Bekhorot 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

The verse states: “

the firstborn of a donkey”

twice,

in order to add and teach:

I told you about the firstborns of donkeys

to redeem them,

but not

that you should redeem at all

the firstborns of horses and camels.

Rav Aḥai objects to what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: that the second repetition of “the firstborn of a donkey” serves to exempt the firstborns of horses and camels entirely from redemption. For the repetition can instead be explained as obligating their firstborns in redemption, while excluding them only from redemption with a lamb:

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 said:

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

An item that was included in a general category

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

and emerged from the general category to teach

that its redemption is with a lamb,

did not emerge to teach about itself

alone,

but emerged to teach about the entire general category all impure animals:

and forever

all impure animals are redeemed

with a lamb.

The Merciful One wrote another

“firstborn of a donkey”

to teach:

that it is

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

with regard to a lamb,

and forever

they must be redeemed, but they are redeemed

with anything!?

And we answer:

If so, let the Merciful One write “

the firstborn of a donkey shall be redeemed with a lamb” once, and the second time: “Every firstborn that opens the womb is Mine, and of all your livestock you shall set apart the firstborn, the firstborn of an ox and a sheep,

and a donkey shall be redeemed with a lamb.”

This would have implied: a donkey shall be redeemed, but no other impure animal shall be redeemed with a lamb. And if “

the firstborn of a donkey shall be redeemed with a lamb” is written twice—“

the firstborn of a donkey shall be redeemed with a lamb”—

two times,

why do I need this?

That is, why did the Merciful One write “firstborn” the second time, when the verse is dealing with firstborns that open the womb!?

Rather, certainly the verse came to exclude other animals from the term “firstborn,” meaning from the fundamental law of the firstborn, and to tell you:

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

which are not obligated in redemption at all; the verse did not come to exclude them only from redemption with a lamb.

The Gemara adds an explanation:

And our tanna—

who learned from the repetition of “the firstborn of a donkey” to exclude a creature resembling another species from the law of the firstborn—

to exclude horses and camels

from redemption,

from where does he derive it?

He said—

that is,

Rav Pappa explained:

It is written: “Every firstborn that opens the womb is Mine, and of all your livestock you shall set apart the firstborn, the firstborn of an ox and a sheep. And the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem”— “

Of all your livestock you shall set apart” is

the

general category; “

an ox, a sheep, and a donkey” is

the

specific category.

And we have established:

When a general category is followed by a specific category, the general category includes only what is specified.

And we learn:

an ox, a sheep, and a donkey—yes

[they are indeed obligated in the law of the firstborn], but

anything

else—

namely, the other impure animals—

no.

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

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

“firstborn”

interrupts the matter.

That is, we apply the principle “when a general category is followed by a specific category, the general category includes only what is specified” only when the specific category relates to and specifies the general category. But the statement “and the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” does not relate to “of all your livestock you shall set apart,” which is the general category. For if it did, the verse would have said: “And of all your livestock you shall set apart the firstborn of an ox, a sheep, and a donkey.” Since the verse interrupted the passage and then said, “and the firstborn of a donkey,” this is a new matter that does not relate to “of all your livestock you shall set apart,” and it is not a specific category that comes to teach about the general category.

And the Rabbis

hold that nevertheless the

vav—

“and”—of

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

the verse again joined it

has intrinsic sanctity, the verse separated them and then included them again. The verse had to separate them because of their different types of sanctity; and so that you would not say that this is not a general-and-specific formulation because of the interruption, the verse then included it again.

that is, the verse again combined it with the general and specific categories], since a vav adds to the preceding matter. And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

holds: If it were as you say,

the verse should have written neither

the vav

nor

“firstborn”. Why did the verse interrupt the matter in one respect and join it in another? Rather, certainly the vav did not come to join it.

And the Rabbis

hold,

that

since this

—the firstborn of a donkey—

has sanctity of value, whereas this

—the firstborn of an ox and a sheep—

has sanctity of the body, the verse separated them and then joined them.

The verse had to distinguish between them, and so that you would not say that this is not a general category and a specific category because of the interruption, the verse then joined them again.

They raised a dilemma:

We learned with regard to the firstborn of a kosher animal: a ewe that gave birth to a creature of the goat species, or a goat that gave birth to a creature of the sheep species … if it has some of the identifying features of its mother, it is obligated in the law of the firstborn. And the following dilemma arises: The first uncertainty is:

a cow that gave birth to a creature of the donkey species,

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

and it has some of the identifying features

by which it resembles a cow—

what

is the law? Is it obligated in the law of the firstborn of a kosher animal, like a ewe that gave birth to a creature of the goat species and it has some of the features of its mother? The sides of the dilemma are:

Perhaps specifically

a goat that gave birth to a creature of the sheep species, or a ewe that gave birth to a creature of the goat species,

is

obligated in the law of the firstborn when it has some of the identifying features,

because even without the identifying features it is similar to its mother in two respects:

a.

For

the mother

is kosher, whereas this

offspring also has the form of a

kosher animal.

b.

This

mother is of a species that possesses

sanctity of the body, whereas this

offspring also has the form of a species that possesses

sanctity of the body.

Therefore, as long as it has some identifying features by which it resembles its mother, it is obligated in the law of the firstborn—

But

here—with regard to a cow that gave birth to a creature of the donkey species, and some of its features resemble 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

kosher.

b.

This mother is of a species possessing

sanctity of the body,

whereas this

offspring is of a species possessing only

sanctity of value—

And since it differs so greatly from its mother,

it is not

sanctified as a firstborn, even though some of its features resemble hers.

Or perhaps: Since

in any event

both this one and that one—

the mother and the offspring—

are subject to sanctification as firstborns,

even though this one has sanctity of the body and that one has sanctity of value, and even though they do not share the same status with regard to impurity and purity, nevertheless it is

sanctified

as a firstborn when some of its features resemble those of its mother.

And if you should say

that with regard to a cow that gave birth to a creature of the donkey species,

since both this one and that one are subject to sanctification as firstborns, it is

sanctified;

there is still a dilemma:

The second uncertainty:

a donkey that gave birth to a creature of the horse species,

which resembles its mother in some of its identifying features—

what

is the law? Is it 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 of a species subject to sanctification as a firstborn,

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

Or perhaps: Since

the offspring

is of an impure species

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

sanctified

when some of its features resemble those of its mother.

And

if you should say

that with regard to a donkey that gave birth to a creature of the horse species,

since

in any event

it is of an impure species

like its mother, it is

sanctified;

there is still a third uncertainty:

a cow that gave birth to a creature of the horse species—

what

is the law? Is it obligated under the law of the firstborn of a kosher animal? The sides of the dilemma are:

Here, certainly, it is not sanctified, since in no respect—apart from some identifying features—does it resemble its mother, for

not, then in the case of

the

mother

is kosher, whereas the

offspring is of an

impure species. Furthermore,

beraita does not make a donkey that gives birth to a species resembling a horse subject to firstborn sanctity even when it has some identifying features. The

this one is of a species subject to sanctification as a firstborn, whereas this one is not of a species subject to sanctification as a firstborn—

Or perhaps identifying features are significant,

and we are not concerned at all with the difference in firstborn sanctification or with the difference in impurity and purity.

Come and hear

to resolve all three uncertainties from a beraita:

As it was taught:

A kosher animal that gave birth to a creature of an impure-animal species

is

exempt from the law of the firstborn;

but

if it has some identifying features, it is obligated in the law of the firstborn.

And

what, is this not even a cow that gave birth to a creature of the horse species?

Thus resolve that identifying features are significant, and consequently, all the more so in the first two uncertainties it is sanctified.

And we reject this:

No.

The beraita is dealing only with

a cow that gave birth to a creature of the donkey species,

where both are subject to the law of the firstborn; it resolves only the first uncertainty, while the other two uncertainties remain unresolved.

Come and hear

to resolve the first two uncertainties from a beraita:

A cow that gave birth to a creature of the donkey species, and a donkey that gave birth to a creature of the horse species, are exempt from the law of the firstborn; if it has some identifying features, it is obligated in the law of the firstborn—

What, is this not referring to both of them

the two cases]? The beraita obligates them when they have some identifying features like those of their mothers, so it is clearly established in both of the first two uncertainties that it is sanctified, is it not?

And we reject this:

No.

Rather,

only with regard to a cow that gave birth to a creature of the donkey species

do we say that if it has some identifying features it is obligated in the law of the firstborn.

And we challenge this:

But the statement

“a donkey that gave birth to a creature of the horse species” \-

which the beraita mentioned—

why did it teach it

but nevertheless

that is, for what purpose did the tanna mention it]? According to your words, it is for exemption

to teach us that a donkey that gave birth to a creature of the horse species is exempt from the law of the firstborn]. But

it is obvious

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

Now, if a cow that gave birth to a creature of the donkey species, since both this one and that one are subject to sanctification as firstborns, is it said: If it has some identifying features, yes, and if not—

no; a donkey that gave birth to a creature of the horse species,

where the mother is of a species sanctified as a firstborn and the offspring is of a species not obligated in the law of the firstborn,

is it necessary

to say that it is exempt!?

If so, it is necessary to conclude that the principal reason the beraita mentioned “a donkey that gave birth to a creature of the horse species” is to innovate that even when it has some identifying features it is obligated, and the second uncertainty is resolved.

And we answer: In fact, the beraita did not obligate a donkey that gave birth to a creature of the horse species when it has some identifying features. The beraita teaches us about such a donkey only that it is exempt, and

it was necessary

to inform us of this despite the fact that the beraita had already exempted a cow that gave birth to a creature of the donkey species, because:

It might enter your mind that there,

with regard to a cow that gave birth to a creature of the donkey species,

it

is exempt from the law of the firstborn because a cow

has horns, whereas this

[the donkey]

does not have horns; this

[the cow]

has split hooves, whereas this

[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.

But here, with regard to a donkey that gave birth to a creature of the horse species,

a case in which

both this one and that one have no horns, both this one and that one have closed hooves, perhaps

this is not a horse but

merely an ordinary red donkey—

This teaches us.

We learned in the Mishna:

And what is their status with regard to eating? A kosher animal that gave birth to something resembling an impure animal is permitted to eat; and an impure animal that gave birth to something resembling a kosher animal is forbidden to eat, for what emerges from an impure animal is impure, and what emerges from a kosher animal is kosher:

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 this:

Why do I need to teach

“what emerges from an impure animal is impure, and what emerges from a kosher animal is kosher”? What does this add to what was already taught?

And we answer:

It is merely a sign, so that you should not confuse the laws and say: Follow the offspring

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 one

[the kosher animal born from an impure one]

is fully kosher, and this one

[the impure animal born from a kosher one]

is fully impure. Rather,

this is the law:

Follow its mother

the mother from whom it emerged]. The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters derived,

that one follows the mother from whom the offspring emerged?

And we explain:

For the Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 11:4]: “

But this you shall not eat among those that bring up the cud and those that have split hooves,”

and we expound:

There is one that brings up the cud and has split hooves

—it possesses all the signs of purity, and nevertheless—

you may not eat it; and what is this?

A kosher animal born from an impure one.

The baraita continues:

Or is it not rather

to teach the prohibition concerning

an impure animal born from a pure animal

that brings up the cud and has split hooves—

And what "

from those that bring up the cud and those that have split hooves"—