We begin our study of Gemara Bechorot Daf Zayin, dedicated to the memory of Avraham ben Esther and Reuven Moshe ben Nuna. May their souls rest in Gan Eden. Amen. Our discussion starts five lines from the bottom of Vav Amud Bet.
The Rabbis taught: If a ewe gave birth to an animal that resembled a goat, or a goat gave birth to an animal that resembled a ewe, it is exempt from the law of the firstborn. This exemption applies because the offspring must resemble the mother. However, if it possesses some distinguishing signs of the mother, it is liable for the firstborn offering. Rabbi Shimon states that it is only liable if its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother. This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
A question arose: Does Rabbi Shimon require the head and majority of the body to resemble the mother even for purposes of consumption, or is that not necessary? For consumption, Rashi explains, the question refers to a case like a cow that gave birth to an animal resembling a horse. We learned previously that Rabbi Shimon holds that even if a kosher animal gives birth to an animal that appears non-kosher, like a cow giving birth to a horse, it is not permissible for consumption. This is derived from the double mention of "camel" in the Torah, implying that even an offspring resembling a camel, though born from a kosher animal, is forbidden. The Gemara now asks: If Rabbi Shimon holds that for the law of the firstborn, the offspring is not consecrated unless its head and majority of its body resemble the mother, perhaps the same applies to consumption—it would not be permitted for eating unless its head and majority of its body resemble the mother. Or, perhaps regarding consumption, even a minimal resemblance (some distinguishing signs) is sufficient. How much similarity must the offspring have to the mother to permit its consumption?
The Gemara elaborates on the question: Does Rabbi Shimon require the head and majority of the body to resemble the mother for consumption, or not? For the law of the firstborn, the verse states, "Only the firstborn of an ox," implying that both the mother and its firstborn must be an ox. This derivation suggests that for the firstborn, the child must resemble the mother, and therefore the requirement of its head and majority of its body applies. However, regarding consumption, the Torah forbade the camel. If an animal is altered from a camel, meaning it has some distinguishing signs of the mother, it might be permissible. The Torah forbade a camel, but this offspring is not entirely a camel because it possesses some signs of the mother. Therefore, perhaps regarding the laws of kashrut and consumption, we are more lenient. Or, perhaps there is no difference between the two cases. This is the core question: according to Rabbi Shimon, who requires the head and majority of the body to resemble the mother for the law of the firstborn, does the same rule apply to kashrut and consumption? Or, perhaps for consumption, the Torah only forbids a camel, and if this animal does not look entirely like a camel, even a minimal difference (some distinguishing signs) would suffice? Or perhaps there is no difference, and just as for the firstborn, the head and majority of the body are required, so too for kashrut and consumption.
The Gemara attempts to bring a proof: Come and hear. A pure animal that gave birth to an impure animal is forbidden for consumption. But if its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother, it is liable for the firstborn offering. This teaching clearly discusses two aspects. It begins with a pure mother animal, like a cow, giving birth to an impure animal, like a horse. It states that such an offspring is forbidden for consumption. This aligns with Rabbi Shimon's view that if the offspring resembles an impure animal, it is forbidden for consumption, even if born from a kosher animal. The teaching then adds, "But if its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother, it is liable for the firstborn offering." The Gemara initially understands this to mean that just as the head and majority of the body qualify it for the firstborn, they also qualify it for consumption. This would prove that for consumption, Rabbi Shimon also requires the head and majority of the body to resemble the mother.
However, the Gemara retracts: No, perhaps the requirement of the head and majority of the body applies specifically to the firstborn, and for consumption, less resemblance is needed. Perhaps for consumption, only some distinguishing signs are required. The Gemara further refines its analysis: The language of the teaching supports this. When it provided the qualification of the head and majority of the body, it applied it to the firstborn, not to consumption. The teaching stated that regarding consumption, if the offspring resembles an impure animal, it is forbidden. Then it said, "But if its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother, it is liable for the firstborn." It did not explicitly state that this condition permits it for consumption. Thus, it could be that for consumption, a lesser degree of resemblance is needed, such as some distinguishing signs, not necessarily the head and majority of the body. This would imply that Rabbi Shimon requires the head and majority of the body only for the firstborn, but not for consumption.
The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, you don't have to say that. Indeed, I can tell you that even for consumption, Rabbi Shimon requires the head and majority of the body to resemble the mother. So why was it specifically mentioned regarding the firstborn? Because regarding the firstborn, it was necessary to clarify. One might have thought that since the verse states, "Only the firstborn of an ox," implying that both the mother and its firstborn must be an ox, then the head and majority of the body would not be enough; perhaps the entire offspring must resemble the mother. The teaching comes to inform us that for the firstborn, the head and majority of the body are sufficient. This is a novel point regarding the firstborn. Similarly, for consumption, the head and majority of the body might also be required. But the reason it was mentioned for the firstborn is because it was a novel teaching. Thus, we have no definitive proof from this teaching regarding Rabbi Shimon's opinion on consumption.
The Gemara brings another proof: Come and hear. The verse states, "But these you shall not eat of those that chew the cud or have a divided hoof." This implies that there are certain animals the Torah forbids, even if they possess some signs of purity. The Gemara interprets this: "These you shall not eat" refers to the specific animals listed by the Torah, such as the camel and the pig. But you may eat an animal that has one sign of its mother. Rashi explains that "one sign" means it partially resembles its mother, for example, an impure animal born from a pure one, which partially resembles its mother. This teaching explicitly states that if it has one sign, meaning it partially resembles the mother, it is permissible to eat. Which case is this "one sign" referring to? An impure animal born from a pure one, whose gestation was also from a pure one. This implies that such an animal is permissible. The Gemara then considers an extreme case: Could it be permissible even if its gestation was from an impure animal? The verse states, "a lamb of the sheep or a goat of the goats," implying that both the father and mother must be kosher. There is no thought that if the mother is impure, the offspring would be permissible. The novel point is that if the mother is pure, and the offspring resembles an impure animal, but has some signs of the mother, it is permissible to eat. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rashi notes that "lamb of the sheep" (plural) teaches that it must come from two sheep, a ram and a ewe. If one parent is not kosher, it is not valid.
Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse does not come to permit what is already permitted. Of course, if both parents are kosher, the offspring is kosher. To Rabbi Eliezer, no special derivation is needed for this simple fact. As Rashi explains, "to permit what is permitted" means that since the father and mother are pure, this verse is not needed to permit it, as "these you may eat" already permits it. Rather, the verse comes to add something that we did not know was permitted. What is that? An impure animal born from a pure one, whose gestation was from an impure animal. So, the mother is pure, but the father is impure, and the offspring is an impure animal. This is the novelty Rabbi Eliezer teaches. Or, is it only if its gestation was from a pure animal? The verse states, "an ox, a lamb of the sheep, and a goat of the goats," implying that any offspring, even if only one parent is kosher, is permissible. Rashi again clarifies Rabbi Eliezer's view: "to permit what is permitted" means that since the verse states "lamb, lamb" twice, it implies that even if it comes from the mother's side only, and not from the father's side, it is permissible. This means Rabbi Eliezer is more lenient than Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Eliezer states that if the mother is pure, and the gestation was from an impure father, and the offspring resembles an impure animal, the Torah permits it for consumption, as long as it has some resemblance to the pure mother. He calls the child an impure animal, but permits it.
The Gemara then connects this to Rabbi Shimon: In any case, this offspring is called an impure animal. This aligns with Rabbi Shimon, who also calls an offspring born from a pure animal that resembles an impure one, an impure animal. We learned earlier that if the mother is pure, there is an opinion that states, "Whatever comes from the impure is impure, and whatever comes from the pure is pure." This is the opposite of Rabbi Shimon. This opinion would consider the animal perfectly kosher, regardless of its appearance, as long as the mother is pure. However, Rabbi Shimon said no; since it looks like a non-kosher animal, he calls it impure. So, this teaching, which calls the offspring from a pure mother an impure animal, must follow Rabbi Shimon's view. And this teaching states that if it has one sign of purity, resembling its mother partially, it is permissible. This is explicitly stated: "But you may eat an animal that has one sign." This means that if this animal resembles the mother a little, not 100%, even with some distinguishing signs, it is permissible. From this, we could deduce that Rabbi Shimon holds that as long as the offspring has some distinguishing signs, it is considered kosher for consumption, and the requirement of the head and majority of the body is not needed. This would answer our original question regarding Rabbi Shimon's view on consumption.
The Gemara rejects this deduction: This Tanna (Rabbi Eliezer) may agree with Rabbi Shimon on one point but disagree on another. Who said that this Tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, is identical to Rabbi Shimon in all his views? He might agree with Rabbi Shimon that an animal born from a pure mother that resembles an impure one is considered impure. But he might disagree with Rabbi Shimon regarding the degree of resemblance needed for permission. Rabbi Eliezer might hold that some distinguishing signs are enough, while Rabbi Shimon might still require the head and majority of the body. Therefore, we have no proof from this teaching regarding Rabbi Shimon's specific opinion on consumption.
The Gemara then presents an alternative way this teaching was discussed: Some scholars posed this teaching as a question rather than a proof. It stated that if the gestation was from an impure animal, meaning the father was impure and impregnated a pure ewe, the offspring was called impure. The Gemara, in this context, challenges this: How can it be that an impure animal can impregnate a pure one? This is biologically impossible. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi stated that a pure animal cannot be impregnated by an impure one, nor vice versa; nor a large animal by a small one, nor vice versa; nor a wild animal by a domesticated animal, nor vice versa. These are biological impossibilities. There is an exception for Rabbi Eliezer and his disputants, as Rabbi Eliezer held that a wild animal can impregnate a domesticated animal. But regarding pure and impure animals, everyone agrees it's impossible. So, how can this teaching mention an offspring from an impure father? Rashi clarifies that "impure animal" refers to a pure animal whose hooves are closed like a camel's. It's not a true impure animal but resembles one. This interpretation means the offspring is called impure according to Rabbi Shimon's view. So, the teaching refers to a case where the mother is pure, but the father is an animal that looks impure (like a cow with closed hooves), and the offspring also looks impure. This aligns with Rabbi Shimon's view that an animal born from a pure mother that resembles an impure one is considered impure. And the teaching states that if this offspring has one sign resembling its mother, it is permissible to eat. Thus, it appears to be a proof for Rabbi Shimon that some distinguishing signs are sufficient for consumption.
The Gemara gives the same answer: This Tanna may agree with Rabbi Shimon on one point but disagree on another. The teaching agrees with Rabbi Shimon that an animal born from a pure mother that resembles an impure one is called impure. But it might disagree with Rabbi Shimon on the degree of resemblance needed for permission. This teaching states that some distinguishing signs are sufficient, while Rabbi Shimon might require the head and majority of the body. Therefore, we still have no definitive proof regarding Rabbi Shimon's opinion.
The Gemara then returns to Rabbi Eliezer's opinion in the teaching. Rabbi Eliezer stated that if the father is impure and the mother is pure, and they produce an offspring (assuming this is possible), it is permissible to eat as long as it has some distinguishing signs of the mother. This introduces the concept of "this and this causes." In this offspring, both a pure and an impure element contributed. Rabbi Eliezer must hold that when two factors cause a result, even if one factor is forbidden, the resulting item is permissible. Rashi explains "this and this causes" as the pure and impure elements causing the birth of an impure-looking animal from a pure mother. The Gemara asks: Does this mean that Rabbi Eliezer holds that "this and this causes" is permissible, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that "this and this causes" is forbidden? We are now analyzing the logical basis of their disagreement. Rabbi Yehoshua in that teaching only permitted offspring from two pure parents, not if one parent was impure. This implies he holds "this and this causes" is forbidden.
The Gemara challenges this: We have heard the opposite from them elsewhere in the Talmud! For example, regarding the offspring of a tereifah (an animal with a fatal defect). If a tereifah gave birth, Rabbi Eliezer says it may not be brought as an offering on the altar, while Rabbi Yehoshua says it may be brought. The logic here is that Rabbi Eliezer forbids it because it came from a tereifah, even if the father was a good animal. This implies he holds "this and this causes" is forbidden for the altar. Rabbi Yehoshua permits it, implying he holds "this and this causes" is permissible. This is the exact opposite of what we concluded from the previous teaching!
The Gemara resolves this contradiction: Generally, Rabbi Eliezer indeed holds that "this and this causes" is forbidden. That is why he forbids the offspring of a tereifah from the altar. But this case (of the pure mother and impure father) is different. If it were not for a special derivation, the Torah would have simply stated "lamb of sheep and goats." The fact that it repeats "lamb, lamb" teaches us that a lamb is permissible in any case, even if it has only one kosher parent. So, generally, "this and this causes" is forbidden, which is why the offspring of a tereifah cannot be brought to the altar. But in this specific case, where the Torah repeats "lamb, lamb," it is a special decree of the Torah, permitting it even if one parent is impure. Rashi explains that if offspring from an impure parent were forbidden, the Torah would have said "lamb of sheep and goats," implying offspring from two kosher parents. But by repeating "lamb, lamb," it teaches that even if one parent is not kosher, it is permissible.
Now, for Rabbi Yehoshua: He would tell you that generally, "this and this causes" is permissible. That's why he permits the offspring of a tereifah for the altar. But here (in the case of the pure mother and impure father), if it were not for a special derivation, the Torah would have stated "ox, lamb, and goat" (singular). The fact that it uses the plural "sheep" and "goats" teaches that the offspring must come from two kosher parents. If only one kosher parent were needed, the Torah would have used the singular. So, each Rabbi has a specific derivation from the Torah that explains their seemingly contradictory rulings in different cases.
Now we return to the main subject. According to Rabbi Shimon, an animal born from a pure mother that resembles an impure one requires its head and the majority of its body to resemble the mother to qualify for the firstborn offering. Our question was whether this same requirement applies to consumption, or if consumption is more lenient, allowing it even with some distinguishing signs. The Gemara's back-and-forth attempts to bring proof did not yield a definitive answer.
The Gemara now brings a definitive proof: Rabbi Shimon states that the Torah mentions "camel" twice. One mention refers to a camel born from a camel (a regular, purebred camel). The second mention refers to a camel born from a cow, implying that even if the mother was kosher, if the offspring resembles a camel, it is forbidden. But if its head and the majority of its body resemble its mother, it is explicitly permitted for consumption. This is a clear teaching. It states that normally, such an animal is forbidden even if born from a kosher mother, but if its head and the majority of its body resemble the mother, it is permissible even for consumption. This is a positive proof. It is an explicit teaching that Rabbi Shimon requires the head and majority of the body to resemble the mother for consumption as well. This answers our question.
The Gemara now shifts to a different topic from the Mishnah: "Whatever comes from an impure animal is impure." Rav Sheshet asked: What is the status of the urine of a donkey? We learned earlier that the milk of a donkey is forbidden because "whatever comes from an impure animal is impure." So, Rav Sheshet's question is about donkey urine. The Gemara asks: Why specifically donkey urine? Why not ask about the urine of horses or camels? The Gemara answers: The urine of horses and camels is not cloudy and does not resemble milk. It goes in as water and comes out as water. So, there is no problem with that; it is just water passing through. Milk, however, is an issue because it enters as something else and comes out cloudy, a product of the animal's body. The urine of horses and camels is like water going in and water coming out. Rashi clarifies that any cloudiness is merely the vapor from the flesh. The Gemara continues: Water goes in, water comes out. It merely passes through their body, so nothing new is produced. My question, however, is about donkey urine, which is cloudy and resembles milk. Is it that the cloudy color truly comes from the animal's body, and therefore "whatever comes from an impure animal is impure" applies? Or, is it that water goes in and water comes out, and the cloudiness is merely the vapor from the flesh, not an actual product of the animal's body?
Rav Sheshet replied: You have learned it in a Mishnah: "Whatever comes from an impure animal is impure, and whatever comes from a pure animal is pure." The Mishnah does not say "from an impure body" but "from an impure animal." Rashi at the top of Amud Bet explains: If it said "from an impure body," it would imply anything from the physical body of an impure animal. But it says "from an impure animal," which implies anything that is of the species of the impure animal, such as something that resembles milk. This means anything that looks like a product of an impure species is impure. This urine looks like milk, which is cloudy. So, just as cloudy milk is forbidden, this cloudy urine, being of the impure species, is also impure. If it had said "from an impure body," it would imply a direct bodily secretion, but "from an impure animal" includes anything connected to that impure species. These donkey urines are also of the impure species because they are cloudy and resemble milk. Thus, the ruling is derived from the word "from" (min) rather than "from the body of" (mitamei).
The Gemara presents an alternative view on the previous question: Some say that the question regarding the urine of horses and camels was not asked because people do not drink them. The question only arose regarding donkey urine because people do drink it, particularly for jaundice. So, the question is: what is the law concerning donkey urine, which people drink for medicinal purposes? Rav Sheshet replied: You have learned it in a Mishnah: "Whatever comes from an impure animal is impure, and whatever comes from a pure animal is pure." This urine also comes from an impure animal. Regardless of whether it looks the same or not, if it passes through an impure animal and comes out, it is impure. Even if it did not take anything from the animal, even if it went in as water and came out as water, it is still a problem.
The Gemara asks a famous question: Why did they say that bee's honey is permissible? Ostensibly, "whatever comes from an impure animal is impure." If something passes through the body of an impure animal and comes out, it should be impure. So, how is bee's honey permissible? The Gemara answers: Because bees bring the nectar into their bodies, but they do not extract anything from their own bodies into the honey. This implies that merely passing through an impure animal does not make something impure if no bodily product is mixed in. So, what do you mean that donkey urine is a problem just because it passed through the body? If mere passage is not enough, why is honey permissible? Because it passes through the bee's stomach, but nothing from the bee's body is secreted into it. Thus, the honey comes out pure. This would imply that for donkey urine, too, if nothing from the donkey's body is secreted into it, it should be permissible.
The Gemara explains: This is because Rabbi Yaakov says that the Torah explicitly permitted honey. As it is taught: Rabbi Yaakov says, "Only these you may eat of every swarming thing that flies." This implies that certain swarming things are permissible. "These you may eat" refers to specific grasshoppers. "But you shall not eat any impure swarming thing that flies." The Gemara asks: Why do I need a derivation for this? It is explicitly stated that impure swarming things are forbidden. Rather, the verse means: You shall not eat the impure swarming thing itself, but you may eat what the impure swarming thing produces. What is that? Bee's honey. Can you eat a bee? No, it's a swarming thing. But what the swarming thing produces (honey) is permissible. This is a special decree of the Torah. Could this also apply to the honey of wasps and hornets? No, those are not included. What is the distinction? I include bee's honey because it has no secondary name (it's just called "honey"). But I exclude wasp and hornet honey because they have a secondary name (e.g., "wasp honey"). Therefore, Rabbi Yaakov holds that bee's honey is permissible due to a special decree of the Torah, not because nothing from the bee's body is secreted into it. According to Rabbi Yaakov, it should logically be forbidden because it passed through the bee's body, but the Torah made an exception. Thus, for donkey urine, which lacks such a special decree, even if it merely passes through the body, it would be forbidden according to this view.
The Gemara then asks: According to whom does this go? As it is taught in a teaching: Wasp and hornet honey is pure and permissible for consumption. This cannot be like Rabbi Yaakov, because Rabbi Yaakov clearly stated that wasp and hornet honey is forbidden for consumption. Rashi clarifies that ordinary honey (bee's honey) is pure and can receive food impurity. But ordinary wasp and hornet honey is not typically eaten by people, so it does not receive food impurity unless one specifically designates it for consumption. The teaching states that wasp and hornet honey is pure (meaning it does not receive impurity) and permissible to eat. So, the Gemara asks: If it is permissible to eat, why does it say "pure," implying it requires designation to be considered food? If it's permissible, it should be considered food automatically. The Gemara answers: The teaching means it requires designation. Why? Because wasp honey is not normally eaten by people. Therefore, it is not considered food until one specifically designates it. And what is the proof? Another teaching states that honey in its beehive receives food impurity without designation, because beehive honey is commonly eaten. This teaching cannot be like Rabbi Yaakov, who would forbid wasp honey entirely, even with designation, because it lacks the special Torah decree that applies only to bee's honey.
The Gemara discusses "clumps of the female deer." These are egg-like clumps found in the womb of a female deer. The Rabbis initially thought these were the male deer's testicles that had been severed during mating and entered the female's womb. If so, they would be forbidden as a limb from a living animal. Rav Safra said: It is actually the semen of a male deer that pursued a female deer. Because the female deer has a narrow reproductive tract, it cannot mate properly. So, the male deer then attempts to mate with a female yachmur (a different species of deer). The male deer ejaculates a large amount of semen, which then congeals in the female yachmur's womb. So, these clumps are not severed limbs but merely semen from a male deer. Therefore, they are permissible for consumption. You thought it was forbidden as a limb from a living animal, but it is not; it is merely waste product from the body, hence permissible.
Rav Huna said: The membrane that surrounds the face of a donkey at birth is permissible for consumption. What is the reason? It is merely an excretion. Even though this placenta-like membrane comes out of a female donkey, and "whatever comes from an impure animal is impure," Rav Huna holds that it is not considered part of the animal itself but merely an excretion or secretion. Rashi explains that "the membrane that surrounds the face of a donkey" is like the placenta in which the donkey is born. Rav Hisda said to him: There is a teaching that supports your view: The membrane that surrounds the face of a human, whether the person is alive or dead, is pure. This means that the placenta is not considered flesh, and therefore does not transmit impurity, even if the person is dead. Similarly, the membrane around the donkey is not considered donkey flesh, but a separate item, and thus not subject to the rule of "whatever comes from an impure animal is impure." It is not considered part of the mother. The teaching states: "whether the child is alive and the mother is alive, or the child is dead and the mother is alive." This means that the membrane does not transmit impurity if the mother is alive (even if the child is dead), because it is not considered part of her body. However, if the mother is dead, then the membrane is considered her flesh, and just as her flesh is impure, the membrane would also be impure. Therefore, we cannot derive from this teaching that the membrane of a donkey is permissible, because if the mother donkey were dead, its membrane would be impure. So, there is no proof from this case.
The Gemara counters: But it is taught explicitly: "whether the child is alive and the mother is alive, or the child is dead and the mother is alive." This implies that even if the mother dies, the membrane around the embryo is pure. That means it does not come from the mother; it is merely an excretion, not considered the mother's flesh. Similarly, the membrane around the donkey is pure, edible, and not considered part of the mother. Thus, we have a proof. Blessed is G-d forever, Amen and Amen.