Bekhorot 17a — the Talmud in English

And if so,

that is

that he said to him]

[that he says]

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel “

even until ten generations they are exempt,”

unlike the First Tanna, who exempted only one generation after the offspring that emerged from the body of the animal.

But according to Rav Huna, who says: the First Tanna did not descend to exempt generations.

That is, the First Tanna exempted only the offspring that emerged from the body of his gentile’s animal, but not his generations at all,

what is the meaning of “

even until ten generations”?

That is, why did he state it in this wording? He should have said only, “even the offspring of offspring are exempt,” and we would have known by itself that until the tenth generation, and even forever, they are exempt.

Rav Huna can say to you: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

“placed

their offspring in the place of their mothers”

is standing

[differed],

for

even the First Tanna

descended to exempt generations.

[Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s dispute is about the manner in which he placed the offspring in the place of their mothers; in this respect, even the First Tanna exempts one generation beyond the animals themselves and their offspring that emerged from them.] And if so, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel had to explain his dispute: that he exempts until ten generations.

The version of the continuation of the Gemara and its explanation was written according to the words of the Rosh brought in the Shitta Mekubbetzet.

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

One who receives iron-flock from a gentile: they and their offspring —

that is, the offspring themselves —

are exempt

from giving their son as a firstborn,

but offspring of offspring —

not

— and if so,

a refutation of Rav Yehuda,

for the beraita emphasizes that only the offspring themselves are exempt.

Rav Yehuda can say to you: Say

in the beraita: “

they and their offspring”

[with two vavs], and this is its explanation: “They” means the offspring, and also their offspring, that is, the offspring of the offspring that gave birth to a fourth generation, are exempt.

Some say:

This is what we learned in the beraita: “

They and their offspring”

are exempt, and a refutation of Rav Huna!

Rav Huna can say to you: Say

in the beraita: “

They, their offspring”

[with one vav]

are exempt; the offspring of offspring

are liable.

We learned in the Mishna:

A ewe that gave birth to a species of goat,

and a goat that gave birth to a species of ewe, is exempt from the firstborn:

Rav Oshaya from Nehardea came and brought a beraita in his hand

[Rav Oshaya from Nehardea came and brought with him a beraita] that was taught as follows:

A ewe daughter of a goat, and a goat daughter of a ewe: Rabbi Meir renders liable, and the Sages exempt.

But it was not explained in the beraita with regard to what they disagreed.

Rav Hoshaya said to Rabbah: When you enter before Rav Huna, ask him: “

Rabbi Meir renders liable”

for what

[when you come before Rav Huna, ask him: with regard to what did Rabbi Meir render liable]? For:

If you say with regard to

the matter of

the firstborn,

this cannot be said, for:

And

if

Rabbi Meir does not have

what the Sages expounded from the verse

“But the firstborn of an ox”:

until it itself is an ox and its firstborn is an ox,

to exclude the resembling animal!?

Rather,

say

with regard to

the matter of

the first shearing.

This, too, cannot be said, for:

And

if

he does not have

for Rabbi Meir

that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Sheep whose wool is harsh are exempt from the first shearing, as it is stated

[Job 31] “

And with the fleece of my sheep I warm myself,”

we have learned that shearing is only that which is fit for warming —

and if so, although because it is “resembling” it is not exempt, nevertheless, since it is of the species of goat, its wool is harsh, and it is exempt from the first shearing.

He said to him,

Rabbah to Rav Hoshaya:

Let us examine it ourselves

[let us consider the matter ourselves]!

Here, with what are we dealing? With a ewe that gave birth to a species of goat, and its father

also

a he-goat,

of the same species as the offspring; or a goat that gave birth to a species of ewe, and its father, too, was a sheep of the same species as the offspring,

and with regard to “

we are concerned with the seed of the father”

with regard to the matter of it and its offspring —

they disagree.

For Rabbi Meir holds: We are concerned with the seed of the father,

and it is forbidden to slaughter the he-goat together with the goat.

And the Rabbis hold: We are not concerned with the seed of the father,

and it is permitted to slaughter the he-goat together with the goat.

That is, their dispute is whether it is permitted to slaughter a father and a son on one day, or whether the Torah prohibited only a mother and her son. This law fundamentally depends upon the issue of whether “we are concerned with the seed of the father,” and the beraita informs us that the Sages are not concerned with the seed of the father, even though the seed of the father was effective in changing the offspring into his species.

And we challenge this:

If so, let them disagree concerning concern

for the seed of the father in general, and according to the dispute of Hanania and the Rabbis,

who disagreed about this with regard to it and its offspring: Hanania renders liable, and the Sages exempt.

Rather, really, it is with regard to the firstborn

that they disagreed, and everyone agrees that if the offspring does not resemble its mother, it is a resembling animal and is exempt from the firstborn,

and here

— where we learned “a ewe daughter of a goat” —

with what are we dealing?

With a ewe

[a male of the species of ewe]

daughter of a ewe

like itself, except that its mother was

a daughter of a goat.

And likewise, what we learned, “a goat daughter of a ewe,” means: a male goat, a goat like itself, and it was a daughter of a ewe. Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagreed whether the offspring is considered “resembling”:

One master,

Rabbi Meir,

holds: Follow its mother

[follow its mother], for it resembles her,

and

if so,

this one is not “

resembling”

it.

And one master,

the Sages,

holds: Follow its mother’s mother

[follow its mother’s mother], for it does not resemble her,

and

if so,

this one “

resembling”

it.

And if you wish, say

to explain what we learned, “a ewe daughter of a goat and a goat daughter of a ewe,” that they did not disagree about two firstborn animals, but rather:

with a ewe

[a male of the species of ewe]

daughter of a goat

which was

a daughter of a ewe:

One master,

Rabbi Meir,

holds:

we say

the ewes returned

[ewes]

to their place,

for although it does not resemble its mother, since its mother is the one whose species was changed, whereas it returned to its species, it is not a resembling animal.

And one master,

the Sages,

holds: We do not

say, “

the ewes returned to their place.”

That is, since relative to its mother it is a resembling animal, the name “resembling” applies to it.

Rav Ashi said:

Here, with what are we dealing? With

a case in which there are

in the male goat born to the ewe, or in the male sheep born to the goat,

some signs

by which it resembles its mother. Therefore Rabbi Meir renders it liable, as explained in our Mishna, for some signs suffice to remove it from the law of “resembling.”

And who are the Sages

who exempt?

It is Rabbi Shimon,

who

differed from our Mishna and

our Mishna and

said:

A resembling animal is not liable with regard to the firstborn

until its head and most of its body resemble its mother.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Meir concedes —

who disagreed with the Sages with regard to the firstborn in the beraita mentioned above —

with regard to the goat of the New Moon,

and likewise with regard to the goats of the Festivals,

for we require

a goat

the son of a she-goat,

and that she-goat itself must also be the daughter of a she-goat, back to the six days of Creation.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

And it explains: Because

the verse said

[Numbers 28:15]: “And one goat of goats

one

for a sin-offering,” and this implies:

the distinct one, which comes from the six days of Creation.

And we challenge:

And

if

this

[the invalidity of a resembling animal]

is derived from here?

But

it is derived from there

[from there, from another place], as it is stated [Leviticus 22]: “An ox or a sheep or a goat, when it is born, it shall be seven days under its mother, and from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord,” and we expound: “

An ox or a sheep”

excluding

one born from

mixed species, “

or a goat”

excluding a resembling animal!?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

both verses are needed:

For if from there,

if only from “or a goat,”

I would say: This applies only where it did not descend through generations, but where it descended through generations —

that is, the invalidity of a resembling animal applies only when it does not resemble its mother; but if it resembles its mother and does not resemble its mother’s mother, namely, a goat daughter of a goat daughter of a ewe,

say that it should not

be disqualified even among the goats of the New Moon and the goats of the Festivals, concerning which “one goat” is stated — the verse informs us through “one” that in these cases even a goat daughter of a goat daughter of a ewe is disqualified.

The verse teaches us “one”: In these cases, even a goat that is the daughter of a goat that is the daughter of a ewe is disqualified.

And if from here,

if only “one goat” had been written,

I would say: This applies only with regard to an obligatory offering;

the Torah disqualified a resembling animal,

but in an offering of

with regard to a

voluntary offering —

not

would even a true resembling animal, which does not resemble its mother, be disqualified —

It is necessary.

Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov said: Everyone,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages,

agrees that one is not flogged on account of its wool,

of a sheep whose nature changed from the six days of Creation,

because of mixed species

[shaatnez],

as it is stated

[Deuteronomy 22:11]: “

You shall not wear mixed species, wool and linen together.”

The verse juxtaposed wool to linen to teach:

just as linen that has not changed, so wool that has not changed.

Rav Pappa said: Everyone agrees that its wool,

of a sheep whose nature changed from the six days of Creation,

is invalid for sky-blue wool

of tzitzit,

as it is stated: “

You shall not wear mixed species

wool and linen together;

fringes”

[tzitzit]

you shall make for yourself

on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself.” The verse juxtaposed the mitzva of tzitzit to linen, in order to teach:

just as linen that has not changed, so wool

of tzitzit

that has not changed.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

Everyone agrees that its wool does not become impure through afflictions, as it is stated

[Leviticus 13,] concerning afflictions: “

In a woolen garment or in a linen garment,”

just as linen that has not changed, so wool that has not changed.

Rav Ashi said:

We, too, shall say: If one trained a vine over a fig tree, its wine is invalid for libations; what is the reason?

Because it is stated,

“sacrifice and libations,”

the verse juxtaposed libations to a sacrifice in order to teach:

just as a sacrifice that has not changed,

for a resembling animal is invalid for an offering,

so libations that have not changed.

Ravina raised an objection to him,

to Rav Ashi, who holds that if one trained a vine over a fig tree, this is considered a change:

But

if one trained flax over a thorn bush,

a thorny shrub,

would it likewise change?

But also with flax you find that its law is similar to this when one trains it over another object, and

if so, you cannot say: Just as linen that has not changed, for flax too changes,

and we have not found that the Torah disqualified it.

He said to him

Rav Ashi to Ravina:

This—

a grapevine trained over a fig tree—

its smell changed

and therefore it is considered a change;

and

if

this—

flax over higga—

its smell did not change

because of this, and this is not a change.

Mishna:

A ewe that had not previously given birth and gave birth to two males, and their two heads emerged at once:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says:

since they emerged at once,

both of them belong to the kohen

because the law of firstborn applies to both of them,

as it is stated, “

And every first issue of an animal that will be yours,

the males

the plural expression

for it,”

for we have learned from this that even two are consecrated with firstborn sanctity.

And the Sages say: It is impossible to be exact

so that their two heads emerged at once; rather, one emerged first, and we do not know which one was the one that emerged first.

Rather: one belongs to him, and one belongs to the kohen.

And he proceeds to explain which one belongs to him and which one belongs to the kohen.

Rabbi Tarfon says: The kohen chooses the better one,

because it is logical that the healthy one is the one that emerged first.

Rabbi Akiva says:

They divide the value between them,

that is, the kohen takes the inferior one, and because the burden of proof rests upon the one who extracts from his fellow.

And the second one

which the Israelite took—which is a doubtful firstborn—

shall graze until it becomes blemished

[until a blemish occurs] and the Israelite shall eat it.