Bekhorot 7a — the Talmud in English

Is it

with regard to the firstborn

specifically that Rabbi Shimon required its head and the greater part of its body, because

it is written “

But the firstborn of an ox,”

until it itself is an ox and its firstborn is an ox;

and when only some of its signs are like those of an ox, it is not called an ox;

but with regard to eating, a camel

complete

is what the Merciful One said is forbidden

to eat, but

this

if it has changed from a camel—

that is, in some of its signs—

it is properly permitted, or perhaps it is no different

with regard to the firstborn and no different with regard to eating: it must have its head and the greater part of its body resembling its mother? Sign: animal, but, camel

Animal:

ta shma

to resolve it from a beraita, that even with regard to eating Rabbi Shimon required its head and the greater part of its body:

For it was taught:

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

is

forbidden to eat

and this is the view of Rabbi Shimon

; and if its head and the greater part of its body resemble its mother

it is

liable with regard to the firstborn,

but for some signs it is not liable, and this is the view of Rabbi Shimon—

Infer from it: with regard to eating as well, Rabbi Shimon requires its head and the greater part of its body,

for even the prohibition of eating was taught in this beraita.

And we reject this:

No; specifically with regard to the firstborn

is it that Rabbi Shimon requires its head and the greater part of its body, as it said, “liable with regard to the firstborn.”

And the Gemara infers in accordance with the rejection:

It is also precise, for he left aside the matter of eating and established it with regard to the firstborn [the tanney left aside the law of eating with which he began, and required its head and the greater part of its body with regard to the firstborn],

and it follows that it is specifically with regard to the firstborn.

The Gemara asks: If so, does

infer from it

the opposite:

It is with regard to the firstborn that Rabbi Shimon requires its head and the greater part of its body, but with regard to eating—

not?

And we reject this:

In truth, I can say to you: with regard to eating as well Rabbi Shimon requires

its head and the greater part of its body,

and

for this reason the tanney concluded with the firstborn, because the obligation of

the firstborn required

him to innovate at least that when its head and the greater part of its body resemble its mother,

it might have entered your mind to say: since it is written “

But the firstborn of an ox,”

and it means

until it itself is an ox and its firstborn is an ox, and

if so

it would not suffice for it [it would not be sufficient]

with its head and the greater part of its body until there is the whole of it

[until it resembles its mother in its entirety]—

—until it resembles its mother in every respect.

it teaches us

that even Rabbi Shimon agrees that if its head and the greater part of its body resemble its mother, it is liable with regard to the firstborn.

But:

ta shma

to resolve that with regard to eating Rabbi Shimon permits it even when only some of its signs resemble its mother:

For it was taught: It is written, “

But this you shall not eat, among those that bring up the cud and among those that divide the hoof, the camel,”

this

—a camel, even one born from a cow—

you may not eat, but you may eat one that comes with one sign

of its mother, that is, one that resembles it in part—

And which is this one that comes with one sign

that you eat?

This is an impure one born from a pure one, and

also

its father [that is, its father]

—that is, its father—

is from the pure one.

One might have thought

that you eat

even

if

its father is from the impure one—

The verse says [Deuteronomy 14:4]: “This is the animal that you may eat: ox,

[Deuteronomy 14:4]: “These are the animals that you may eat: an ox,

sheep of sheep” [the plural expression]

—the plural form—

and sheep of goats [the plural expression]”—to teach: no animal is permitted to eat

—also in the plural form,” teaching that no animal is permitted to eat

until its father is a ram and its mother is a ewe,

that is, both of them are pure—

the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The verse did not come to permit what is permitted,

that is, if, as you say, the verse “sheep of sheep and sheep of goats” came to permit an impure one born from a pure one whose father is from the pure one, then surely it is permitted, and the verse did not need to permit it,

rather

necessarily

to add

the verse came

to what is permitted [to what we would know on our own to be permitted],

—something that we would have known on our own to be permitted—

and which is this: an impure one born from a pure one, and

even

its father is from the impure one.

Or is it only its father is from the pure one,

the verse says “

sheep of sheep and sheep of goats”

in any event.

And the Gemara infers:

he calls it

the camel born from the cow: “

impure,”

like Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that it is impure even though it was born from the pure one,

and he says: but you may eat one that comes with one sign,

so it follows that some signs suffice for it to be permitted even according to Rabbi Shimon.

And we reject this:

this tanney,

Rabbi Yehoshua,

holds like him

Rabbi Shimon

in one matter [in one matter],

in forbidding an impure one born from a pure one,

and disagrees with him in one matter [and differs from him in one matter], namely, he permits it even when it has only some signs resembling its mother, whereas Rabbi Shimon may be said to hold that its head and the greater part of its body are required.

: Rabbi Yehoshua permits the animal even when it has only some identifying features resembling its mother, whereas Rabbi Shimon may hold that the animal’s head and the majority of its body are required.

And there is one who asks and raises an objection [there is one who raises a difficulty against the beraita, resolves it, and from the resolution answers the one who asked: What does Rabbi Shimon hold concerning some signs resembling its mother?];

and this is that he establishes in another way that this beraita is Rabbi Shimon’s, and consequently the doubt is resolved:

And this is how he raises the difficulty against the beraita: How did we teach, “One might have thought even

its father—

of the impure son of the pure female—

is from the impure one,”

but

does it become pregnant [can a pure animal become pregnant from an impure animal]!?

—can a pure animal become pregnant from an impure animal!?

But Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It never becomes pregnant—not an impure female from a pure male, nor a pure female

from an impure male, and not

an animal

of the large species from

the animal

of the small species, and not

an animal

of the small species from

the animal

of the large species, and not an animal from

the wild animal,

and not a wild animal from

the

animal—

except Rabbi Eliezer and

the one who was

his disputant—

who disputed the law of “it and its offspring” concerning the kוי—

for they would say: a wild animal becomes pregnant from an animal, as we say in Chullin 79b: Which is the kוי concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disputed? It is the one that comes from a he-goat [which is an animal] and from a doe [which is a wild animal].

, as it is said in Chullin 79b: Which koy is the one concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disputed? It is one born from a male goat [which is a domestic animal] and a female deer [which is a wild animal].

And

but

Rabbi Yirmeya said

in resolving this difficulty:

This that we taught, “its father is from the impure one,” means that

the pure one became pregnant

from a

cloven-hoofless one [its hooves are joined, and that is an impure one]

—one whose hooves are not split, and which is therefore impure—

the son of a cow, and

therefore the pregnancy from a cloven-hoofless one, the son of a cow, is considered pregnancy from an impure one, because

according to Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that a cloven-hoofless one, the son of a cow, is impure, it is that he

says—and since we established that the beraita follows Rabbi Shimon, the doubt is resolved:

this. Since we have established that the beraita follows Rabbi Shimon, the doubt is resolved:

and he says

in the beraita:

but you may eat one that comes with one sign;

it is thus explicit that Rabbi Shimon holds: even if it resembles its mother only in some of its signs, you may eat it.

And we reject it as we rejected above:

this tanney holds like him in one matter, and disagrees with him in one matter.

After the dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua was brought, the Gemara explains their views: Rabbi Yehoshua permitted an animal only if its father and mother are pure, whereas Rabbi Eliezer permitted it even when only its mother is pure:

To say

indeed

that Rabbi Eliezer holds: this and that [the permitted and the forbidden]

—a permitted factor and a forbidden factor—

cause—

for example, in our matter, that the offspring was caused and formed by the pure and the impure—

is permitted; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds: this and that cause is forbidden!?

But we hear the opposite from them [for elsewhere they disputed with opposite views]!?

—elsewhere they disputed with precisely the opposite positions—!?

For it was taught:

The offspring of a tereifa

which is forbidden to be offered on the altar:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It may not be offered

the offspring

on the altar,

even though only its mother is a tereifa and its father is not a tereifa, for this and that cause is forbidden.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: It may be offered on the altar,

for this and that cause is permitted.

And we answer:

Generally

indeed

Rabbi Eliezer holds that this and that cause is forbidden,

as he holds concerning the offspring of a tereifa,

but here it is different,

in the case of one born from the impure and the pure, which Rabbi Eliezer permits, because

if so—

that its father and mother must be pure—

let the verse write “

ox, sheep, and goats”;

why do I need “sheep”!?

Rather,

infer from it: “sheep” in any event,

even when its father is impure.

And Rabbi Yehoshua could say to you:

indeed

generally this and that cause is permitted, but here,

in the case of one born from the impure and the pure,

if so,

that it is permitted,

let the verse write “

ox, sheep, ram, and sheep of goats”

sheep and goats

in the plural

why do I need it!?

Rather,

infer from it: until its father is a ram, and its mother

is a ewe.

Here the Gemara returns to resolve the doubt, whether Rabbi Shimon required the head and the greater part of the body of the impure one born from the pure one to resemble its mother in order for it to be permitted to eat:

Camel:

ta shma

to resolve that Rabbi Shimon required its head and the greater part of its body with regard to eating:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says: “

camel, camel”

twice [in Leviticus and in Deuteronomy], to teach:

—once in Leviticus and once in Deuteronomy—teaching:

one, a camel born from a camel,

is forbidden,

and one, a camel born from a cow,

is forbidden

; but if its head and the greater part of its body resemble its mother,

it is

permitted to eat—

Infer from it: with regard to eating as well, Rabbi Shimon requires its head and the greater part of its body.

And we conclude: indeed,

it follows from this.

We learned in the Mishna:

that what issues from the impure

is impure:

The members of the academy asked

the students of the academy

Rav Sheshet:

The urine of a donkey—

which is impure and forbidden for eating—

what is its status,

whether it is permitted or forbidden?

And we object:

then it should also be asked

about the urine

of horses

and camels,

and why did they raise the doubt specifically concerning that of a donkey!?

And we answer:

With regard to the urine of horses and camels, they had no need to ask

for they are certainly permitted, since

they are not cloudy [

they are not cloudy but clear],

and they do not resemble the milk

of an impure animal, which the Torah prohibited—as we derive above, on page 6b, from the verses—and

water enters, water exits [

water entered its body and water exited from it]—

When they raised the doubt

it was specifically concerning the urine

of a donkey,

since

it is cloudy and resembles milk

which the Torah prohibited, and concerning this they raised the doubt:

What is the ruling?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Is it that

it is extracted from its body [

it is extracted from the body of the donkey], meaning, the urine is a product of the donkey like the milk,

and

if so,

it is forbidden

like the milk of an impure animal—

Or perhaps:

it is not a product of the donkey, but rather

water enters, water exits, and the fact that it is cloudy is the heat of the flesh [

its cloudiness is due to the heat and stench of the flesh].

Said

he: “I have resolved”

Rav Sheshet

their doubt, for

you have learned it

in our Mishna: