Bekhorot 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

This is how Rash i explained it here. See Tosafot here, and see Shabbat 51b in the explanations of Rashi and Tosafot concerning “a Libyan donkey.”

:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It was the name of the place, Rephidim.

And similarly it says [Jeremiah 47]: “

The reading of the Ra sh in section 4 is: “A donkey that gave birth to something resembling a cow.” But Tosafot below, 6a, s.v. “And what are they,” read as it appears before us. In any event, it is clear from the Rosh that even if one reads “a donkey that gave birth to something resembling a horse,” where the change is to a less valuable species, since a horse is not subject to the laws of the firstborn, the same law applies to a donkey that gave birth to something resembling a cow. Although this change is to a more valuable species, a donkey has only monetary sanctity [meaning that it does not itself become sacred, but its value must be given to a kohen], whereas the cow species has bodily sanctity. This is explained there—on the basis of the Gemara below, 6a—why according to this reading the Mishna states “a donkey that gave birth to something resembling a horse” rather than “a donkey that gave birth to something resembling a cow.”

the firstborn of a donkey” [“And every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” Exodus 13:13], “

the firstborn of a donkey” [“And the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” Exodus 34:20]—

Kehillot Yaakov, section 4, cites in the name of the responsa Kehillot Yaakov, section 4, cites in the name of the responsa Yad Eli, [cited in Pitḥei Teshuva, Yoreh De’ah, section 79], that he was uncertain about an impure animal that gave birth to something resembling a pure animal, which is forbidden for eating: Is it considered like its mother in every respect? For example, is a donkey that gave birth to something resembling an ox considered an actual donkey, or is it truly a pure animal because it has the signs of purity, but the Torah forbids it for eating under the law of an offspring of an impure animal? [The reverse would likewise apply: the Torah permits an offspring of a pure animal to be eaten even though it belongs to an impure species, as explained in Kehillot Yaakov there.] One practical difference would concern whether slaughtering the pure animal removes it from the status of an animal carcass, whether there is a punishment of karet for eating its milk as there is for the milk of a pure animal, and whether the prohibition against eating a limb taken from a living animal applies to it as it does to a pure animal. See there for further practical differences. See there that the balance of considerations indicates that it is not considered impure; rather, the Torah forbids it only with regard to eating. [See also Kehillot Yaakov there, which understood that Eli, [cited in Pitḥei Teshuva, Yoreh De’ah, section 79], that he was uncertain about an impure animal that gave birth to something resembling a pure animal, which is forbidden for eating: Is it considered like its mother in every respect? For example, is a donkey that gave birth to something resembling an ox considered an actual donkey, or is it truly a pure animal because it has the signs of purity, but the Torah forbids it for eating under the law of an offspring of an impure animal? [The reverse would likewise apply: the Torah permits an offspring of a pure animal to be eaten even though it belongs to an impure species, as explained in Kehillot Yaakov there.] One practical difference would concern whether slaughtering the pure animal removes it from the status of an animal carcass, whether there is a punishment of karet for eating its milk as there is for the milk of a pure animal, and whether the prohibition against eating a limb taken from a living animal applies to it as it does to a pure animal. See there for further practical differences. See there that the balance of considerations indicates that it is not considered impure; rather, the Torah forbids it only with regard to eating. [See also Kehillot Yaakov there, which understood that A157Yad A158Eli was uncertain even concerning the firstborn donkey, whether the law follows the offspring or the mother. See there. According to his conclusion that the law follows the offspring, a cow that gave birth to something resembling a donkey, which our Mishna exempts, is exempt because it differs from its mother, and not because it is not a donkey. See the discussion of this above. However, it is possible to argue that his uncertainty concerns only laws dependent on the designation “pure animal” or “impure animal,” a designation that depends not on the species’ name but on the actual signs of purity and impurity. He may not have been uncertain concerning the firstborn donkey, where one may argue that the exemption is because it is not a donkey, since the parent is not a donkey and the offspring is not a donkey.] In any event, most later authorities maintain—and their statements will be brought, with the help of Heaven, in the notes to this passage—that this is not an offspring of an impure animal, but an impure species.

This was explained on the basis of Rash i. See what will be explained about this in the notes below.

This was explained on the basis of Tosafot, because they found it difficult: Surely our Mishna’s verse is needed to exempt it from the law of the firstborn donkey, while Rav Yehuda’s verse is needed to exempt it from the law of the firstborn ox. They therefore wrote that “exempt from the firstborn status” implies that the cow is completely exempt, and necessarily our Mishna’s verse is also used to exempt it from the law of the firstborn of a pure animal. Tosafot raised a further difficulty: Even if we learn from “first issue, first issue” that a cow that gave birth to something of the horse species [apparently it should say “of the donkey species”] is exempt, perhaps this applies only when it changes into something that does not possess bodily sanctity. But in a case such as a ewe that gave birth to something of the goat species, which possesses bodily sanctity, one might think that it becomes sacred!? They answered [according to the emendation of Even if we learn from “first issue, first issue” that a cow that gave birth to something of the horse species [apparently it should say “of the donkey species”] is exempt, perhaps this applies only when it changes into something that does not possess bodily sanctity. But in a case such as a ewe that gave birth to something of the goat species, which possesses bodily sanctity, one might think that it becomes sacred!? They answered [according to the emendation of A229the Ra sh]: It is reasonable that bodily sanctity is completely derived from monetary sanctity [that is, the firstborn donkey], as will be stated shortly. See the astonishment of Reshit Bikkurim at their words, and the astonishment of the Gri z in the writings attributed to him. And the Hazon Ish [Bekhorot 16:9] wrote about their words: This is difficult. From where do we know such a principle concerning monetary sanctity? It is possible that if a horse itself were sacred, then even a donkey that gave birth to something resembling a horse would be liable. [That is, even within monetary sanctity itself, where only a donkey is liable, when it changes into another species it changes into something that is not sacred like its mother; but this cannot establish the law concerning a goat that gave birth to something resembling a sheep, where both species are sacred.] a. It is clear that if the verse had not taught this separately concerning an ox, a sheep, and a goat, we would not have learned one from the other, even though all three possess bodily sanctity. b. Tosafot asked: According to the tanna of our Mishna, from where do we derive that an offspring with some of the signs is liable for the firstborn status? See what they wrote about this, and see also their words below, 12a, s.v. “This teaches us.” Tosafot asked: According to the tanna of our Mishna, from where do we derive that an offspring with some of the signs is liable for the firstborn status? See what they wrote about this, and see also their words below, 12a, s.v. “This teaches us.” And Bereshit Bikkurim wrote an explanation: There is a difference in the nature of the exemption depending on whether the teaching is derived from “first issue, first issue” or from “but the firstborn.” If it is derived from “first issue, first issue,” the status of a cow that is the offspring of a donkey is that in itself it is an ox, while by its parentage it is a donkey, and it is regarded as both. The verse reveals through the two occurrences of “first issue of the womb” that it is exempt from the firstborn status, because the parent must be a donkey and the offspring a donkey. Accordingly, no separate teaching is needed to establish that an offspring with some of the signs is liable: Since in itself it has both identities, its parentage determines that it is considered entirely like its mother. See there for an example. But if we derive the law from “but the firstborn,” since the verse concerns two pure species, both of which are subject to the firstborn law—for example, a cow that gave birth to something resembling a goat—the fact that it resembles a goat does not exempt it, since both a cow and a goat are liable. What difference does it make that it is both an ox and a goat? Whether considered an ox or a goat, it is liable. Rather, the exemption must be because it differs from its mother. Once we understand the exemption as applying because it differs from its mother, we might have thought that even when some of its characteristics resemble its mother it remains exempt, since it nevertheless differs from her. Therefore, the verse is needed to establish liability. [And according to his words, how does the tanna of our Mishna derive the law of a ewe that gave birth to something resembling a goat from the verse concerning the firstborn donkey, since the nature of the exemption for the firstborn donkey does not apply to a ewe that gave birth to something resembling a goat?]

And we explain:

With regard to what do they differ,

the tanna of our Mishna, who derives from “first issue, first issue” an exemption from both the firstborn donkey and the firstborn of a pure animal, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who derives from “but the firstborn” an exemption from the firstborn of a pure animal and from the firstborn donkey?

The Gemara continues to explain the two methods:

And as for the tanna of our Mishna -

who derives the exemption of a firstborn donkey and a firstborn kosher animal from the repeated terms “firstborn” and “firstborn”

this “

firstborn

firstborn” what does he do with it?

And we explain:

He needs it for that which Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina taught, as Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said:

Why are the sacrificial portions mentioned [“

and you shall offer their sacrificial portions”]

with regard to a firstborn bull, the sacrificial portions with regard to a firstborn sheep, and the sacrificial portions with regard to a firstborn goat?

It is necessary:

For if the Merciful One had written

only

with regard to a firstborn bull,

I would have said: The Torah stated only with regard to it that when it is a firstborn, its sacrificial portions are offered,

because it is accorded greater measure with regard to libations,

as one brings half a hin of wine with a bull, whereas with a sheep or a goat one brings only a quarter of a hin of wine.

And if the Merciful One had written only with regard to

a sheep,

I would have said:

Because it is accorded greater measure with regard to the fat tail,

which is offered together with the fat on the altar; shall you say the same with regard to a bull and a goat, from which a fat tail is not offered?

And if the Merciful One had written only

with regard to a goat,

I would have said

because it is accorded greater measure with regard to the communal offering for idolatry,

meaning that one who unwittingly worships idolatry brings only a one-year-old goat, whereas for other sin offerings he brings either a goat or a sheep.

And we raise an objection:

One cannot derive one from one; let one be derived from two [indeed, it is impossible to derive one from the other, but let one be derived from the two]!?

And we answer:

And we answer: Is it so that

one should not be written [which one of the three species should the verse not mention]!?

Perhaps you will say:

Perhaps you will say:

Let the Merciful One not write it with regard to a bull, and let it be derived from these

[from a sheep and a goat];

what is the common feature of these

a sheep and a goat -

that they are accorded greater measure with regard to the Paschal offering,

as it is stated concerning the Paschal offering [Exodus 12]: “From the sheep and from the goats you shall take”; shall you say the same with regard to a bull, which is unfit for the Paschal offering?

Perhaps you will say:

Let the Merciful One not write

with regard to

a sheep, and let it be derived from these

[from a bull and a goat];

what is the common feature of these

a bull and a goat -

that they are accorded greater measure with regard to communal idolatry,

as the community brings a bull as an olah and a goat as a sin offering when they worshiped idolatry on the erroneous instruction of the court, as the verse states [Numbers 15:24]: “And it shall be, if it was done unwittingly, from the eyes of the congregation, that the entire congregation shall offer one bull, the son of cattle, as an olah, for a pleasing fragrance to the Lord, with its meal offering and libation according to the law, and one goat as a sin offering.”

Perhaps you will say:

Let the Merciful One not write it with regard to a goat, and let it be derived from these

[from a bull and a sheep];

what is the common feature of these, that they have a greater abundance of sacrificial components on the altar,

meaning that more is offered from a bull and a sheep on the altar than from a goat, since more libations are brought with a bull than with a goat, and the fat tail is offered from a sheep, unlike from a goat.

Therefore, all three are necessary.

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili -

who derived from this verse the exemption of an animal that differs from its mother, even though the verse was needed to teach the law of the sacrificial portions with regard to all three species - holds that even when the animal differs from its mother, this can be derived from here, because

if so

that the verse came only to teach the law of the sacrificial portions with regard to all three species -

let the verse write “

only a firstborn bull, sheep, and goat,” “

firstborn” “

firstborn”

mentioned with regard to the sheep and goat,

why do I need them? Rather, must one not conclude from here that it must be that the animal itself is a bull and its firstborn is a bull,

that it itself is a sheep and its firstborn is a sheep, and that it itself is a goat and its firstborn is a goat.

We further explain:

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who exempted an animal that differs from its mother from “a firstborn bull,”

this “

firstborn donkey” “

firstborn donkey” stated twice -

from which the tanna of our Mishna derived the exemption of an animal that differs from its mother -

what does he do with it?

He needs it,

for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

for that which was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

Since it is stated, “

Only you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and you shall redeem the firstborn of an impure animal,”

I might understand

from the wording “the impure animal” that redemption is required

even for the firstborn of horses and camels. The verse states: “And

a

firstborn donkey

you shall redeem with a sheep,” teaching:

I told you to redeem a firstborn donkey

by redeeming it,

but not the firstborn of horses and camels.

And I still say: The firstborn of donkeys

the verse specifically stated must be redeemed

with a sheep

and not with anything else, whereas

the firstborn of horses and camels may be redeemed with anything,