Bekhorot 11

Chapter 11

א תלמוד לומר פטר חמור פטר חמור שני פעמים פטרי חמורים אמרתי לך ולא פטרי סוסים וגמלים

1 The text therefore states 'peter hamor' 'peter hamor' twice, to intimate: 'I have only spoken of the firstling o asses1 but not [at all] of the firstlings of horses and camels'.

ב פריך רב אחאי אי כתב רחמנא חד הוה אמינא דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא ולעולם בשה

2 R'Ahai raised an objection. [There is need fo 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

ג כתב רחמנא פטר חמור אחרינא פטרי חמורים ולא פטרי סוסים וגמלים ואימא מעטינהו משה ולעולם בכל דבר

3 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.

ד א"כ לכתוב רחמנא פטר חמור תפדה בשה וחמור תפדה בשה פטר חמור תפדה בשה פטר חמור תפדה בשה למה לי פטרי חמורים אמרתי לך ולא פטרי סוסים וגמלים

4 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

ה ותנא דידן למעוטי סוסים וגמלים מנא ליה

5 'the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep'?5

ו אמר רב פפא (שמות לד, יט) כל מקנך תזכר כלל שור ושה וחמור פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שור ושה וחמור אין מידי אחרינא לא

6 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.'

ז ורבי יוסי הגלילי פטר הפסיק הענין ורבנן וי"ו הדר ערבי' קרא

7 The firstling of an o 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 Jose the Galilean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who infers the ruling that other animals beside the firstling of an ass, sheep and goat are not liable to the law of the 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.');">8

ח ור' יוסי הגלילי לא לכתוב לא וי"ו ולא פטר

8 - [His answer is] that the word 'peter' interrupts the subject.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We do not interpret the verse as a general proposition complemented by a specification, as the word 'peter' before the text 'ox or sheep' indicates a break in the subject.');">9 And the Rabbis?10

ט ורבנן איידי דהא קדושת דמים והא קדושת הגוף פסיק להו והדר עריב להו

9 - The letter waw11

י איבעיא להו פרה שילדה מין חמור ויש בו מקצת סימנין מהו

10 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

יא עז שילדה מין רחל ורחל שילדה מין עז דכי יש מקצת סימנין חייבת בבכורה דהא טהורה והא טהורה הא קדושת הגוף והא קדושת הגוף

11 And the' Rabbis? - Since the one part13

יב הכא דהא טמאה והא טהורה הא קדושת הגוף והא קדושת דמים לא או דלמא כיון דאידי ואידי בני מיקדש בבכורה קדוש

12 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].

יג ואת"ל כיון דאידי ואידי מיקדש בבכורה קדוש חמור שילדה מין סוס מהו הכא ודאי לא בת מיקדש בבכורה הוא או דלמא כיון דמין טמאה הוא קדוש

13 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 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] i 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A species of ass born from a cow is, therefore, holy if it has some features resembling its mother, for an ass although an unclean animal, is liable to the law of the firstling.');">15

יד אם תמצא לומר כיון דמין טמאה הוא קדוש פרה שילדה מין סוס מהו הכא ודאי הא טהורה והא טמאה הא בת מיקדש בבכורה והא לא בת מיקדש בבכורה או דלמא סימנין מילתא היא

14 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . Like an ass, which though unclean, is liable to the law of the firstling. Therefore, if the offspring is a species of 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.');">17

טו תא שמע בהמה טהורה שילדה מין בהמה טמאה פטורה מן הבכורה אם יש בו מקצת סימנין חייבת בבכורה מאי לאו אפי' פרה שילדה מין סוס לא פרה שילדה מין חמור

15 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.

טז ת"ש פרה שילדה מין חמור וחמור שילדה מין סוס פטורה מן הבכורה אם יש בו מקצת סימנין חייבת בבכורה מאי לאו אתרוייהו לא אפרה שילדה מין חמור

16 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 firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We therefore deduce that signs in the offspring akin to the parent are an important matter and the other points raised above are also, incidentally, thereby solved.');">19 What [does this mean]?

יז אבל חמור שילדה מין סוס למאי קתני לה לפטורא פשיטא השתא ומה פרה שילדה מין חמור דאידי ואידי בני מיקדש בבכורה נינהו אמרת אם יש בו מקצת סימנין אין ואי לא לא חמור שילדה מין סוס מיבעיא

17 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But where there is such a gap between the Parent and its offspring as e.g. where a cow gave birth to a species of horse, it is exempt from the law of the firstling. Therefore, only one of the above queries can be solved.');">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'.

יח איצטריך ס"ד התם הוא דיש לה קרנים והא אין לה קרנים הא פרסותיה סדוקות והא פרסותיה קלוטות

18 What [does this mean]? Does this [the last clause] not refer to both cases mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a cow gave birth to a species of ass and an ass gave birth to a species of horse, if the offspring had some marks like its mother, it is liable to the law of the firstling.');">21

יט אבל הכא דאידי ואידי אין לה קרנים אידי ואידי פרסותיה קלוטות אימא חמור אדום בעלמא הוא קמשמע לן:

19 - 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 t law of the first-born]?

כ ומה הן באכילה כו': למה לי למיתני שהיוצא

20 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

כא סימנא בעלמא הוא דלא תיחלף לך דלא תימא זיל בתריה דידיה והאי טהור מעליא הוא והאי טמא מעליא הוא אלא זיל בתר אימיה

21 - 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

כב מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא יח) אך את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה יש לך שהוא מעלה גרה ומפריס פרסה ואי אתה אוכלו ואיזה זה טהור שנולד מן הטמא או אינו אלא טמא הנולד מן הטהור ומאי ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה

22 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not a horse at all. An ordinary horse is red in color and an ordinary ass is black. Consequently, if the horse had 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.');">24 We are therefore informed [that this is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a horse's color is generally red we regard it as a species of a horse and not as a freak ass. There is, consequently, no proof as to what is the ruling concerning an ass which gave birth to a species of horse.');">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]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And say that a clean animal which gave birth to an unclean animal is forbidden to be eaten and an unclean animal 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. .');">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'?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter