Bekhorot

The text therefore states ‘peter hamor’ ‘peter hamor’ twice, to intimate: ‘I have only spoken of the firstling of asses1 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 proposition2 and then made the subject of a special statement,3 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’,4 ‘the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep’?5 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’.6 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,7 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?8 — [His answer is] that the word ‘peter’ interrupts the subject.9 And the Rabbis?10 — The letter waw11 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].12 And the’ Rabbis? — Since the one part13 deals with objects consecrated in respect of their value and the other part with objects consecrated as such,14 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?15 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, it16 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,17 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?18 — 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 firstling19 . 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.20 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?21 — 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?22 — 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.23 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.24 We are therefore informed [that this is not so].25 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]26 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’.27 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 or28 of them that divide the hoof’.29 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’? firstborn from the repetition of ‘peter hamor’, why does he not derive this from the verse quoted by R. Papa and in the manner interpreted by the latter. the text ‘ox or sheep’ indicates a break in the subject. connect again. must be redeemed with a sheep. although an unclean animal, is liable to the law of the firstling. horse, and if there is a measure of resemblance between it and its mother, we do not regard the change between the ass and its offspring of such great importance, as to exempt it altogether from the law of the firstling. liable to the law of the firstling. above are also, incidentally, thereby solved. horse, it is exempt from the law of the firstling. Therefore, only one of the above queries can be solved. marks like its mother, it is liable to the law of the firstling. some features like its parents, we ought perhaps to regard it as a kind of red ass, thus making it liable to the law of the firstling. consequently, no proof as to what is the ruling concerning an ass which gave birth to a species of horse. which gave birth to a clean animal is permitted to be eaten. Clean animals are those which may be eaten according to the Jewish law and possess the necessary signs of a clean animal and unclean animals are those which do not possess these signs. .