Bekhorot

The one as well as the other,1 [attaches to it so long as] it is fit for a dog — in the case here is it not fit for a dog?2 — This is indeed a difficulty. [The above] text [stated]: ‘Bar Pada said: A major uncleanness attaches to it as long as it is fit for a stranger, but a minor uncleanness, as long as it is fit for a dog. But R. Johanan said: In the one case as well as the other, so long as it is fit for a dog [it remains unclean]’. What is the reason of Bar Pada? — Scripture Says: Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt give it unto the stranger.3 [We infer from this that] what is still suitable for a stranger [to eat] is called nebelah, whereas that which is no longer suitable for a stranger [to eat] is not called nebelah. And the other? — He explains [the Scriptural text] as excluding the case where it was putrid from the beginning.4 And [what says] the other [to this]? — Where it was putrid from the beginning there is no need for a Scriptural text to exclude, for it is mere dust. We have learnt: R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAYS: IF A LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL DISCHARGED A CLOT OF BLOOD, IT SHALL BE BURIED, AND IT IS EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING. And R. Hiyya taught [in a Baraitha]: It does not make unclean either with contact or by carrying it. And R. Johanan explained that we apply here the principle of the larger portion neutralizing [the other]. [The question therefore arises], what need is there for the neutralization by the larger portion? Why not deduce this from the fact that it was not fit at all [for a stranger]? — In this case, too, it was suitable to be eaten [by a stranger], on account of its mother.5 We have learnt elsewhere: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: Clear brine6 into which there fell a little water is levitically unclean.7 R. Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This proves that the ‘amme ha-arez are suspected of mixing half water in brine.8 But why half? Why not even less than a half, for together with the little water here, it makes a half, and a half does not become neutralized?9 Read: Up to a half.10 And if you prefer [another solution] I may say: The levitical uncleanness imposed with reference to an ‘am ha-arez is a Rabbinic enactment, and the uncleanness of liquid is also a Rabbinic enactment. Therefore, in the case where the water is the greater portion, the Rabbis decreed uncleanness, but where there is half and half, the Rabbis did not decree uncleanness. MISHNAH. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: IF ONE BUYS AN ANIMAL GIVING SUCK FROM A GENTILE, HE NEED NOT FEAR THAT PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING BELONGS TO ANOTHER [ANIMAL].11 IF HE WENT AMONG HIS HERD AND SAW ANIMALS WHICH HAD GIVEN BIRTH FOR THE FIRST TIME GIVING SUCK AND ANIMALS WHICH HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH FOR THE FIRST TIME GIVING SUCK, WE NEED NOT FEAR THAT PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING OF THIS ONE CAME TO THE OTHER OR PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING OF THE OTHER CAME TO THIS ONE.12 GEMARA. R. Nahman reported in the name of Rab: The law is in accordance [with the Mishnah]13 in the whole chapter, except in the case where a difference of opinion is recorded. Said R. Shesheth: I say that Rab declared this tradition when he was half asleep. For to what does [Rab] refer? You can hardly say that he refers to the first part [of the chapter], for are there not differing opinions recorded of R. Ishmael and R. Akiba? Again if he refers [to the teaching of] R. Eliezer b. Jacob [in the preceding Mishnah] — is not the Mishnah of R. Eliezer b. Jacob little in quantity,14 but well sifted?15 And if he refers to [the teachings of] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel [in our Mishnah] — are there not differing opinions in the Baraitha?16 If he refers to [the teachings of] R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam [in a subsequent Mishnah], has not Rab, however, informed us of this once, for Rab said: The law is in accordance With R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam? And if he refers to [the subsequent Mishnah] in connection with the hair of a blemished [firstling], — are there not, however, different opinions recorded of Akabya b. Mahalalel and the Rabbis? — Indeed [Rab refers] to [the teachings of] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, and this is what he teaches us, that [the difference of opinion] in the Baraitha is not considered a difference of opinion [to be taken into account]. But since Rab said: The law is according [to the Mishnah] in the whole chapter, except where there is a difference of opinion. dog to eat. self-contradictory.] Sh. Mek, reads: ‘not fit at all to a stranger’. make the carrier unclean, for it never had this uncleanness. But where it was at first fit for a stranger and it possessed the power of making the carrier unclean, then it retains this uncleanness until it is unfit for a dog to eat. been fit for a stranger along with the flesh, and since in this case it is made fit because of its mother, it is fit even now, when it has been discharged. Consequently. were it not for the fact that it is neutralized by the larger portion, it would have received uncleanness. the brine, therefore received levitical uncleanness. half. that fell in, makes up the half. Consequently, the water is not neutralized and it receives uncleanness. as for its giving milk, it is only a minority of animals which give milk without having given birth previously. We therefore consider the offspring as certainly belonging to the animal and the animal is thus exempted from the law of the firstling.