Bekhorot 6b — the Talmud in English

This is what he is saying: The thing

impure

that comes [

even though it comes ]

from those that bring up the cud and from those that have split hooves—you shall not eat?

The verse says

in the continuation of the verse: “

It is an impure camel” [“the camel, because it brings up the cud, but its hoof is not split; it is impure for you”].

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

It is impure, and an impure animal born from a pure one is not impure, but pure;

and therefore the verse necessarily came to teach that a pure animal born from an impure one is forbidden to eat.

Rabbi Shimon says:

an impure animal born from a pure one is impure, as it is stated: “

Camel, camel”

twice—

that is, since the camel was forbidden 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—

both are impure.

And the Sages—

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

this “

camel, camel”

what do they derive from it [

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

And we explain:

one

verse, in order

to forbid

the

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

to forbid

And one

verse

to forbid

its

milk [milk—with a kamatz] of a camel and of the other impure animals.

of a camel and of other impure animals?

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Shimon, for forbidding its milk

of a camel and of the other impure animals,

from where does he derive it?

He derives it from “

the camel.”

And

if

the Sages do not expound the words “

the”s,

as it was taught:

Shimon the Imsoni 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?

His disciples 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, so do I receive reward for withdrawing.

Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: “

the Lord

your God you shall fear”

to include Torah scholars.

Rabbi

asked

Rav Aḥa son of Rava asked Rav Ashi:

But from now on: The reason of the Sages

is that they learned that the milk of an impure animal is forbidden

from “

camel, camel,”

and Rabbi Shimon

learned that the milk is forbidden

from “

the camel”—

that is, specifically because the verse included the milk of an impure animal is it therefore permitted;

if not so -

if not for the verse—

I would have said that the milk of an impure animal is permitted; what is different from that which was taught:

it is written, “

the impure ones”

to forbid their brine [

fat, that is, something issuing from the forbidden substance ],

and their gravy and sediment [

crushed meat and leeks at the bottom of the pot ]

—theirs—

It is thus explained that the brine is forbidden, because the Torah innovated that something issuing from a forbidden substance is forbidden; if so, the same law should apply to the milk of an impure animal, which by law should be forbidden, and why do we need another verse for this!?

And we answer:

It was necessary to learn the prohibition of the milk of an impure animal from the verses, because

and turns into milk—

it might have entered your mind to say—

if not for the verses—

since

milk

of a pure animal too is an innovation

that it is permitted,

for

behold,

the master said:

a nursing woman is one from whom blood is absent, because

blood thickens and becomes milk,

and therefore it is blood, and the Torah innovated to permit it;

and since

all milk

is an innovation,

I would say that

the milk of an impure animal too should be permitted—

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

milk

But we still ask:

This works well according to the one who says—

concerning the reason that a nursing woman is one from whom blood is absent—that it is because

the blood thickens

because of the birth

and becomes milk—

But according to the one who says:

a nursing woman is one from whom blood is absent because

her limbs become disjointed from her, and her soul does not return to her until twenty-four months—

what can be said,

why did the Torah need to forbid the milk of an impure animal!?

And we answer: In any event,

it was necessary

to forbid the milk of an impure animal, because

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 thing that comes from a living creature and the Torah permits it ],

and

even

this milk, too, is like a limb from a living creature,

and

in any event the Torah innovated that

it is permitted,

the milk of a pure animal,

and therefore even

milk that is

in an impure 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 pure animal—

which you consider obvious to be permitted—

from where do we know that it is permitted [

from where is it known that it is permitted ], seeing that it comes from a living creature!?

And

if you say, from the fact that the Merciful One forbade meat with milk, then

milk

by itself is permitted;

this cannot be said, for:

Perhaps milk by itself is forbidden for eating and permitted for benefit,

and

meat with milk is also forbidden for benefit,

and therefore the Torah needed to add the prohibition of meat with milk to the prohibition of milk by itself.

And

even

according to Rabbi Shimon, who permits

meat with milk

for benefit,

and if so, it would have been possible to bring proof from the prohibition of meat with milk, which the Torah did not need to forbid since milk by itself is forbidden, nevertheless

it is possible to receive lashes for cooking it,

that is, the Torah added to meat with milk a prohibition and lashes for cooking it, unlike milk by itself; nevertheless, one can say that milk by itself too is forbidden.

Rather,

say that the permissibility of milk can be proved

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

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

You shall slaughter”

but not shearing, “

meat”

but not milk,

and you learn from this:

but

milk

of non-consecrated animals is permitted;

this too cannot be said, because:

Perhaps

milk

of non-consecrated animals is forbidden for eating and permitted

for benefit, whereas

that

of consecrated animals [

disqualified consecrated animals ] is

also forbidden for benefit!?

Rather,

say that the permissibility of milk is to be learned

from what is written [Proverbs 27]: “

[Proverbs 27]: “

And enough goat’s milk for your bread, for the bread of your household, and life for your maidens”; this too cannot be said, because:

This too cannot be said, because:

Perhaps the verse intended not eating, but

commerce!?

Rather, say that the milk is permitted

by virtue of what is written

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

And these ten cheeses of milk

bring to the commander of the thousand,” so milk is permitted; this too cannot be said, because:

Perhaps he brought it for commerce

to them!?

And we answer:

Is it the practice of war to engage in commerce—is it customary to conduct commerce during war? Necessarily, he brought it to him for drinking, and it is proven that milk is permitted.

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

And if you wish, say:

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 a forbidden substance ]?

And if you wish, say: from here

it may be learned that milk is permitted, as it is written [Isaiah 55]: “

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

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

But if so,

that you expound the repetition of the prohibition concerning the camel—

“hyrax, hyrax; hare, hare; pig,”

“pig, pig, it came for these” [כפילות השפן הארנבת והחזיר במשנה תורה עם הגמל, למה נשנו]the repetition of the hyrax, the hare, and the pig in Deuteronomy along with the camel—for what were they repeated!?

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

Rather,

necessarily the entire passage was repeated for this reason,

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

the shesuah” [שם בהמה שנזכרה רק במשנה תורה]the name of an animal mentioned only in Deuteronomy,

[the name of an animal mentioned only in Deuteronomy]

and

were repeated

concerning birds: because of the ra’ah,

whose prohibition was newly stated in Deuteronomy, and this is as we hold: every passage that was stated and repeated was repeated only because of a matter newly introduced in it; that is, at times the Torah repeats an entire passage because of only one matter that is newly introduced in it; and if so— "

“camel, camel”

also came only for this [אף הגמל לא נשנה אלא מפני השסועה], ואיך נדרוש מן הכפילותeven the camel was repeated only because of the shesuah—so how shall we expound from the repetition!?

[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 something to expound—

we expound.

Our Rabbis taught:

An ewe that gave birth to a species of goat, and a goat that gave birth to a species of ewe, are exempt from the firstborn.

And if it has some of the signs

by which it resembles its mother, then it is

liable

for the firstborn.

Rabbi Shimon says:

some signs are not sufficient; rather,

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

They raised a question before them:

According to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an impure animal born from a pure animal is forbidden for eating, and holds concerning the firstborn that even some signs are insufficient to make it liable as a firstborn,

for eating, does

also

Rabbi Shimon likewise require its head and the majority [האם אף להתירו באכילה אין מתיר רבי שמעון במקצת סימנים דומה לאמו, אלא עד שיהא ראשו ורובו דומה לאמו]does Rabbi Shimon likewise not permit it for eating through some signs resembling its mother, but only until its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother,

[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

is the head and the majority not required, and when the impure animal resembles its pure mother in some signs, is it permitted for eating? And the sides of the question are: