Bekhorot 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

This is what he is saying: A

forbidden animal

that comes [

even though it comes]

from an animal that chews its cud and from one that has split hooves—you may not eat it?

The verse says

in the continuation of the verse: “

It is a forbidden camel [“the camel, because it chews its cud but does not have a split hoof; it is forbidden to you”],

It is impure, and an impure offspring born from a pure animal is not impure; rather, it is pure.”

it is forbidden, but a forbidden animal born from a kosher animal is not forbidden; rather, it is kosher;

and therefore the verse must necessarily be teaching that a kosher animal born from a forbidden animal is forbidden to eat.

Rabbi Shimon says:

A forbidden animal born from a kosher animal is forbidden, as it is stated: “

Camel, camel”

twice—

that is, since the camel was prohibited in Leviticus, and the Torah repeated its prohibition in Deuteronomy [14:7], this teaches:

both a camel born from a she-camel and

a camel born from a cow

are both forbidden.

And the Rabbis—

who hold that a camel born from a cow is permitted to eat—

what do they do with this “

camel, camel”

[what do they learn from the repetition of the passages]?

one

And we explain:

One

verse is needed

to prohibit

the

animal itself [a camel born from a she-camel]; that is, one verse is needed for its own substance, to teach the prohibition of the camel.

to forbid

And one

verse is

to prohibit

its

milk [milk, with a kamatz] and the milk of other forbidden animals.

of a camel and of other impure animals?

The Gemara asks:

And from where does Rabbi Shimon derive the prohibition of the milk

of a camel and other forbidden animals

?

He derives it from “

the camel.”

But

if

the Rabbis do not expound the words “

the”

as a separate textual element, as it is taught in a beraita:

Shimon the Timnite would expound every “

the”

and “

the”

in the Torah. When he reached “

the Lord”

your God you shall fear”—he

withdrew from all his expositions, for what could be included along with fear of the Lord?

your God”

His students said to him: “Rabbi!

What will become of all the ‘the’s that you expounded?”

He said to them: “Just as I receive reward for expounding them, so I receive reward for withdrawing from expounding them.”

Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: “

the Lord”

your God you shall fear”—

to include Torah scholars.

Rabbi

asked

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, to Rav Ashi:

If so, the reason of the Rabbis

is that they learned that the milk of a forbidden animal is prohibited

from “

camel, camel,” while

Rabbi Shimon

learned that the milk is prohibited

from “

the camel.”

That is, specifically because the verse included the milk of a forbidden animal is it permitted;

were it not so— -

if not for this verse—

I would have thought that the milk of a forbidden animal is permitted. What is different from that which is taught in a beraita:

It is written: “

the forbidden animals”

to prohibit their juices

[fat, meaning something that comes from a forbidden substance],

and their gravy and congealed residue

[crushed pieces of meat and leeks found at the bottom of the pot]

?

It is thus clear that the gravy is forbidden, because the Torah innovated that something that comes from a forbidden substance is forbidden. If so, the same law should apply to the milk of a forbidden animal, which should be forbidden by logical derivation; why, then, do we need another verse for this? ! ?

And we answer:

It was necessary to learn the prohibition of the milk of a forbidden animal from the verses, because

and because

it might have entered your mind—

if not for the verses—

since

milk

from a kosher animal is itself an innovation

in that it is permitted,

for

as

the master said:

A nursing woman is free of menstrual blood, because

the blood thickens and becomes milk,

and therefore it is blood, and the Torah innovated by permitting it.

And since

all milk

is an innovation,

I would say that

the milk of a forbidden animal should also be permitted—

This teaches us from the verses that the milk of a forbidden animal is forbidden in any event.

milk

We nevertheless ask:

This works well according to the one who says—

that the reason a nursing woman is free of menstrual blood is that

the blood thickens

because of childbirth

and becomes milk—

But according to the one who says:

A nursing woman is free of menstrual blood because

her limbs become loosened from her, and her vital force does not return to her until twenty-four months—

what can be said?

Why did the Torah need to prohibit the milk of a forbidden animal?!

And we answer: In any event,

it was necessary to prohibit the milk of a forbidden animal, because

it might have entered your mind: Since there is nothing that comes from a living creature and the Torah permits it

it might have entered your mind to say: Since there is nothing that comes from a living creature and the Merciful One permits it [

[there is no substance that comes from a living creature and that the Torah permitted],

and

even

this milk, since it is a limb from a living creature,

and

nevertheless the Torah innovated that

the milk of a kosher animal is permitted,

From this you would learn:

therefore even

milk that

comes from a forbidden animal should be permitted—

Perhaps milk of non-sacred animals is forbidden to eat but permitted for benefit, whereas milk of consecrated animals [animals with disqualifying defects] is also forbidden for benefit? Rather, could you prove that milk is permitted from what is written [Proverbs 27]: “ And enough goats’ milk for your food, for the food of your household, and sustenance for your maidens”? This too cannot be said, because: Perhaps the verse is not referring to eating, but to commerce? Rather, could you say that milk is permitted

This teaches us.

The Gemara asks:

And the milk of a kosher animal—

which you take for granted is permitted—

from where do we know that it is permitted [from where do we know that it is permitted], when it comes from a living creature?!

Is commerce customary in wartime? Is it customary to engage in commerce during a war? He must have brought it to him for drinking, and this proves that milk is permitted.

But perhaps

if you say that it is derived from the fact that the Merciful One prohibited meat cooked with milk, then

milk

by itself is permitted;

this cannot be said, for:

Perhaps milk by itself is forbidden to eat but permitted for benefit,

and

meat cooked with milk is also forbidden for benefit;

therefore the Torah had to add the prohibition of meat cooked with milk to the prohibition of milk by itself.

And

even

according to Rabbi Shimon, who permits

meat cooked with milk

for benefit,

and thus it would have been possible to bring proof from the prohibition of meat cooked with milk—that the Torah did not need to prohibit it if milk by itself were already forbidden—nevertheless,

you can find a case in which one incurs lashes for cooking it,

that is, the Torah added a prohibition and lashes for cooking meat with milk, unlike milk by itself; nevertheless, it may be said that milk by itself too is forbidden.

Rather,

say that the permissibility of milk is proven

from the fact that the Merciful One revealed that, with regard to animals disqualified from consecrated offerings

[such as consecrated animals that developed a blemish and were redeemed], it is written [Deuteronomy 12:15]: “Only according to all the desire of your soul may you slaughter and eat meat,” and we expound: “

You may slaughter”

but not shearing; “

meat”

but not milk,

and derive from this:

but

milk

of non-sacred animals is permitted;

this too cannot be said, because:

Perhaps

milk

of non-sacred animals is forbidden to eat but permitted

for benefit, whereas milk

that

of consecrated animals

[animals disqualified from consecrated offerings] is

also forbidden for benefit?!

Rather,

say that the permissibility of milk is learned

from what is written

[Proverbs 27]: “

And enough goats’ milk for your food, for the food of your household, and sustenance for your maidens.”

This too cannot be said, because:

Perhaps the verse is not referring to eating, but

to commerce?!

Rather, say that milk is permitted

by virtue of what is written

in [I Samuel 17]: “Jesse said to his son David, ‘Please take for your brothers this ephah of roasted grain and these ten loaves, and hurry them to the camp [to the camp of war] for your brothers.

And these ten cheeses

bring to the commander of the thousand.’” Here it is clear that milk is permitted. This too cannot be said, because:

Perhaps he brought it to them for commerce

?

And we answer:

Is war conducted for commerce?

Is it customary to conduct commerce during a war? Necessarily, he brought it to him for drinking, which proves that milk is permitted.

Alternatively,

a source for the permissibility of milk may be brought

from here:

as it is written, “

A land flowing with milk and honey,”

and if it were not permitted,

would

the verse praise us with something unfit

[if milk were forbidden, the verse could not praise the Land of Israel with it]?

Alternatively, from here

we learn that milk is permitted, as it is written [Isaiah 55]: “

Go, buy and eat; go, buy without money and without price, wine and milk.” Thus the verse says, “Go, buy and eat… wine and milk.”

Here the Gemara returns to the teaching mentioned above, from “camel, camel,” namely, from the fact that the Torah repeated the prohibition of the camel in Deuteronomy, and raises a difficulty:

But if that is so that you expound the repetition of the prohibition concerning the camel—

that you expound the repetition of the prohibition concerning the camel

“hyrax, hyrax; hare, hare; pig”

“the pig came for these”

[the reason for the repetition of the hyrax, the hare, and the pig in Deuteronomy, together with the camel, is what]!?

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that the entire passage was repeated

as it was taught: “Why were they repeated concerning animals? Because of

“the shesua”

[the name of an animal mentioned only in Deuteronomy]

and

they were repeated

concerning birds: Because of the ra'ah.

Its prohibition was introduced in Deuteronomy, and this is in accordance with the established principle: Every passage that was stated and then repeated was repeated only because of a matter newly introduced in it. That is, sometimes the Torah repeats an entire passage because of only one matter that is newly introduced in it; and if so— “

camel, camel”

also came for this purpose

[the camel, too, was repeated only because of the shesua]; so how can we expound a teaching from the repetition!?

And we answer: Nevertheless,

wherever there is an opportunity to expound—

we expound.

The Sages taught:

An ewe that gave birth to an offspring of the goat species, or a goat that gave birth to an offspring of the sheep species, is exempt from the firstborn.

And if it has some of the characteristics

by which it resembles its mother, it is

liable

for the firstborn.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Some characteristics are insufficient; rather,

until its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother.

They raised a dilemma:

According to Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that an impure animal born from a pure animal is prohibited for consumption, and who maintains with regard to the firstborn that even some characteristics are insufficient to render it liable as a firstborn,

for consumption, does

also

Rabbi Shimon require its head and the majority

[does Rabbi Shimon likewise permit it to be eaten only when its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother, and not when it merely resembles its mother in some characteristics],

or not

[does it not require its head and the majority, and when the impure animal resembles its pure mother in some characteristics, is it permitted for consumption? The alternatives of the dilemma are]: