Bekhorot 6a — the Talmud in English

The verse teaches: “

the firstborn of a donkey”

twice,

in order to add and teach:

I told you of the firstborns of donkeys

to redeem them

and not

redeem at all

the firstborns of horses and camels.

Rav Aḥai refuted

what Rabbi Yose the Galilean said, that the second repetition of “the firstborn of a donkey” comes completely to exempt the firstborns of horses and camels from redemption—for the repetition can be explained in such a way that their firstborns are obligated in redemption, and are excluded only from redemption with a lamb:

For

if the Merciful One had written

only

one

firstborn of a donkey,

I would have thought:

one of the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded is: “

A matter that was included in the general rule” [that is, a donkey, which was included in “and the impure animal you shall redeem”]

namely, a donkey, which was included in “and you shall redeem every firstborn of an impure animal”]

and went out of the general rule to teach

that its redemption is with a lamb,

did not go out to teach about itself

alone,

but went out to teach about the entire general rule [about all impure animals]

and forever

all impure animals are redeemed

with a lamb—

the Merciful One wrote “

the firstborn of a donkey”

another

to teach:

the firstborns of donkeys and not the firstborns of horses and camels; but perhaps

the verse did

not exclude them

from the other impure animals except

from a lamb, and forever

they must be redeemed, except that they are redeemed

with anything!?

And we answer:

If so, let the Merciful One write “

the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” once, and a second time: “Every first issue belongs to Me, and all your livestock you shall remember: the firstborn of ox and lamb

and donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,”

which would have meant: a donkey shall be redeemed, but another impure animal shall not be redeemed with a lamb; and “

the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” “

the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb”

two times—

why do I need this?

That is, why did the Merciful One write “firstborn” a second time, when the verse is dealing with first issues!?

Rather, certainly the verse comes to exclude the other animals from “firstborn,” that is, from the fundamental law of firstborn status, and to tell you:

I told you of the firstborns of donkeys, and not of the firstborns of horses and camels

which are not obligated in redemption at all, and not that the verse came to exclude them only from redemption with a lamb.

The Gemara further explains:

And our tanna—

who learned from the repetition of “the firstborn of a donkey” to exclude the [animal] resembling it from firstborn status—

to exclude horses and camels

from redemption,

from where does he derive it?

He said,

explained

Rav Pappa:

It is written: “Every first issue belongs to Me, and all your livestock you shall remember: the firstborn of ox and lamb. And the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and if you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck; every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem”— “

All your livestock you shall remember” is

when a general statement is followed by a specific statement, the general statement includes only what is specified.

a generalization; “

ox and lamb and donkey” is

[are indeed subject to the sanctity of the firstborn]; but

a specification;

and it is established for us:

a generalization and a specification—within the generalization there is only what is in the specification,

and we learned:

ox and lamb and donkey—no [indeed obligated in firstborn status], but

who did not derive from this that the firstborns of horses and camels are exempt, did so because

anything

else—

that is, the other impure animals—

no.

And Rabbi Yose the Galilean,

who did not learn from this to exempt the firstborns of horses and camels, [held so] because

“firstborn”

interrupted the matter.

That is, we say “a generalization and a specification—within the generalization there is only what is in the specification” only when the specification relates to the generalization and specifies it. But what the verse says, “and the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” does not relate to “all your livestock you shall remember,” which is the generalization, for if so the verse would have said, “and all your livestock you shall remember: the firstborn of ox and lamb and donkey.” Since the verse interrupted and then said again, “and the firstborn of a donkey,” this is a newly introduced matter that does not relate to “all your livestock you shall remember,” and this is not a specification that comes to teach about the generalization.

And the Rabbis

hold that in any event,

and the

and in “and the firstborn,” since it did not say “the firstborn of a donkey,”

this [the firstborn of a donkey]

the verse again joined it [returned and mixed it with the generalization and the specification],

for the letter vav adds to the first matter.

And Rabbi Yose the Galilean

held: If it is as you say,

let it not write either “

and”

or “

firstborn.” Why did the verse interrupt on one hand and join it on the other? Rather, certainly the vav did not come to join it.

what is the law? Is it subject to the law of the firstborn of a kosher animal, as in the case of a ewe that gives birth to a species resembling a goat and it has some of its mother’s features? The two sides of the question are:

And the Rabbis

hold:

Since this [the firstborn of a donkey]

1.

has monetary sanctity, while this [the firstborn of ox and lamb]

the mother

has bodily sanctity, it interrupted them and then joined them. The verse needed to separate them, and so that you should not say that this is not a generalization and specification because of the interruption, the verse returned and joined them.

the offspring is also similar in form to a

They raised a dilemma before them:

We learned concerning the firstborn of a pure animal: A ewe that gave birth to a species resembling a goat, and a goat that gave birth to a species resembling a ewe… if it has some of the signs, it is obligated; and there is a question: First,

a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey,

which is exempt from the law of the firstborn of a pure animal,

and it has some signs

by which it resembles the cow,

what is

the law—will it become obligated under the law of the firstborn of a pure animal, like a ewe that gave birth to a species resembling a goat and some of its signs are like those of its mother? The sides of the dilemma are:

Perhaps specifically

a goat that gave birth to a species resembling a ewe, and a ewe that gave birth to a species resembling a goat

is the case

that when there are some signs it is obligated in firstborn status,

because even without the signs it resembles its mother in two respects:

a.

For

the mother

is pure, whereas this

offspring too has the form of a

pure animal.

b.

This mother is of a species possessing

in any event

bodily sanctity, whereas this offspring too has the form of a species possessing

are species that can become sanctified with firstborn sanctity, although one has intrinsic sanctity and the other monetary sanctity, and although they are not alike with regard to impurity and purity, nevertheless it is

bodily sanctity;

therefore, if it has even some signs by which it resembles its mother, it is obligated in firstborn status—

but

here, concerning a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey, and some of its signs are like those of its mother, it differs from its mother in two respects:

it is sanctified, there is still a question:

a.

For

the offspring is like an

impure animal, whereas

the mother is

pure.

b.

This mother is of a species possessing

sanctified if some of its features are like those of its mother.

bodily sanctity, whereas this offspring is of a species possessing only

And if you are inclined to say that in the case of a donkey that gives birth to a species resembling a horse,

monetary sanctity—

and since it differs so greatly from its mother,

it is not

sanctified with firstborn status, even though some of its signs are like hers.

Or perhaps: Since

in any event

both one and the other—

the mother and the offspring—

are of those capable of becoming sanctified with firstborn status,

even though this one has bodily sanctity and that one monetary sanctity, and even though they are not alike regarding impurity and purity—nevertheless it is

sanctified

when some of its signs resemble the mother.

And if you should say

that in a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey,

since both one and the other can become sanctified with firstborn status—

it is sanctified;

there is still a question:

The second doubt:

a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse,

and some of its signs resemble its mother,

what is

the law—will it become obligated under the law of the firstborn of a donkey? The sides of the dilemma are:

Shall we say:

here certainly

the offspring

is not one capable of becoming sanctified with firstborn status,

and therefore, even when some of its signs resemble its mother, it is not sanctified—

or perhaps: Since

the offspring

is of an impure species

like its mother, and in this detail they are alike, it is

sanctified

if some of its signs are like those of its mother.

And

if you should say

that concerning a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse,

since

in any event

it is of an impure species

like its mother,

it is sanctified;

there is still a question: the third doubt:

a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a horse—

what is

the law—will it become obligated under the law of the firstborn of a pure animal? The sides of the dilemma are:

Here certainly

it is not sanctified, since in no detail—apart from some signs—does it resemble its mother, for

this

mother

is pure, whereas this

offspring is of an

impure species;

and furthermore,

this one is capable of becoming sanctified with firstborn status, whereas this one is not capable of becoming sanctified with firstborn status—

or perhaps signs are the matter,

and we do not care at all about the difference regarding firstborn sanctification or about the difference regarding impurity and purity.

Come and hear to resolve

all three doubts from a beraita:

For it was taught:

A pure animal that gave birth to a species of impure animal

is

exempt from firstborn status;

and

if it has some signs, it is obligated in firstborn status—

and

what, is this not even a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a horse?

Resolve from this that signs are the matter, and consequently, all the more so in the first two doubts it is sanctified.

And we reject this:

No,

the beraita deals only with

a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey,

in which both have the law of firstborn status; it resolves only the first doubt, but the other two doubts remain unresolved.

Come and hear

to resolve the first two doubts from a beraita:

A cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey, and a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse, are exempt from firstborn status; if it has some signs, it is obligated in firstborn status—

What, is it not concerning both of them [in both cases] that the beraita obligates them when they have some signs like those of their mothers? It is thus explicit that in the first two doubts it is sanctified?

It is merely a sign, so that you should not confuse the matter and say: Follow the offspring [the sign is intended to prevent you from reversing the laws and saying that one always follows the offspring rather than its mother, from whom it emerged],

And we reject this:

No,

rather,

only concerning a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey

do we say that if it has some signs it is obligated in firstborn status.

And we challenge this:

But “

a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse”—

which the beraita mentioned—

for what purpose did it teach it [why did the tanna mention it]? According to your words, it was

but nevertheless

to teach its exemption [to teach us that a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse is exempt from firstborn status], but

A kosher animal born from an impure one.

it is obvious

that it is exempt, and we already learned it from the fact that the beraita exempted a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey!? For:

Now, if a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey, both one and the other being capable of becoming sanctified with firstborn status, you said: if it has some signs, yes, and if not—

no; a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse,

where the mother is of a species sanctified with firstborn status and the offspring is of a species not obligated in firstborn status,

is it necessary

to say that it is exempt!?

If so, it is compelled that the principal reason the beraita mentioned “a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse” is to teach that with some signs it too is obligated, and the second doubt is resolved.

And we answer: In fact, the beraita did not obligate a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse when it has some signs; the beraita teaches us concerning a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse only its exemption, and

it was necessary

to inform us of this even though the beraita had already exempted a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey, because:

It might enter your mind that there,

in a cow that gave birth to a species resembling a donkey,

it

is exempt from firstborn status because a cow

has horns, whereas this [the donkey]

[the donkey]

does not have horns; this [the cow]

[the cow]

has split hooves, whereas this [the donkey]

[the donkey]

has closed hooves [they are not split], and indeed it is a donkey that she gave birth to, and therefore it is exempt;

[they are not split], and indeed it is a donkey that she gave birth to, and therefore it is exempt.

but here,

in a donkey that gave birth to a species resembling a horse,

both one and the other do not have horns, both one and the other have closed hooves; say

it is not a horse but

merely a red donkey—

it teaches us.

We learned in the Mishna:

And what is their law regarding eating,

a pure animal that gave birth resembling an impure animal is permitted for eating; and an impure animal that gave birth resembling a pure animal is forbidden for eating; for what emerges from an impure animal is impure, and what emerges from a pure animal is pure:

And we challenge:

Why do I need to teach

“what emerges from the impure is impure, and what emerges from the pure is pure”? What does this add to what was already taught!?

And we answer:

It is merely an indication, so that you should not exchange the laws, so that you should not say: Go after it [it is a sign not to exchange the laws and say: One always follows the offspring and not its mother from whom it emerged],

that is, it is a sign so that you will not reverse the laws and say: One always follows the offspring, rather than its mother from whom it emerged],

and

say:

This [a pure creature born from an impure one]

[the kosher animal born from an impure one]

is fully pure, and this [an impure creature born from a pure one]

[the impure animal born from a kosher one]

is fully impure; rather,

this is the law:

go after its mother [go after its mother from whom it emerged].

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

that one follows the mother from whom it emerged?

And we explain:

For the Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 11:4]: “

Only this you shall not eat from those that bring up the cud and those that part the hoof,”

and we expound:

There is one that brings up the cud and parts the hoof

that has all the signs of purity, and nevertheless

you may not eat it, and which is this?

A pure creature born from an impure one.

The baraita continues:

Or is it not rather

to

the impure one born from the pure one

that brings up the cud and splits the hoof—

And what is “

of those that bring up the cud and of those that split the hoof”—