Bekhorot 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

Is it

with regard to firstborn status

specifically that Rabbi Shimon required its head and the majority of its body to resemble its mother, because

it is written “

But the firstborn of an ox,” meaning

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

And when only some of its distinguishing features are like those of an ox, it is not called an ox.

But with regard to eating, a complete camel

itself

is what the Merciful One said is forbidden

to eat;

but

if it has changed from a camel

in a way that distinguishes it from a camel—

that is, in some of its distinguishing features—

is it properly permitted, or perhaps it makes no difference whether the matter concerns firstborn status or eating, and its head and the majority of its body must resemble its mother?

Sign: animal, but, camel

Animal:

Come and hear

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

For it was taught:

A pure animal that gave birth to an animal of the species of an impure animal

is

forbidden to eat,

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion;

and if its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother,

it is

subject to firstborn status,

but on the basis of only some distinguishing features it is not subject to firstborn status, in accordance with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion.

Conclude from it: With regard to eating as well, Rabbi Shimon requires the head and the majority of its body,

as the prohibition against eating is also taught in this beraita.

And we reject this:

No; it is specifically with regard to firstborn status

that Rabbi Shimon requires the head and the majority of its body, as it says, “It is subject to firstborn status.”

And the Gemara infers in accordance with this rejection:

This too is precise, as it left aside the matter of eating and established the matter with regard to firstborn status

[the tanna left aside the law concerning eating, with which he began, and required the head and the majority of its body with regard to firstborn status], indicating that this requirement applies specifically to firstborn status.

The Gemara asks: If so, should we

conclude

the opposite:

It is with regard to firstborn status that Rabbi Shimon requires the head and the majority of its body, but with regard to eating

he does not?

And we reject this:

I will always tell you: With regard to eating as well, Rabbi Shimon requires

the head and the majority of its body,

and

the tanna concluded with the matter of firstborn status because the obligation of

firstborn status was necessary

to teach that in any event, when its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother, it is subject to firstborn status. For

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written “

But the firstborn of an ox,”

which indicates:

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]

that its head and the majority of its body be like an ox until it is entirely

[until it resembles its mother in its entirety].

It teaches us

that even Rabbi Shimon agrees that if its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother, it is subject to firstborn status.

But:

Come and hear

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

For it was taught: It is written, “

But this you shall not eat, of those that bring up their cud and those that have a parted hoof: the camel,”

this

—a camel, even one born of a cow—

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

of its mother, that is, one that resembles its mother in some respect—

. And which is the one that comes with one sign

that you may eat?

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

also

its father

[that is, its father]

is from a pure species.

One might have thought

that you may eat it

even

if

its father is from an impure species—

The verse states

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

a sheep of the flocks

[in the plural],

and a sheep of the goats

[also in the plural],” teaching that no animal is permitted to be eaten

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

that is, both are pure—

the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The verse did not come to permit what is already permitted,

that is, if, as you say, the verse “a sheep of the flocks and a sheep of the goats” comes to permit an impure animal born from a pure one whose father is from a pure species, it is obvious that it is permitted, and the verse did not need to permit it,

rather,

necessarily

to add

the verse came

to what is permitted

[to something that we would know on our own was permitted],

and what is this? An impure animal born from a pure one and

even

whose father is from an impure species.

Or perhaps it refers only to one whose father is from a pure species,

the verse states “

a sheep of the flocks and a sheep of the goats,”

in any event.

And the Gemara infers:

He calls it

a camel born from a cow

impure,

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who maintains that it is impure even though it was born from a pure animal,

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

indicating that some distinguishing features suffice to make it permitted even according to Rabbi Shimon.

And we reject this:

This tanna,

Rabbi Yehoshua,

agrees with him

Rabbi Shimon

in one matter

[in one respect], namely, in forbidding an impure animal born from a pure one,

but disagrees with him in one matter

[and differs from him in one respect]: Rabbi Yehoshua permits it even when it has only some distinguishing features resembling its mother, whereas Rabbi Shimon may maintain that the head and the majority of its body are required.

And some raise a difficulty and respond

[there is one who raises a difficulty against the beraita, resolves it, and through the resolution responds to the one who asked how Rabbi Shimon rules concerning an animal whose distinguishing features only partially resemble those of its mother]. That is, he proves in another manner that this beraita is according to Rabbi Shimon, and the uncertainty is thereby resolved:

And this is how he challenges the beraita: How can we have learned, “One might have thought even

its father

—of the impure offspring of the pure female—

is from an impure species,”

when

does a pure animal conceive

[can a pure animal conceive from an impure animal]!?

But Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A pure animal never conceives from an impure animal, neither an impure animal from a pure one, nor a pure animal

from an impure one, nor

an

large animal from

a

small animal, nor

a

small animal from

a

large animal, nor an animal from

a

wild animal, nor a wild animal from

a

domesticated animal—

except for Rabbi Eliezer and

the one who was his

opponent—who disputed the law of “it and its offspring” with regard to a kוי—

and they maintained that a wild animal can conceive from a domesticated animal,

as we say in Chullin 79b: Which kוי is the one concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disputed? It is one born from a he-goat [which is a domesticated animal] and 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

indeed

Rabbi Yirmeya said

in resolving this difficulty:

What we learned, “whose father is from an impure species,” refers to a case where

the pure female conceived

from

a cloven-hoofed animal

[one whose hooves are undivided, and which is therefore impure]

the offspring of a cow, and

therefore conception from a cloven-hoofed animal that is the offspring of a cow is considered conception from an impure animal, because

according to Rabbi Shimon,

who maintains that a cloven-hoofed animal born from a cow is impure, it is that he

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

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

and it says

in the beraita:

But you may eat one that comes with one sign;

it is therefore clear that Rabbi Shimon maintains that even if it resembles its mother only in some of its distinguishing features, you may eat it.

And we reject this as we rejected it above:

This tanna agrees with him in one matter and disagrees with him in one matter.

After the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua was cited, the Gemara explains their positions: Rabbi Yehoshua permitted an animal only if both its father and mother were pure, whereas Rabbi Eliezer permitted it even when only its mother was pure:

Does this mean,

is it indeed so

that Rabbi Eliezer maintains: This one and that one

[the permitted and the forbidden one]

cause

—as in our case, where the offspring was caused and formed by the pure and the impure animals—

is permitted, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua maintains: This one and that one cause it and it is forbidden!?

But we heard them say the opposite

[elsewhere they dispute with the opposite positions]!?

For it was taught:

The offspring of a tereifa

which is forbidden to be offered upon the altar:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It may not be offered

the offspring

upon the altar,

even though only its mother is a tereifa and its father is not a tereifa, because “this one and that one cause it” is forbidden.

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

because “this one and that one cause it” is permitted.

And we answer:

Generally,

indeed

Rabbi Eliezer maintains that ‘this one and that one cause it’ is forbidden,

as he maintains concerning the offspring of a tereifa.

But here it is different,

in the case of an offspring born from an impure male and a pure female, which Rabbi Eliezer permits, because

if so—

that its father and mother would both be required to be pure—

the verse should have written “

an ox, sheep, and goats”;

why do I need ‘sheep’!?

Rather,

conclude from it: ‘sheep’ means in any event,

even if its father is impure.

And Rabbi Yehoshua could say to you:

Indeed,

generally, ‘this one and that one cause it’ is permitted, but here,

in the case of an offspring born from an impure male and a pure female,

if so,

as it is permitted,

the verse should have written “

an ox, a sheep, a ram, and a sheep of a goat”

sheep and goats

in the plural;

why do I need this!?

Rather,

conclude from it: until its father is a ram and its mother

a ewe.

Here the Gemara returns to resolving the uncertainty whether Rabbi Shimon required the head and the majority of the body of the impure offspring born from a pure animal to resemble its mother in order for it to be permitted to eat.

Camel:

Come and hear

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

For it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says: “

Camel, camel”

twice

[in Leviticus and 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 majority of its body resemble its mother,

it is

permitted to eat—

Conclude from it: With regard to eating as well, Rabbi Shimon requires the head and the majority of its body.

And we conclude: Indeed,

this proves it.

We learned in the Mishna:

that whatever issues from an impure animal is

impure:

The yeshiva scholars asked

the members of the academy

Rav Sheshet:

The urine of a donkey—

which is impure and forbidden for consumption—

what is its status,

whether it is permitted or forbidden?

And we challenge this:

then let them also raise the question

with regard to the urine

of horses

and camels,

so why did they raise the question specifically with regard to that of a donkey!?

And we answer:

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

for they are certainly permitted, since

they are not turbid

they are not turbid but clear],

and they do not resemble milk

of an impure animal, which the Torah prohibited—as we derived earlier, on folio 6b, from the verses—and

water enters and water exits

water entered its body and water exited from it]—

When they raised the question,

it was specifically with regard to the urine

of a donkey,

since

it is turbid and resembles milk

which the Torah prohibited; and it was with regard to this that they were uncertain:

What is the ruling?

And these are the sides of the uncertainty:

Is it that

it is extracted from its body

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

and

if so,

it is forbidden,

like the milk of an impure animal—

Or perhaps:

it is not a product of the donkey; rather,

water enters and water exits, and the reason it is turbid is the heat of the flesh

its turbidity is due to the heat and putrefaction of the flesh].

Rav Sheshet

resolved

their uncertainty

for, indeed,

you have learned it

in our Mishna: