so,

for what practical halakhic purpose

is “sheep” stated, and what does it come to teach us!?

Rabbi Elazar could have said to you:

a. The entire passage is explained according to Rashi’s method in our passage.

b. We learned in a beraita in Bekhorot 6b:

“Rabbi Shimon says: [The word] ‘camel’ [is written] twice, [since it is impure, once in Leviticus and once in Deuteronomy; in order to teach us:] one camel [is impure], and one camel born from the cow [not specifically one that looks like a camel, but one that lacks the signs of purity, even if it has one sign like a camel, namely, that it brings up its cud, but its hooves are closed and not split; any one that does not have both signs is impure, even if its father too was pure].”

And a camel born from the ox and the cow is called in the language of our passage a “closed-hoofed animal,” meaning that its hooves are closed and not split; according to Rabbi Shimon, it is impure.

c. And in a beraita in Bekhorot 7a [as Rashi brought and explained in our passage], the method of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon, was brought:

It is written: “But this you shall not eat among those that bring up the cud and among those that have a split hoof [that is, or among those that have a split hoof]: the camel, because it brings up the cud, but it does not have a split hoof, [and therefore] it is impure for you.”

You may not eat this one [the camel that has one sign of purity, that it brings up the cud, but it does not have a split hoof] on the basis of one sign [of purity], but there is another one that you may eat on the basis of one sign [of purity] alone; and which is it? This is an impure animal born from a pure animal and conceived from a pure animal [its father and mother are pure, and it does not have two signs of purity, but only one sign; it is fit to eat. But if it was conceived from an impure animal, meaning that its father was impure, its offspring is not rendered fit by one sign of purity].

One might have thought, even if it was conceived from an impure animal [according to the conclusion of our passage, this is the explanation: one might have thought that even this impure animal from which it was conceived, that is: one might have thought that just as I render it fit with one sign of purity, since its father and mother were pure, so I render its offspring fit, meaning that if this one mates with a cow and she gives birth to a closed-hoofed animal like it, the offspring would be fit; and the beraita calls it “impure” because intrinsically it is impure, for it has only one sign, and its fitness is because it comes from pure animals]—the verse states: “This is the animal that you may eat: an ox, a sheep of the sheep, and a sheep of the goats”; [and from the fact that “sheep” is stated, we learn:] until it is born from two sheep, that its father and mother are sheep [and this one’s father is not called a “sheep,” although it is pure]”.

When Rava’s statement was stated,

in order

to

teach about

an impure animal

[an animal of an impure species]

that was born from a pure animal but conceived from an impure animal—and he explains it as he proceeds

—it is forbidden to eat; and because “sheep” is stated concerning it, as it is written [Deuteronomy 14:4]: “This is the animal that you may eat: an ox, a sheep of the sheep, and a sheep of the goats.”

And

what we said, that according to Rabbi Elazar this law is learned from “sheep,” is

not according to Rabbi Yehoshua!

For if it is Rabbi Yehoshua,

he did not need to learn it from “sheep,” because

from

what Scripture said:

“a sheep of the sheep and a sheep of the goats”

he derives

for Rabbi Yehoshua that it is not permitted to eat, because the expression “sheep” implies:

until it itself is a sheep and its mother is a ewe.

The initial assumption was that “sheep,” according to Rabbi Elazar, or “sheep,” according to Rabbi Yehoshua, comes to exclude a horse that mated with a cow and she gave birth to a horse, or a pig that mated with a ewe and she gave birth to a pig; and therefore we wondered:

And does a pure animal become pregnant from an impure animal

[such as a cow from a horse, or a ewe from a pig]

is it able to conceive

[can it become pregnant from an impure animal], that Scripture had to exclude it!?