Parallel
בכורות 6
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
The text therefore states ‘peter hamor’ ‘peter hamor’ twice, to intimate: ‘I have only spoken of the firstling of asses but not [at all] of the firstlings of horses and camels’. R. Ahai raised an objection. [There is need for the repetition of ‘peter hamor’]. For if the Divine Law had written only one [‘peter hamor’], I might have said that it [the law of the firstling of an ass requiring redemption] is a thing which was included in the general proposition and then made the subject of a special statement, so that the specification Is not limited to itself alone but is to be applied to the whole class [of unclean animals], and so, in all cases, the redemption is indeed with a sheep. Therefore the Divine Law wrote in another text ‘peter hamor’ to intimate that only firstlings of asses are redeemed with a sheep but not the firstlings of horses and camels. But one might say that the limitation [with reference to horses etc,] only refers to [redemption] with a sheep, but, elsewhere, they may indeed be redeemed with any object? — If so, let the Divine Law write: ‘The firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep’; ‘and an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep’. Why [this repetition], ‘The firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep’, ‘the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep’? It is to intimate, ‘I have only spoken to you of the firstlings of asses [as requiring redemption] but not of the firstlings of horses and camels’. And our Tanna of the Mishnah, whence does he derive a limitation of horses and camels [as being altogether exempt from the law of the firstlings]? — Said R. Papa: [Scripture says:] And of all the cattle thou shalt sanctify the males, this is a general proposition. ‘The firstling of an ox and sheep . . . And the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem’, is a specification; and with a general proposition complemented by a specification the general proposition includes only the specification; thus teaching that an ox, sheep and an ass [are liable to the law of the firstling], but not any other [animal]. And R. Jose the Galilean? — [His answer is] that the word ‘peter’ interrupts the subject. And the Rabbis? — The letter waw joins it again to the previous verse. And R. Jose the Galilean? — Let not Scripture write neither the waw [which joins it with the previous verse] nor [write the word] ‘peter’ [which interrupts the subject]. And the’ Rabbis? — Since the one part deals with objects consecrated in respect of their value and the other part with objects consecrated as such, Scripture, therefore, at first interrupts the subject and subsequently connects it again [with the previous verse]. The question was asked: If a cow gave birth to a species of ass and it possesses some marks similar [to its mother]; what is the ruling? If a goat gave birth to a species of ewe and a ewe gave birth to a species of goat, the ruling is that when it possesses some marks [similar to its mother] it is subject to the law of the firstling, the reason being that this one [the mother] is a clean animal and this one [the offspring] is a clean animal, this one [the mother] is an object consecrated as such and this one [the offspring] is also an object consecrated as such. But here, where this one [the offspring] is an unclean animal and this one [the mother] is a clean animal, this one [the mother] is an object consecrated as such and this one [the offspring] is an object consecrated for its value, the ruling should not be [the same]. Or, perhaps, since in both cases, [even in the case where the offspring is a species of ass and the mother is a cow], they belong to a category of animals possessing the sanctity of the first-born, shall we say that it is therefore sanctified? And should you maintain that since both cases mentioned above come under the law of the sanctity of the firstborn, therefore [where a cow gave birth to a species of ass which possesses some features akin to its mother] it is sanctified, what will be the ruling for an ass which gave birth to a species of horse? Here, surely, it does not belong to the category of animals which have the sanctity of the firstling. Or, are we perhaps to say that since [the horse] belongs to the same class of unclean animals, it is sanctified? And would you say that since it belongs to a class of unclean animals,it is sanctified, what will be the ruling regarding a cow which gave birth to a species of horse? Here, surely, this one [the cow] is a clean animal whereas this one [the offspring] is an unclean animal, this one [the cow] belongs to a category of animals which possess the sanctity of the firstling, whereas this one [the horse] does not belong to the category of animals which have the sanctity of the firstling. Or are we perhaps to say that marks [similar to the mother] are the decisive factor? — Come and hear: ‘A clean animal which gave birth to a species of unclean animal is exempted from he law of the firstling. If it possesses, however, some marks [similar to the parent], it is liable to the law of the firstling . What [does this mean]? Does it not refer even to the case of a cow which gave birth to a species of horse?’ — No, it refers to the case of a cow which gave birth to a species of ass. Come and hear: ‘If a cow gave birth to a species of ass or an ass gave birth to a species of horse, it is exempt from the law of the firstling. If it possesses, however, some marks [similar to the mother], it is liable to [the law of] the firstling’. What [does this mean]? Does this [the last clause] not refer to both cases mentioned? — No, it refers only to the case of a cow which gave birth to a species of ass. But the case of an ass which gave birth to a species of horse-why does it state this? Is it to exempt it [from the law of the first-born]? Is this not obvious? Since, in the case of a cow which gave birth to a species of an ass, where both [the mother and its offspring] belong to a category of animals which have the sanctity of the firstling, you say if the ass has some marks [similar to its mother], it is sanctified, but if not, it is not sanctified, is there any question in the case of an ass which gave birth to a species of horse? — It is necessary to state this. You might be inclined to assume that there [in the case of a cow which gave birth to a species of ass] the reason is because the cow has horns but here the ass has no horns, here [the cow] its hoofs are cloven but there [the ass] its hoofs are closed. But here [in the case where an ass gave birth to a species of horse], since in both instances, they have no horns and the hoofs of both are closed, I might have said that the offspring [a species of horse] was merely a red ass. We are therefore informed [that this is not so]. WHAT IS THE LAW WITH REFERENCE TO EATING THEM etc. What need is there [for the Mishnah] to lay down FOR THAT WHICH GOES’ FORTH etc.? — It is a mere [mnemonical] sign so that you should not change the version [of the Mishnah] and that you should not say ‘decide according to the offspring, and this is a perfectly clean animal and this is a perfectly unclean animal’. But we rather say, ‘Follow the mother’. Whence is this proved? — Because our Rabbis taught: ‘Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the hoof’. You have the case of an animal which chews the cud and has divided hoofs which you are, nevertheless, forbidden to eat. And what is it? This is the case of a clean animal born from an unclean animal. Perhaps, it is not so but [the verse] refers to the case of an unclean animal born from a clean animal? And what is the interpretation of the verse: ‘Of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the hoof’?
—
It means this: An object which proceeds from them which chew the cud and of them that divide the hoof, ye shall not eat! The text therefore states: The camel . . . he is unclean, intimating that he is unclean but an unclean animal born from a clean animal is not Unclean, but clean. R. Simeon says: The word ‘camel’ occurs twice, once referring to a camel born from a camel [as forbidden], and the other, to a camel born from a cow. And as to the Rabbis who differ from R. Simeon — what do they do with the repetition ‘camel’, ‘camel’? — One is to forbid [the camel itself] and the other to prohibit its milk. And whence does R. Simeon derive the prohibition of a camel's milk? — He derives it from the word ‘eth, [with] the camel’. And the Rabbis? — They do not stress the word eth [occurring in the Scriptures]. As it was taught: Simeon the Imsonite used to expound the word eth wherever it occurred in the Law. When he reached, however, the verse, eth [with] the Lord thy God thou shalt fear, he abstained. His pupils, thereupon, said to him: ‘Rabbi, every eth which you have expounded, — what will become of them?’ He replied to them: ‘Just as I have received reward for interpreting every eth, so I shall receive reward for abstaining’. Finally, however, R. Akiba came and taught that the verse: ‘eth [with] the Lord thy God thou shalt fear’, intimates that we must pay reverence to scholars next to God. Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: According to this, the reason of the Rabbis [why milk of an unclean animal is forbidden], is because of the repetition ‘camel’, ‘camel’, and that of R. Simeon is because of the text ‘eth [with] the camel’, but were it not so, I might have said that milk from an unclean animal is permitted. Why should it be different from what was taught: [The verse] These are the unclean, implies the prohibition of their brine, their soup and their jelly! — It is necessary [to find another basis for milk]. For I might have been inclined to assume that since even the use of milk itself of a clean animal is an anomaly, for a Master said: The blood [during the nursing period] is dis turbed [decomposed] and turns into milk; and since it is an anomaly, therefore even from an unclean animal the milk should be permitted. We are accordingly informed [that this is not so]. This would indeed hold good according to him who says that the blood [during the nursing period] is disturbed [decomposed] and turns into milk. But according to him who says [that the reason why there is no menstruation period while nursing is] because her limbs become disjointed and she does not become normal in herself for twenty-four months, what can you reply? — It is still necessary. I might have been inclined to assume, that since there is nothing which proceeds from a living being which the Divine Law permits and yet milk which is similar to a part from a living animal [is permitted], therefore even from an unclean animal the milk should be permitted. We are accordingly informed [that this is not so]. And whence do we derive that milk itself from a clean animal is permitted? Shall I say that since the Divine Law prohibits [the boiling of] milk and meat together, this implies that separately milk is permitted? But might I not still maintain that milk by itself is forbidden to be eaten though permitted for other general use, whereas in the case of boiling meat and milk together, it is also forbidden for any use. And even according to the view of R. Simeon who holds that meat and milk boiled together is permitted for general use, the prohibition can be explained as necessary to inflict lashes for the boiling! Rather, since the Divine Law states in connection with dedicated objects which became unfit, Notwithstanding thou mayest kill but not to use the shearing, ‘flesh’, but not the milk, this implies that milk from an unconsecrated animal is permitted. But may I not take the meaning to be that milk from an unconsecrated animal is forbidden to be eaten but may be used for other general use, whereas in the case of consecrated objects, it is forbidden even for any use? — Rather deduce [the law] from what [Scripture] has written, And thou shalt have goats’ milk enough for thy food, for the food of thy household, and for the maintenance of thy maidens. Perhaps, however, this only refers to business? Rather deduce this from what [Scripture] writes, And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand. Perhaps, here also, it refers to business. Is it usual in war to sell [food to the enemy]? If you prefer, I may deduce from here: A land flowing with milk and honey. Now if milk were not permitted, would Scripture commend the country to us with something which is not fit to be eaten? Or, if you prefer, I may deduce it from here: Come ye buy and eat, yea, come buy wine and milk without money and without price. Now, according to this, , the repetition ‘Rockbadger’, ‘Rockbadger’, ‘Hare’, ‘Hare’, ‘Swine’, ‘Swine’, — are these also come for some purpose? But [the object of these repetitions quoted] is really as was taught: Why is there a repetition [of the clean and unclean] ani mals? On account of shesu'ah. Why with reference to birds, [is there the same repetition in the Scripture]? On account of ra'ah. Then, perhaps, [the repetition of] ‘Camel’, ‘Camel’ also has the same purpose? — All the same, wherever we can derive a lesson from the biblical text, we interpret it. Our Rabbis taught: If a ewe gave birth to a species of a goat or a goat gave birth to a species of a ewe, it is exempt from the law of the firstling. But if the offspring possesses some marks similar to its mother, it is liable to the law of the firstling. R. Simeon says [it is not liable to the law of the firstling] until the head and the greater part of the body resemble the mother. The following query was put forward. Does R. Simeon require, in order that the animal may be permitted to be eaten, the head and the greater part of the body, or not? In connection with a firstling, Scripture writes: ‘But the firstling of an ox’ indicating [that the law of the firstling does not apply] until the animal is an ox and its firstborn is an ox. But as regards permission for eating, the Divine Law says that only a camel is prohibited, but
—