Bekhorot 13

אישתני מגמל שפיר דמי או דלמא לא שנא

if it has changed from a camel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But in some respects it is like its mother.');">¹</span>

ת"ש

there is no objection.

בהמה טהורה שילדה מין בהמה טמאה אסור באכילה ואם דומה ראשו ורובו לאמו חייב בבכורה

Or is there perhaps no difference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even for permission to eat, we require the head and the greater part of the body to be like the mother.');">²</span>

שמע מינה

- 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 th greater part of the body resemble its mother, it is liable to the law of the firstling.

לאכילה נמי בעי ר' שמעון ראשו ורובו

May we not deduce from here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is R. Simeon who holds that an unclean animal born from a clean animal is forbidden, and since the prohibition 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.');">³</span>

לא לבכורה דוקא

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does R. Simeon require that the head and the greater part of the body must be similar to its mother.');">⁴</span>

דיקא נמי דקא שבקה לאכילה וקם ליה אבכור ש"מ

I can also prove it.

לבכורה הוא דבעי ר' שמעון ראשו ורובו אבל לאכילה לא

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.

לעולם אימא לך

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.

לאכילה נמי בעי ובכורה איצטריך

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.

סד"א

For I might be inclined to assume that since Scripture writes: 'But the firstling of ox',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 17.');">⁵</span>

הואיל וכתיב

[that the law of the firstling does not apply] until the animal is an ox and its first-born is an ox, and 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.

(במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור עד שיהא הוא שור ובכורו שור ולא תיסגי ליה בראשו ורובו עד דאיכא כוליה קמשמע לן

He accordingly informs us [that this is not so].

ת"ש

Come and hear: [Scripture says]: Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the hoof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 4.');">⁶</span>

(ויקרא יא, ד) אך את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה זה אי אתה אוכל אבל אתה אוכל הבא בסימן אחד

We infer that this you must not eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a camel even born from a cow.');">⁷</span>

ואי זה זה הבא בסימן אחד זה טמא הנולד מן הטהור ועבורו מן הטהור

but you may eat an animal which has one mark similar [to its mother].

יכול אפילו עבורו מן הטמא

And what is this which has one mark?

ת"ל

This is an unclean animal which was born from a clean animal impregnated from a clean animal.

(דברים יד, ד) שה כשבים ושה עזים עד שיהא אביו כבש ואמו כבשה דברי ר' יהושע

I might think that this is the case even if it was impregnated from an unclean animal?

ר' אליעזר אומר

The Text therefore states: 'A sheep [born from a pair] of lambs', 'a goat [born from a pair] of goats',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So literally. Deut. XIV, 4.');">⁸</span>

לא בא הכתוב להתיר את המותר אלא להוסיף על המותר ואיזה זה טמא הנולד מן הטהור ועבורו מן הטמא

intimating that the father must be a sheep and the mother must be a female sheep.

או אינו אלא עבורו מן הטהור

These are the words of R'Joshua.

תלמוד לומר

R'Eliezer says: The object of the text is not to allow what is [already] permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where both parents are clean animals.');">⁹</span>

שור שה כשבים ושה עזים מכל מקום

but to add to what is already permitted.

קרי ליה טמא כרבי שמעון וקאמר

And what is this?

אבל אתה אוכל הבא בסימן אחד

This is the case of an unclean animal born from a clean animal impregnated from an unclean animal.

האי תנא סבר ליה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

Or, shall I say that this is not the case, but its pregnancy must be from a clean animal?

ואיכא דמקשי ומותיב

Scripture therefore states: 'a sheep of lambs', 'a sheep of goats' in any case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the repetition of the word 'seh', it is inferred that even if the unclean animal has only a mother which is a clean animal, the father being an unclean animal, it is still permitted.');">¹⁰</span>

עבורו מן הטמא מי מעברא

Now he describes [in the above passage] the animal as unclean, therein agreeing with R'Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The language used, 'an unclean animal', in the Baraitha but not 'that which issues from a clean animal', is in 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.');">¹¹</span>

והאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי

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 thing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an unclean animal born from a clean animal is unclean.');">¹²</span>

לעולם אין מתעברת לא טמאה מן הטהור ולא טהורה מן הטמא ולא גסה מן הדקה ולא דקה מן הגסה ולא בהמה מן חיה ולא חיה מן בהמה

but he differs from him in the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Simeon requires the head and the greater part of the body to resemble its mother before it is permitted to be eaten.');">¹³</span>

חוץ מר' אליעזר ומחלוקתו שהיו אומרים

Some there are who raise a question [with reference to the above Baraitha], and answer it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And from the answer, our query whether R. Simeon requires the head etc. to be like the mother in order to be permitted to be eaten, can be solved.');">¹⁴</span>

חיה מתעברת מבהמה

[The question was asked].

וא"ר ירמיה

Can impregnation take place from an unclean animal?

דאיעבר מקלוט בן פרה ואליבא דרבי שמעון קאמר

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 case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A koy: (An antelope or bearded deer) . The Rabbis are undecided whether it belongs to the genus of cattle or the 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.');">¹⁵</span>

וקאמר

dis cussed by R'Eliezer and his disputants, where all say that a beast of chase can become pregnant from a domestic animal.

אבל אתה אוכל הבא בסימן אחד

And R'Jeremiah explained that the animal became pregnant from a kalut born of a cow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unclean animal referred to in the Baraitha above, does not actually mean an unclean animal but a kalu! (closed) , an animal with closed and uncloven hoofs born of a cow.');">¹⁶</span>

האי תנא סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

adopting the view of R'Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Baraitha describes the kalut born of a cow as unclean, this indicates that its views are in accordance with R. Simeon who holds that an unclean animal born from a clean animal is unclean.');">¹⁷</span>

למימרא דרבי אליעזר סבר

And the Baraitha states: But you may eat an animal which has one mark like its mother?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we can infer that for eating purposes, R. Simeon does not require the head and the greater part of its body to be like its mother.');">¹⁸</span>

זה וזה גורם מותר ור' יהושע סבר

- This Tanna [from the Baraitha] holds with R'Simeon in one thing but differs from him in the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards requiring the head etc. to resemble its mother.');">¹⁹</span>

זה וזה גורם אסור

Does this mean to say that R'Eliezer holds that a product of two [heterogeneous] factors is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer who permits the offspring when the impregnation is from an unclean animal, because he maintains that since it is a product of combined causes and one of these, the mother, is a clean animal, it is permitted.');">²⁰</span>

והא איפכא שמעינן להו

and that R'Joshua holds that a product of two such factors is forbidden?

ולד טריפה רבי אליעזר אומר

But have we not learnt the reverse of them?

לא יקרב לגבי מזבח ורבי יהושע אומר

[For we have learnt]: The offspring of a trefah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²¹</span>

יקרב לגבי מזבח

must not be offered upon the altar.

בעלמא סבר ר' אליעזר

But R'Joshua says it may be offered upon the altar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If its sire is a clean animal, although the mother is trefah. V. Hul. ');">²²</span>

זה וזה גורם אסור

- As a rule, R'Eliezer maintains that a product of two [heterogeneous] factors is forbidden, but the case is different here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha quoted above.');">²³</span>

ושאני הכא דאם כן נכתוב קרא

For if it were so, Scripture should write The sheep of lambs and goats.

שה כשבים ועזים שה ושה למה לי

Why is the repetition of 'sheep', 'sheep' needed?

שמע מינה

Deduce from here, therefore, 'sheep' in any circumstances.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where the pregnancy is from an unclean animal, the offspring is permitted.');">²⁴</span>

שה מכל מקום

And R'Joshua? - He will explain the matter to you [as follows].

ורבי יהושע אמר לך

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'.

בעלמא זה וזה גורם מותר

What need is there for the words 'lambs', 'goats'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why are these words put in the plural.');">²⁵</span>

והכא אם כן לכתוב קרא

Deduce, therefore, from here that the father must be a sheep and the mother must be a sheep.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father must also belong to the same class.');">²⁶</span>

שור כשב ועז כשבים ועזים למה לי

Come and hear: R'Simeon says: [We find] 'camel', 'camel' twice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once in Leviticus and again in Deuteronomy.');">²⁷</span>

ש"מ

one refers to a camel born from a camel [as prohibited] and the other refers to a camel born from a cow.

עד שיהא אביו כבש ואמו כבשה

But if its head and the greater part of its body resemble the mother, it is permitted to be eaten.

ת"ש רבי שמעון אומר

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].

גמל גמל שני פעמים אחד גמל הנולד מן הגמל ואחד גמל הנולד מן הפרה

This is proved.

ואם ראשו ורובו דומה לאמו מותר באכילה

FOR THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN, etc. A question was put to R'Shesheth.

שמע מינה

What is the ruling concerning the urine of an ass?

לאכילה נמי בעי רבי שמעון ראשו ורובו שמע מינה:

Why should not the question be put [concerning the urine] of horses or camels?

שהיוצא מן הטמא וכו':

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.

בעו מינה מרב ששת

[It is merely] water coming in,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the animal drinks.');">²⁸</span>

מי רגלים של חמור מהו

and water coming out.

ותיבעי (ליה) דסוסים וגמלים

But the question does arise [concerning the urine] of an ass, because it is thick and is similar to milk.

דסוסים וגמלים לא מיבעיא להו דלא עכירי ולא דמו לחלב מיא עול מיא נפוק

What is the ruling?

כי קמיבעיא להו דחמור דעכירי ודמו לחלב מאי

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.

מגופיה קא מימצצי ואסירי

We have learnt it: FOR THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN IS UNCLEAN, AND THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE CLEAN IS CLEAN.

או דלמא

Now, it does not say 'from what is Unclean'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The phrase 'from what is unclean' would imply coming from the body itself, and therefore whether the substance which came forth was turgid or otherwise, it would be forbidden to be eaten.');">²⁹</span>

מיא עול מיא נפוק והאי דעכירי הבלא דבישרא הוא

אמר להו רב ששת תניתוה

שהיוצא מן הטמא טמא והיוצא מן הטהור טהור

מטמא לא קאמר אלא

מן