Bekhorot 46
אחת זו ואחת זו עד לכלב הא חזיא לכלב
The one as well as the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both in the case of a major uncleanness and a minor uncleanness, it makes unclean, until it is no longer suitable for a dog to eat.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
קשיא
[attaches to it so long as] it is fit for a dog - in the case here is it not fit dog?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And should therefore make the carrier unclean. R. Jeremiah's ruling above is therefore refuted. [Thus R. Johanan is self-contradictory.] Sh. Mek, reads: 'not fit at all to a stranger'.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
דכתיב
And the other? - He explains [the Scriptural text] as excluding the case where it was putrid from the beginning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where e.g.. the animal broke its ribs when alive and it commenced to decay. Although it is fit for dogs, it does not make the carrier unclean, for it never had this uncleanness. But where it was at first fit for a stranger and it possessed the power of making the carrier unclean, then it retains this uncleanness until it is unfit for a dog to eat.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
תנן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר
Why not deduce this from the fact that it was not fi at all [for a stranger]? - In this case, too, it was suitable to be eaten [by a stranger], on account of its mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the animal did not discharge and it was slaughtered and a clot of blood was discovered, the clot would have been fit for a stranger along with the flesh, and since in this case it is made fit because of its mother, it is fit even now, when it has been discharged. Consequently. were it not for the fact that it is neutralized by the larger portion, it would have received uncleanness.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ותני ר' חייא
into which there fell a little water is levitically unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having now received a little water, it becomes unclean and requires contact with mikweh water for purification.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא
R'Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha: This proves that the 'amme ha-arez are suspected of mixing half water in brine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that when a little more fell into the brine, the parts which were similar, combined, and the water, being more than the brine, therefore received levitical uncleanness.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
משום ביטול ברוב נגעו בה
Why not even less than a half, for together with the little water here, it makes a half, and a half does not become neutralized?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only a small quantity of water we say above is neutralized by the larger portion, but not where the amount is a half.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מאי איריא משום ביטול ברוב
Read: Up to a half.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., nearly a half of water the 'amme ha-arez mix with their brine and this, together with the small quantity of water that fell in, makes up the half. Consequently, the water is not neutralized and it receives uncleanness.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
תנן התם ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>R'SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: IF ONE BUYS AN ANIMAL GIVING SUCK FROM A GENTILE, HE NEED NOT FEAR THAT PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING BELONGS TO ANOTHER [ANIMAL].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to consider the offspring which follows a doubtful firstling, as perhaps the animal had never given birth. And as for its giving milk, it is only a minority of animals which give milk without having given birth previously. We therefore consider the offspring as certainly belonging to the animal and the animal is thus exempted from the law of the firstling.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ציר טהור שנפל לתוכו מים כל שהוא טמא
IF HE WENT AMONG HIS HERD AND SAW ANIMALS WHICH HAD GIVEN BIRTH FOR THE FIRST TIME GIVING SUCK AND ANIMALS WHICH HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH FOR THE FIRST TIME GIVING SUCK, WE NEED NOT FEAR THAT PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING OF THIS ONE CAME TO THE OTHER OR PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING OF THE OTHER CAME TO THIS ONE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But we presume that the offspring clinging to the animal belongs to it, and that there has been no mingling.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה זאת אומרת
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Nahman reported in the name of Rab: The law is in accordance [with the Mishnah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether stated anonymously or as the pronouncement of a certain Tanna, where there is no difference of opinion.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
עד מחצה
Again if he refers [to the teaching of] R'Eliezer B'Jacob [in the preceding Mishnah] - is not the Mishnah of R'Eliezer B'Jacob little in quantity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a kab', a small measure of capacity.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טומאת עם הארץ דרבנן טומאת משקין דרבנן ברובא גזרו רבנן בפלגא ופלגא לא גזרו בה רבנן:
And if he refers to [the teachings of] R'Simeon B'Gamaliel [in our Mishnah] - are there not differing opinions in the Baraitha?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 24a.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
הלוקח בהמה מניקה מן העובד כוכבים אין חוששין שמא בנה של אחרת היה
And if he refers to [the subsequent Mishnah] in connection with the hair of a blemished [firstling], - are there not, however, different opinions recorded of Akabya B'Mahalalel and the Rabbis? - Indeed [Rab refers] to [the teachings of] R'Simeon B'Gamaliel, and this is what he teaches us, that [the difference of opinion] in the Baraitha is not considered a difference of opinion [to be taken into account].
נכנס לתוך עדרו וראה את המבכירות מניקות ושאינן מבכירות מניקות אין חוששין שמא בנה של זו בא לו אצל זו או שמא בנה של זו בא לו אצל זו:
But since Rab said: The law is according [to the Mishnah] in the whole chapter, except where there is a difference of opinion.