Bekhorot

if it has changed from a camel,1 there is no objection. Or is there perhaps no difference?2 — Come and hear: If a clean animal gives birth to a species of unclean animal it is forbidden to be eaten, but if the head and the greater part of the body resemble its mother, it is liable to the law of the firstling. May we not deduce from here3 that even as regards permission to eat, R. Simeon requires the head and the greater part of the body to be [similar to its mother?] — No, only as regards [the law] of the firstling.4 I can also prove it. For he leaves [the first clause of the above passage] relating to eating [as it is] and places [the provision of the head and the greater part of the body] in conjunction with the firstling. We deduce from here, therefore, [do we not] that only in connection with the firstling does R. Simeon require the head and the greater part of the body, but not as regards permission for eating! — No. I may still tell you that also as regards eating, R. Simeon requires the head and the greater part of the body; and that it was necessary to state this with particular reference to the firstling. For I might be inclined to assume that since Scripture writes: ‘But the firstling of an ox’,5 [that the law of the firstling does not apply] until the animal is an ox and its first-born is an ox, and that therefore it is not sufficient for the offspring to resemble its mother to the extent only of its head and the greater part of its body, but the whole animal must resemble its mother. He accordingly informs us [that this is not so]. Come and hear: [Scripture says]: Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the hoof.6 We infer that this you must not eat,7 but you may eat an animal which has one mark similar [to its mother]. And what is this which has one mark? This is an unclean animal which was born from a clean animal impregnated from a clean animal. I might think that this is the case even if it was impregnated from an unclean animal? The Text therefore states: ‘A sheep [born from a pair] of lambs’, ‘a goat [born from a pair] of goats’,8 intimating that the father must be a sheep and the mother must be a female sheep. These are the words of R. Joshua. R. Eliezer says: The object of the text is not to allow what is [already] permitted9 but to add to what is already permitted. And what is this? This is the case of an unclean animal born from a clean animal impregnated from an unclean animal. Or, shall I say that this is not the case, but its pregnancy must be from a clean animal? Scripture therefore states: ‘a sheep of lambs’, ‘a sheep of goats’ in any case.10 Now he describes [in the above passage] the animal as unclean, therein agreeing with R. Simeon,11 and proceeds to say, ‘But you may eat an animal which possesses one [clean] mark similar to its mother’! — This Tanna [of the above passage] holds with R. Simeon in one thing12 but he differs from him in the other.13 Some there are who raise a question [with reference to the above Baraitha], and answer it.14 [The question was asked]. Can impregnation take place from an unclean animal? For R. Joshua b. Levi said: There can be no impregnation either of an unclean animal from a clean animal, or of a clean animal from an unclean animal, or of large cattle from small cattle, or of small cattle from large cattle, or of a domestic animal from a beast of chase, or a beast of chase from a domestic animal, except in the case15 dis cussed by R. Eliezer and his disputants, where all say that a beast of chase can become pregnant from a domestic animal. And R. Jeremiah explained that the animal became pregnant from a kalut born of a cow,16 adopting the view of R. Simeon.17 And the Baraitha states: But you may eat an animal which has one mark like its mother?18 — This Tanna [from the Baraitha] holds with R. Simeon in one thing but differs from him in the other.19 Does this mean to say that R. Eliezer holds that a product of two [heterogeneous] factors is permitted20 and that R. Joshua holds that a product of two such factors is forbidden? But have we not learnt the reverse of them? [For we have learnt]: The offspring of a trefah21 must not be offered upon the altar. But R. Joshua says it may be offered upon the altar!22 — As a rule, R. Eliezer maintains that a product of two [heterogeneous] factors is forbidden, but the case is different here.23 For if it were so, Scripture should write: The sheep of lambs and goats. Why is the repetition of ‘sheep’, ‘sheep’ needed? Deduce from here, therefore, ‘sheep’ in any circumstances.24 And R. Joshua? — He will explain the matter to you [as follows]. In general, a product of two [heter ogeneous] factors is permitted, but here [in the Baraitha], if this were the case, let Scripture write: ‘Ox’, ‘sheep of a lamb’, ‘sheep of a goat’. What need is there for the words ‘lambs’, ‘goats’?25 Deduce, therefore, from here that the father must be a sheep and the mother must be a sheep.26 Come and hear: R. Simeon says: [We find] ‘camel’, ‘camel’ twice;27 one refers to a camel born from a camel [as prohibited] and the other refers to a camel born from a cow. But if its head and the greater part of its body resemble the mother, it is permitted to be eaten. Deduce, therefore, from here that even for eating R. Simeon requires the head and the greater part of the body [to be similar to the mother]. This is proved. FOR THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN, etc. A question was put to R. Shesheth. What is the ruling concerning the urine of an ass? Why should not the question be put [concerning the urine] of horses or camels? The question was not put [concerning the urine] of horses or camels, for it is not thick and, consequently, it is not similar to milk. [It is merely] water coming in,28 and water coming out. But the question does arise [concerning the urine] of an ass, because it is thick and is similar to milk. What is the ruling? Is the urine drained from the body of the ass itself and therefore it is forbidden, or, perhaps, [it is merely] water coming in and water coming out and its thickness is due to the exudations of the body? — R. Shesheth replied to his questioners. We have learnt it: FOR THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN IS UNCLEAN, AND THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE CLEAN IS CLEAN. Now, it does not say ‘from what is Unclean’.29 of eating is put in the proximity of the expression of the head and the greater part of the body, we therefore may conclude that for eating purposes, as well as for the law of the firstling, the offspring must resemble the mother as regards its head and the greater part of the body. clean animal, the father being an unclean animal, it is still permitted. accordance with the view of R. Simeon who forbids the offspring as definitely unclean, if it has not marks resembling its mother; and it says here that if it has one mark similar to its mother, it is permitted. Hence, we see that we do not require according to R. Simeon the head etc. to resemble its mother. eaten. permitted to be eaten, can be solved. beasts of the chase. This animal, however, comes from a he-goat, and a hind, and R. Eliezer and the majority of the Sages dispute whether the law forbidding the killing of the mother and its young on one day applies to it. But apparently they agree that impregnation is possible in such circumstances. an animal with closed and uncloven hoofs born of a cow. R. Simeon who holds that an unclean animal born from a clean animal is unclean. be like its mother. since it is a product of combined causes and one of these, the mother, is a clean animal, it is permitted. product of combined causes, one of which is a clean animal. which came forth was turgid or otherwise, it would be forbidden to be eaten.