Bekhorot

It means this: An object which proceeds from them which chew the cud and of them that divide the hoof, ye shall not eat!1 The text therefore states: The camel . . . he is unclean,2 intimating that he is unclean3 but an unclean animal born from a clean animal is not Unclean, but clean. R. Simeon says: The word ‘camel’ occurs twice,4 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’.5 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,6 he abstained.7 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,8 implies the prohibition of their brine, their soup and their jelly!9 — 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,10 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 disjointed11 and she does not become normal in herself for twenty-four months,12 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,13 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,14 the prohibition can be explained as necessary to inflict lashes for the boiling!15 Rather,16 since the Divine Law states in connection with dedicated objects which became unfit, Notwithstanding thou mayest kill17 but not to use the shearing, ‘flesh’, but not the milk,18 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.19 Perhaps, however, this only refers to business?20 Rather deduce this from what [Scripture] writes, And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand.21 Perhaps, here also, it refers to business.22 Is it usual in war to sell [food to the enemy]?23 If you prefer, I may deduce from here:24 A land flowing with milk and honey.25 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:26 Come ye buy and eat, yea, come buy wine and milk without money and without price.27 Now, according to this,28 , the repetition ‘Rockbadger’, ‘Rockbadger’,29 ‘Hare’, ‘Hare’, ‘Swine’, ‘Swine’, — are these also come for some purpose?30 But [the object of these repetitions quoted] is really as was taught: Why is there a repetition [of the clean and unclean] ani mals?31 On account of shesu'ah.32 Why with reference to birds, [is there the same repetition in the Scripture]? On account of ra'ah.33 Then, perhaps, [the repetition of] ‘Camel’, ‘Camel’ also has the same purpose?34 — All the same, wherever we can derive a lesson from the biblical text, we interpret it.35 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,36 or not? In connection with a firstling, Scripture writes: ‘But the firstling of an ox’37 indicating [that the law of the firstling does not apply] until the animal is an ox and its firstborn is an ox.38 But as regards permission for eating, the Divine Law says that only a camel is prohibited, but camel, however, born from a cow, is clean. to include fearing someone besides the Deity. as unclean. connection with the milk of a clean animal. and what need is there, consequently, for a special prohibition with reference to the milk of an unclean animal? milk together. sanctity. that milk is permitted to be eaten. power of resistance. Therefore the cheeses must have been intended for the Hebrews. variously. ‘Rockbadger’, ‘Rockbadger’ etc., is because the word ‘Camel’ occurs first in the text. no marks similar to the mother, but permits it if there are marks similar to the mother, the question arises whether he requires that the offspring must be like the mother to the extent of its head and the greater part of the body?