Bechorot Daf 6 (בכורות דף ו׳)
Daf: 6 | Amudim: 6a – 6b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (6a)
Segment 1
TYPE: דרשה
The daf opens mid-argument, completing 5b’s objection with the answer from the doubled phrase.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים — פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states the phrase: “Firstborn of a donkey” (Exodus 13:13), “firstborn of a donkey” (Exodus 34:20), mentioning it a total of two times. The additional usage of the term indicates I said to you that firstborn status applies only to firstborns of donkeys, but not to firstborns of horses or camels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence 5b broke off in is finished here. Against the suggestion that horses and camels might be redeemed with something other than a lamb, the answer is the repetition itself: פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר is written twice, and the second mention restricts rather than extends. פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ — donkeys were what I specified, and no other non-kosher species enters the law at all.
Key Terms:
- פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר = a firstborn donkey — stated at Shemot 13:13 and 34:20
- פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים = firstborn horses and camels
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Achai objects using the rule that an item singled out from a generalization teaches about the whole.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי: אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא חַד, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל, וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד, לֹא לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמוֹ יָצָא אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּלָל כּוּלּוֹ יָצָא, וּלְעוֹלָם בְּשֶׂה.
English Translation:
Rav Aḥai refutes this claim: How can the extra verse alone indicate that other firstborn non-kosher animals do not have firstborn status? If the Merciful One had written the term “firstborn of a donkey” once, I would say a firstborn donkey is an item that was included in a generalization of all non-kosher animals, but emerged from the generalization to teach that it must be redeemed by means of a lamb. According to the principles of exegesis, it emerged from the generalization to teach not just about itself, but emerged to teach about the entire generalization. And accordingly, all non-kosher animals should actually be redeemed by means of a lamb as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Achai shows the answer is not yet secure, and his objection turns on a standard exegetical rule. דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד — when an item belonging to a general category is singled out for a rule, the rule is taken to govern the entire category rather than the item alone. A single mention of the donkey would therefore have extended redemption by a lamb to every non-kosher animal, which is the opposite of what the derivation wants.
Key Terms:
- פָּרֵיךְ = he refutes
- דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל = an item that was in a generalization and emerged from it
- לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּלָל כּוּלּוֹ = to teach about the entire generalization
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The second mention blocks that, but leaves open redemption by some other item.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ אַחֲרִינָא, פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים וְלֹא פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים, וְאֵימָא: מַעֲטִינְהוּ מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעוֹלָם בְּכׇל דָּבָר!
English Translation:
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Firstborn of a donkey,” another time, to teach that only firstborn donkeys must be redeemed by means of a lamb, but not firstborn horses or camels. And therefore I can say that perhaps the earlier suggestion is correct: The Torah excluded firstborn horses and camels from being redeemed by means of a lamb, but actually, they must still be redeemed by means of any other item.
קלאוד על הדף:
Granting the second mention its restrictive force still leaves a gap. It establishes that horses and camels are not redeemed with a lamb, but not that they are exempt outright — מַעֲטִינְהוּ מֹשֶׁה, the verse excluded them from the lamb, and perhaps they remain redeemable בְּכׇל דָּבָר, with anything else. This is the same residual objection 5b closed on, now restated precisely.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲטִינְהוּ = it excluded them
- בְּכׇל דָּבָר = with any item
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer is the exact phrasing: the Torah repeated the identical full clause rather than varying it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה״ וַ״חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה״. ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה״, ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה״ לְמָה לִי? פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: If it is so that the Torah excludes horses and camels only from redemption by means of a lamb but not from redemption in general, let the Merciful One write: Firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and: A donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, which would suffice. Why do I need the verse to state: “A firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” “a firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” using the same phrase both times? It is necessary to teach that I said to you that firstborn status applies only to firstborns of donkeys, but not to firstborns of horses or camels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution rests on a fine observation about wording. Had the Torah merely wanted to specify the donkey’s redemption twice, it could have written the full clause once and abbreviated the second, פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה and then simply חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה. That it repeated the whole phrase identically is the surplus, and the surplus carries the exclusion — donkeys and nothing else.
Key Terms:
- לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא = let the Merciful One write
- לְמָה לִי = why do I need it — pressing a redundancy
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Our tanna spent the repetition on resemblance; where does he exclude horses and camels?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַנָּא דִידַן, לְמַעוֹטֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים, מְנָא לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for the tanna of our mishna, who derived from the repetition of the phrase “firstborn of a donkey” that the mitzva of redeeming a firstborn donkey applies only if the mother and offspring are both donkeys, from where does he derive that the Torah excludes horses and camels from firstborn status?
קלאוד על הדף:
The audit turns to the other tanna. On 5b our mishna used the doubled פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר to require that both mother and offspring be donkeys, which leaves him without a source for excluding horses and camels. The Gemara’s working assumption is that every tanna must be able to account for every ruling, so a second derivation is owed.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא דִידַן = the tanna of our mishna
- לְמַעוֹטֵי = to exclude
Segment 6
TYPE: דרשה
Rav Pappa supplies כְּלָל וּפְרָט from כׇּל מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כׇּל מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר — כָּלַל, שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה וַחֲמוֹר — פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט — אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט, שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה וַחֲמוֹר — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said it is derived from the verse: “From all your livestock you shall take the males, the firstborn of the ox and lamb. And the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:19-20). The phrase “From all your livestock you shall take the males” is a generalization, and the reference to an ox and a lamb and a donkey is a detail. According to the principles of exegesis, in the case of a generalization and a detail, the generalization is referring only to that which is specified in the detail. Therefore, an ox and a lamb and a donkey, yes, their offspring have firstborn status, but anything else, no, it does not have firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa finds the exclusion in the structure of the verse rather than in a repetition. כׇּל מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר is a כְּלָל, a sweeping general statement; שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה וַחֲמוֹר is a פְּרָט, a list of particulars. Under the rule אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט the list does not illustrate the generalization but limits it, so those three species are the whole of the law and nothing else enters.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט = a generalization followed by a detail
- אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט = the generalization contains only what the detail specifies
- כׇּל מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר = all your livestock, the males (Shemot 34:19)
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Does פֶּטֶר interrupt the list, or does the vav rejoin it?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי? ״פֶּטֶר״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן, וְרַבָּנַן? וָי״ו הֲדַר עָרְבֵיהּ קְרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, how does he respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: He holds that a donkey is not included in the generalization “From all your livestock you shall take the males,” as the word “firstborn” in the phrase “and the firstborn of a donkey,” indicates that the Torah interrupts the matter, i.e., the list of details. The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: The letter vav, meaning “and,” in the phrase “and the firstborn of a donkey,” indicates that the verse returns and combines the donkey with the other animals as having firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili resists Rav Pappa’s reading on the grammar of the verse: the word פֶּטֶר before the donkey הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן, interrupts the list, so the donkey never was one of the particulars limiting the generalization. The Rabbis answer from the conjunction — the וָי״ו of וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר rejoins what the noun had separated, הֲדַר עָרְבֵיהּ קְרָא, the verse combines them again.
Key Terms:
- הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן = it interrupted the matter
- הֲדַר עָרְבֵיהּ קְרָא = the verse went back and combined it
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili presses: then neither the vav nor פֶּטֶר should have been written.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי? לָא לִכְתּוֹב לָא וָי״ו וְלָא ״פֶּטֶר״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, how does he respond? The Gemara answers: He holds that if the donkey was indeed included in the delineation of the other animals that follows the generalization, the Torah would write neither the letter vav nor the word “firstborn,” and it still would be included.
קלאוד על הדף:
The rejoinder tests the Rabbis’ reading for economy. If the donkey simply belongs with the ox and lamb, the verse could have listed it plainly, without the separating noun and without the conjunction that repairs the separation. Writing both a break and a mend is doing work that a simple list would not have needed.
Key Terms:
- לָא לִכְתּוֹב = let it not write
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
The Rabbis: the break is needed because the two sanctities differ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן? אַיְּידֵי דְּהָא קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְהָא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף — פָּסֵיק לְהוּ וַהֲדַר עָרֵיב לְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Since this, a firstborn donkey, has sanctity that inheres in its value and must be redeemed by means of a lamb, and that, a firstborn ox and lamb, possess inherent sanctity and are sacrificed upon the altar, the word “firstborn” must interpose between them, and the verse must combine them again with the letter vav for “and,” which indicates that a donkey is also included in the delineation that defines the generalization “From all your livestock you shall take the males.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis’ answer gives the awkward phrasing a reason. A firstborn ox or lamb carries קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, inherent sanctity, and goes to the altar; a firstborn donkey carries only קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, sanctity residing in its value, and is redeemed with a lamb. Grouping them without comment would have flattened a real distinction, so the verse separates them with פֶּטֶר and then rejoins them with the וָי״ו — both moves are necessary, one to distinguish and one to include.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים = sanctity of value — redeemable
- קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף = inherent sanctity — of the animal’s body
- אַיְּידֵי = since — introducing the reason for a usage
Segment 10
TYPE: בעיא
A dilemma: a cow bearing a donkey-type that carries some of its mother’s characteristics.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין חֲמוֹר, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — מַהוּ?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara previously cited the mishna (16b) that rules that a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. And if the offspring has some of the characteristics of its mother, it is subject to the obligations of firstborn status. A dilemma was raised before the Sages about a related matter: In the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, where the mishna (5b) ruled that the offspring does not have firstborn status, and it has some of the characteristics of the mother, what is the halakha?
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf turns to its central question, and it builds in stages. Daf 5 ruled that a cow bearing a donkey-type is exempt, while the mishna of 16b holds that partial resemblance — מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — makes an offspring obligated. The two rulings meet here: does partial resemblance help across the kosher line, or only within it?
Key Terms:
- אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ = a dilemma was raised before them
- מִקְצָת סִימָנִין = some of the characteristics — of the mother’s species
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
The ewe and goat case may work only because the two species are so alike.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל, וְרָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, דְּכִי יֵשׁ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה, דְּהָא טְהוֹרָה וְהָא טְהוֹרָה, הָא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְהָא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the dilemma: When the mishna states with regard to a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts and a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts, that when it has some of the characteristics of the mother, it is obligated, i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status, perhaps this is because a ewe and a goat are somewhat similar; as this one is a kosher animal and that one is a kosher animal. Likewise, this one has inherent sanctity and may be sacrificed on the altar, and that one has inherent sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma is sharpened by identifying what made the earlier case easy. A ewe and a goat are both kosher and both carry קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, so an offspring with partial resemblance is moving within a single category and the partial signs have something to attach to. The question is whether they can do the same work across a wider gap.
Key Terms:
- דְּהָא טְהוֹרָה וְהָא טְהוֹרָה = this one is kosher and that one is kosher
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
The two sides: the gap is too wide, or both species have firstborn status after all.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא, דְּהָא טְמֵאָה וְהָא טְהוֹרָה, הָא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְהָא קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים — לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּנֵי מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה — קָדוֹשׁ?
English Translation:
But here, in the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, perhaps the halakha would be different, as this, the offspring, resembles a non-kosher animal, and that, the mother, is a kosher animal. Likewise, the firstborns of this species, the cow, possess inherent sanctity, and the firstborns of that species, the donkey, have sanctity that inheres in its value. Therefore, perhaps the offspring does not have firstborn status, even if it has some of the characteristics of the mother. Or perhaps it can be reasoned that since both this cow and that donkey are sanctified with firstborn status, the offspring is sanctified with firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
The cow and donkey differ on two axes at once — kosher against non-kosher, and inherent sanctity against sanctity of value — which argues that partial signs cannot bridge them. Against that stands a narrower common ground: both species are בְּנֵי מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, both are subject to firstborn status in some form, and that shared liability may be enough.
Key Terms:
- בְּנֵי מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה = subject to being sanctified as a firstborn
- אוֹ דִלְמָא = or perhaps — introducing the other side
Segment 13
TYPE: בעיא
Escalating: if that is resolved, what of a donkey bearing a horse-type?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה קָדוֹשׁ, חֲמוֹר שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין סוּס מַהוּ? הָכָא וַדַּאי לָא בַּת מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּמִין טְמֵאָה הוּא קָדוֹשׁ?
English Translation:
And if you say that since both this cow and that donkey are sanctified with firstborn status, the offspring is also sanctified with firstborn status if it has some characteristics of the mother, then what is the halakha in a case of a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts? Perhaps here the offspring certainly does not have firstborn status, as a horse is not sanctified with firstborn status. Or perhaps one can reason that since the mother is a member of a non-kosher species, as is the offspring, the offspring should be sanctified with firstborn status, as it has some characteristics of the mother, which is a donkey.
קלאוד על הדף:
The אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר builds a staircase, each step conceding the previous answer and changing one variable. If shared firstborn liability was what mattered, the donkey and horse case removes exactly that — a horse has no firstborn status at all. What remains in common is only that both are non-kosher, and the question is whether that alone suffices.
Key Terms:
- אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר = if you should say — conceding a point to pose the next question
- לָא בַּת מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה = not subject to firstborn sanctity
Segment 14
TYPE: בעיא
The third tier: a cow bearing a horse-type, with nothing in common at all.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּמִין טְמֵאָה הוּא קָדוֹשׁ, פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין סוּס מַהוּ? הָכָא וַדַּאי הָא טְהוֹרָה וְהָא טְמֵאָה, הָא בַּת מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה וְהָא לָא בַּת מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא סִימָנִין מִילְּתָא הִיא?
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an additional dilemma about a related case: If you say in the previous case that since it is a non-kosher species it is sanctified, then what is the halakha in the case of a cow that gave birth to a horse of sorts? Here, one can say there certainly is no reason for the offspring to have firstborn status, as this cow is kosher and that horse is non-kosher. And in addition, this cow is sanctified with firstborn status and that horse is not sanctified with firstborn status. Or perhaps one can reason that having some of the characteristics of the mother is a significant matter and the offspring does have firstborn sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final case strips away every shared feature. A cow is kosher and subject to firstborn status; a horse is neither. If the offspring is still obligated here it can only be because סִימָנִין מִילְּתָא הִיא, partial resemblance is a substantive fact in its own right rather than a way of resolving an animal into a category it already half belongs to.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִין מִילְּתָא הִיא = characteristics are a substantive matter
Segment 15
TYPE: ראיה
A baraita on kosher bearing non-kosher is offered and narrowed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה. מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין סוּס? לֹא, פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין חֲמוֹר.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: A kosher animal that gave birth to a non-kosher animal of sorts is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn. If the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother it is obligated, i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status. What, does this not include even the case of a cow that gave birth to a horse of sorts? No, it is referring to a case such as where a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, where both species are subject to the sanctity of the firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first attempt at resolution comes from a baraita ruling that a kosher animal bearing a non-kosher type is obligated if partial signs are present. Read broadly it would settle even the hardest case, the cow and horse. The Gemara narrows it instead to the cow and donkey, where both species are subject to firstborn status, leaving the harder tiers open.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — adducing a source to resolve a dilemma
Segment 16
TYPE: ראיה
A second baraita names both cases; the Gemara confines the ruling to the first.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין חֲמוֹר, וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין סוּס — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה. מַאי לָאו אַתַּרְוַיְיהוּ? לָא, אַפָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין חֲמוֹר.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: In the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts or a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts, each of the mothers is exempt from their offspring being counted a firstborn. If the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother, it is obligated, i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status. What, is the last clause not referring to both cases of the baraita? If so, this resolves two of the dilemmas about offspring that have some characteristics of the mother. The Gemara responds: No, it is referring only to the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, so only that dilemma is resolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second baraita is more promising because it names the cow-donkey and donkey-horse cases together before stating the partial-signs rule, which would settle two tiers at once. The Gemara declines the reading and attaches the concluding clause to the first case alone — a narrowing that the next segment immediately challenges as leaving the second case pointless.
Key Terms:
- אַתַּרְוַיְיהוּ = concerning both of them
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Then why mention the donkey-horse case at all? It would be obvious.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל חֲמוֹר שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין סוּס, לְמַאי קָתָנֵי לַהּ? לִפְטוּרָא? פְּשִׁיטָא! הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין חֲמוֹר, דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּנֵי מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה נִינְהוּ, אָמְרַתְּ: אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — אִין, וְאִי לָא — לָא, חֲמוֹר שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין סוּס מִיבַּעְיָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the baraita teach the case of a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts? If it is to exempt the offspring from being accounted firstborn status when it does not have some of the characteristics of its mother, that halakha is obvious for the following reason: And now, if in the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, where both this species and that species are sanctified with firstborn status, you said that if the offspring has some of the characteristics of its mother then yes, it has firstborn status, and if it does not have such characteristics, then no, the offspring does not have firstborn status, then in the case of a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts, which generally is not sanctified with firstborn status, is it necessary to state that the horse does not have firstborn status unless it has some of the characteristics of its mother?
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection presses the narrowing on grounds of redundancy. If the baraita teaches partial signs only for the cow and donkey, its mention of the donkey and horse can only be stating the exemption — and that is פְּשִׁיטָא, self-evident by kal vachomer: where both species have firstborn status partial signs were needed, so where one has none they are surely needed too.
Key Terms:
- לְמַאי קָתָנֵי לַהּ = for what purpose does it teach it
- פְּשִׁיטָא = it is obvious
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
It was necessary: a cow and donkey differ visibly, in horns and hooves.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ: הָתָם הוּא דְּיֵשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם, וְהָא אֵין לָהּ קַרְנַיִם; הָא פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ סְדוּקוֹת, וְהָא פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ קְלוּטוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach that case in addition to that of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, as it might enter your mind that there, in the case of the cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, the offspring does not have firstborn status because a cow and donkey are entirely different from one another, as a cow has horns, and this animal, a donkey, does not have horns. Moreover, with regard to that animal, a cow, its hooves are split, but with regard to this animal, a donkey, its hooves are closed [kelutot].
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer works from appearances rather than from categories. One might have confined the exemption to cases where mother and offspring look nothing alike, and a cow and a donkey are exactly that — the cow has horns and split hooves, the donkey has neither. On that reading the ruling would say nothing about a pair that resemble each other.
Key Terms:
- קַרְנַיִם = horns
- פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ סְדוּקוֹת = its hooves are split — a sign of a kosher species
- פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ קְלוּטוֹת = its hooves are closed — unsplit
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
A donkey and horse look alike, so one might have called the foal a red donkey.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אֵין לָהּ קַרְנַיִם, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ קְלוּטוֹת, אֵימָא חֲמוֹר אָדוֹם בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
But here, in the case of a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts, where a similarity does exist between the mother and its offspring, as this one and that one both do not have horns, and with regard to both this one and that one its hooves are closed, I can say that this offspring is merely a red donkey, i.e., a donkey with the coloring of a horse, and has firstborn status. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is a different species from that of the mother, and does not have firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
The point lands on the resemblance. A donkey and a horse are both hornless and both closed-hoofed, so an observer might well conclude that the foal is no new species at all but חֲמוֹר אָדוֹם, merely a donkey of unusual colouring — and treat it as fully obligated. The baraita teaches the case precisely because the two animals are similar enough to be confused.
Key Terms:
- חֲמוֹר אָדוֹם = a red donkey — a donkey with a horse’s colouring
- קָמַשְׁמַע לַן = it teaches us
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
Why does the mishna add the clause about what emerges from the non-kosher?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמָה הֵן בַּאֲכִילָה כּוּ׳. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי ״שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא״?
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches with regard to an animal whose offspring resembles a different species: And what is the offspring’s halakhic status with regard to its consumption? In the case of a kosher animal that gave birth to a non-kosher animal of sorts, its consumption is permitted. And in the case of a non-kosher animal that gave birth to a kosher animal of sorts, its consumption is prohibited. This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach the concluding phrase: This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher?
קלאוד על הדף:
Attention shifts to the mishna’s second ruling, on eating. Having stated that a kosher mother’s offspring may be eaten and a non-kosher mother’s may not, the mishna adds a general clause explaining why — and the Gemara asks what that clause contributes, since the two cases have already been given.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא טָמֵא = for what emerges from the non-kosher is non-kosher
Segment 21
TYPE: תירוץ
It is a mnemonic, so the two cases are not reversed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, דְּלָא תִּיחַלַּף לָךְ, דְּלָא תֵּימָא: זִיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ, וְהַאי טָהוֹר מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, וְהַאי טָמֵא מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, אֶלָּא זִיל בָּתַר אִימֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It is merely a mnemonic to ensure that you do not mistakenly reverse the halakha in these two cases, so that you do not say: Follow its appearance, and therefore this offspring that looks like a kosher animal is a full-fledged kosher animal, despite being born to a non-kosher animal; and that one that looks like a non-kosher animal is a full-fledged non-kosher animal, despite its mother being a kosher animal. Rather, the mishna teaches that one must follow the status of its mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is unusually candid about pedagogy. The clause is a סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא, merely a memory-aid, guarding against the natural instinct to judge by appearance — זִיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ, follow the animal itself — when the rule is the opposite: זִיל בָּתַר אִימֵּיהּ, follow its mother. The two rulings are counterintuitive enough that the mishna supplies a handle for holding them the right way round.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא = merely a mnemonic
- זִיל בָּתַר אִימֵּיהּ = go after its mother
Segment 22
TYPE: ברייתא
The source is sought in אַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ, with the reading left open.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה״ — יֵשׁ לְךָ שֶׁהוּא מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה וּמַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה וְאִי אַתָּה אוֹכְלוֹ, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה? טָהוֹר שֶׁנּוֹלַד מִן הַטָּמֵא. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טָמֵא הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַטָּהוֹר, וּמַאי ״מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה״?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught that when the verse states: “Nevertheless these shall you not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of them that split the hoof” (Leviticus 11:4), this verse indicates that you have an animal that chews the cud and has split hooves, but nevertheless you may not eat it. And which is this? It is a kosher animal that was born from a non-kosher animal. Or perhaps it excludes only a non-kosher animal that does not chew the cud or have split hooves that was born from a kosher animal, and if so what is the explanation of the verse “of them that chew the cud, or of them that split the hoof”?
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita reads Vayikra 11:4 as describing an animal that has both kosher signs and yet may not be eaten, and identifies it as one born to a non-kosher mother. It then raises the opposite possibility — that the verse forbids a non-kosher-looking animal born to a kosher mother, the reverse of the mishna — and the amud ends with that alternative standing, to be closed at the start of 6b.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה = chewing the cud
- מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה = having split hooves
- אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא = or perhaps it is only — entertaining the opposite reading
Amud Bet (6b)
Segment 1
TYPE: דרשה
The alternative reading is closed: גָּמָל טָמֵא הוּא — it alone is non-kosher.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי קָאָמַר: דָּבָר הַבָּא מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה לָא תֵּיכוּל, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גָּמָל… טָמֵא הוּא״ — הוּא טָמֵא, וְאֵין טָמֵא הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַטָּהוֹר טָמֵא אֶלָּא טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
This is what it is saying: You shall not eat a being that comes from one of those animals that chew their cud and have split hooves if it itself does not have the signs of being kosher. To counter this, the continuation of the verse states: “The camel…is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:4). This indicates that a camel itself is non-kosher, but a non-kosher animal that is born from a kosher animal is not non-kosher; rather, it is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reading left open at the end of 6a is rejected from the verse’s own continuation. Had the Torah meant to forbid whatever emerges from a kosher animal without kosher signs, it would not have said גָּמָל טָמֵא הוּא — the camel itself is non-kosher, which restricts the prohibition to the species and releases the strange offspring of a kosher mother. The mishna’s rule stands, and the sign-bearing animal born to a non-kosher mother is what the verse forbids.
Key Terms:
- הוּא טָמֵא = it — and only it — is non-kosher
- גָּמָל = the camel (Vayikra 11:4)
Segment 2
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Shimon dissents from the doubled גָּמָל: a camel born to a cow is forbidden.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״גָּמָל״ ״גָּמָל״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים, אֶחָד גָּמָל הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַגְּמַלָּה, וְאֶחָד גָּמָל הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַפָּרָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon says it is stated: “Camel” (Leviticus 11:4), “camel” (Deuteronomy 14:7), teaching the term two times with regard to the prohibition of consumption. This teaches that both a camel that is born from a camel and a camel that is born from a cow are non-kosher. According to Rabbi Shimon, a non-kosher animal born to a kosher animal is forbidden for consumption, in contrast to the ruling in the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon reaches the opposite conclusion and does so from a repetition. גָּמָל appears in Vayikra 11:4 and again in Devarim 14:7, and he reads the two mentions as covering two births — the camel born of a camel and the camel born of a cow. His position contradicts the mishna outright, and the rest of the amud is largely an accounting of how each side spends the verses.
Key Terms:
- הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַגְּמַלָּה = born from a female camel
- הַנּוֹלָד מִן הַפָּרָה = born from a cow
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The Rabbis use the two mentions for the camel and its milk; Rabbi Shimon gets milk from אֶת.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״גָּמָל״ ״גָּמָל״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? חַד לֶאֱסוֹר עַצְמוֹ, וְחַד לֶאֱסוֹר חֲלָבוֹ. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לֶאֱסוֹר חֲלָבוֹ מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אֶת הַגָּמָל״. וְרַבָּנַן, ״אֶתִּים״ לָא דָּרְשִׁי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis in the baraita, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, what do they do with this repetition of “camel,” “camel”? The Gemara answers that one of the verses is written to prohibit the camel itself and one is written to prohibit the female camel’s milk. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive that a camel’s milk is forbidden? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase “the camel [et hagamal].” The verse could have stated just the term “hagamal.” The addition of the word “et” teaches that the prohibition applies also to its milk. And the Rabbis do not interpret instances of “et” as a means to derive new halakhot; they consider it to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition.
קלאוד על הדף:
Each side must account for the same words. The Rabbis spend one גָּמָל on the animal and one on its milk, leaving nothing for Rabbi Shimon’s cross-species ruling. Rabbi Shimon, needing a source for milk, takes it from the particle in אֶת הַגָּמָל — and the disagreement therefore rests on a prior methodological split, since the Rabbis hold אֶתִּים לָא דָּרְשִׁי, the word אֶת is not expounded at all.
Key Terms:
- לֶאֱסוֹר חֲלָבוֹ = to forbid its milk
- אֶתִּים לָא דָּרְשִׁי = they do not expound instances of את
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Shimon HaAmasoni expounded every את until he reached the fear of God, and withdrew.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּדְתַנְיָא: שִׁמְעוֹן הָעַמְסוֹנִי הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל ״אֵת״ וָ״אֵת״ שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ פֵּירַשׁ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, כׇּל ״אֶתִּין״ שֶׁדָּרַשְׁתָּ מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶם? אָמַר לָהֶם: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקִּבׇּלְתִּי שָׂכָר עַל הַדְּרִישָׁה, כָּךְ אֲנִי מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר עַל הַפְּרִישָׁה.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni would interpret each and every occurrence of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God? His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of “et” that you interpreted until now? Shimon HaAmasoni said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I receive reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition.
קלאוד על הדף:
The methodological remark opens into the most celebrated story on the daf. Shimon HaAmasoni had built an entire exegetical practice on the particle אֶת, deriving an extension wherever it appeared, until he reached אֶת ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא and stopped — for what could be added to the fear of God? Asked by his students what became of a lifetime’s derivations, he answered that reward attaches to the withdrawal as to the exposition: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקִּבַּלְתִּי שָׂכָר עַל הַדְּרִישָׁה כָּךְ אֲנִי מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר עַל הַפְּרִישָׁה. He abandoned the method rather than force it.
Key Terms:
- שִׁמְעוֹן הָעַמְסוֹנִי = Shimon HaAmasoni
- פֵּירַשׁ = he withdrew — abandoned the method
- שָׂכָר עַל הַפְּרִישָׁה = reward for the withdrawal
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Akiva later supplies the answer: the את includes Torah scholars.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְלִימֵּד: ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.
English Translation:
The word “et” in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: “You shall fear the Lord your God”; the word “et” in the verse serves to include Torah scholars, i.e., that one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any event, Shimon HaAmasoni no longer derived additional halakhot from “et.” The Rabbis follow the conclusion of Shimon HaAmasoni that “et” is not expounded.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse that defeated Shimon HaAmasoni was answered generations later. Rabbi Akiva read the particle in אֶת ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא as לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, extending the obligation of reverence to Torah scholars — the one extension that does not compete with the fear of God but derives from it. The story is preserved here because the Rabbis of our baraita follow Shimon HaAmasoni’s conclusion rather than Rabbi Akiva’s method.
Key Terms:
- לְרַבּוֹת = to include
- תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים = Torah scholars
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Acha asks Rav Ashi: would we really have thought non-kosher milk permitted?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, טַעְמָא דְרַבָּנַן מִ״גָּמָל״ ״גָּמָל״, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מֵ״אֶת הַגָּמָל״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא חָלָב דִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שְׁרֵי?
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, that the reason of the Rabbis for the halakha that a camel’s milk is forbidden is that it is derived from the words “camel,” “camel,” written twice, and Rabbi Shimon derives it from “the camel [et hagamal],” then could it be reasoned that if not for this derivation I would say that milk of a non-kosher animal is permitted?
קלאוד על הדף:
The question is about whether the derivation was needed at all. If both sides must find a verse to forbid a camel’s milk, the implication is that without one it would have been permitted — which seems implausible for a substance emerging from a forbidden animal. Rav Acha son of Rava presses the point against Rav Ashi and supplies a counter-source in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה = but if that is so
- הָא לָאו הָכִי = were it not for this
Segment 7
TYPE: ראיה
הַטְּמֵאִים already forbids their juice, gravy and sediment.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ — לֶאֱסוֹר צִירָן, וְרוֹטְבָן, וְקֵיפֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן?
English Translation:
In what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: The Torah states with regard to the prohibition against eating creeping animals: “These are they that are impure [hateme’im] to you among all the creeping animals” (Leviticus 11:31). The Sages interpret the letter heh in the term “that are impure [hateme’im]” to prohibit their juice that oozes from their body and their gravy that is produced when they are cooked, and sediments of their flesh that congeal at the bottom of the dish when cooked. Evidently, any liquid that emerges from a non-kosher animal is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The counter-source is a baraita reading the definite article of הַטְּמֵאִים as extending the prohibition of creeping animals to what comes out of them — צִירָן, their oozing juice, רוֹטְבָן, their cooked gravy, and קֵיפֶה, the sediment that congeals beneath. If derived liquids are already forbidden as a general matter, milk should need no verse of its own.
Key Terms:
- צִירָן = their juice — what oozes from the body
- רוֹטְבָן = their gravy — produced in cooking
- קֵיפֶה = the sediment that settles at the bottom
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Ashi: permitted milk is itself a novelty, since blood turns into milk.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל דִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה נָמֵי חִידּוּשׁ הוּא, דְּאָמַר מַר: דָּם נֶעְכָּר וְנַעֲשֶׂה חָלָב, וְכֵיוָן דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא — בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה נָמֵי לִישְׁתְּרֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi responded: The additional exposition to derive that camel’s milk is forbidden was necessary, because it might enter your mind to say it may be permitted, since the permissibility of consumption of the milk of a kosher animal is also a novelty. The milk originates from the blood, which is forbidden for consumption, as the Master said that the reason a nursing woman does not experience menstruation is because the blood is spoiled and becomes milk. Since it is a novelty that the Torah permits milk despite its origins, it might enter your mind to say that with regard to a non-kosher animal it should also be permitted. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi’s answer makes milk an exception rather than an ordinary derived liquid. On the view that דָּם נֶעְכָּר וְנַעֲשֶׂה חָלָב — that a nursing mother’s blood is transformed into milk, which is why she does not menstruate — permitted milk is really permitted blood, a חִידּוּשׁ that the Torah granted against the general prohibition. A dispensation that surprising might have been thought to extend to non-kosher animals too, so a verse was needed to stop it.
Key Terms:
- חִידּוּשׁ = a novelty — a rule that departs from the expected
- דָּם נֶעְכָּר וְנַעֲשֶׂה חָלָב = blood is spoiled and becomes milk
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
That works on one view of lactation; what of the other?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּם נֶעְכָּר וְנַעֲשֶׂה חָלָב, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵיבָרֶיהָ מִתְפָּרְקִין הֵימֶנָּה וְאֵין נַפְשָׁהּ חוֹזֶרֶת עָלֶיהָ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who says that a nursing woman does not menstruate because the blood is spoiled and becomes milk. But according to the one who says that the milk does not originate from blood, but rather the reason she does not menstruate is because her limbs become disjointed and her soul, i.e., her health, does not return to her until twenty-four months later, what is there to say? Why does the Torah employ a verse to render forbidden the milk of a non-kosher animal?
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is only as good as the physiology it assumes. A competing view holds that a nursing mother does not menstruate because אֵיבָרֶיהָ מִתְפָּרְקִין הֵימֶנָּה, her limbs become disjointed and her strength does not return for twenty-four months — an account in which milk is not transformed blood at all. On that view milk is no novelty, and Rav Ashi’s explanation of why a verse was needed collapses.
Key Terms:
- אֵיבָרֶיהָ מִתְפָּרְקִין = her limbs become disjointed
- הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר = this works well for the one who says
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
A second answer: milk resembles a limb from a living animal and is permitted anyway.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְלֵיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי מֵחַי וְשַׁרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי חָלָב כִּי אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי הוּא, וּשְׁרֵי, וְהִילְכָּךְ אֲפִילּוּ בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לִישְׁתְּרֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It was necessary, because it might enter your mind to say it may be permitted; since generally speaking there is nothing that comes from a living animal that the Merciful One permits, and yet this milk of a kosher animal is similar to a limb severed from the living and is nevertheless permitted, the permissibility of milk is a novelty of the Torah. And consequently it might enter your mind to say that even the milk of a non-kosher animal should be permitted in line with that novelty. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second answer finds the novelty elsewhere, in a rule that holds on either physiology. Nothing taken from a living animal is permitted — אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי is forbidden across the board — and milk is drawn from a living creature, so its permission is already an exception. The reasoning that might have extended that exception to non-kosher animals therefore survives even without the blood-to-milk account.
Key Terms:
- אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי = a limb taken from a living animal
- לֵיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי מֵחַי = there is nothing coming from a living animal that is permitted
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Where is it even stated that kosher milk is permitted? The meat-and-milk proof fails.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחָלָב דִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה מְנָלַן דִּשְׁרֵי? אִילֵימָא מִדַּאֲסַר רַחֲמָנָא ״בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב״, הָא לְחוּדֵיהּ שְׁרֵי, וְאֵימָא: חָלָב לְחוּדֵיהּ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב — בַּהֲנָאָה נָמֵי אָסוּר!
English Translation:
§ The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the milk of a kosher animal is in fact permitted? If we say that it is derived from the fact that the Merciful One prohibits eating meat that was cooked in milk, indicating that milk by itself is permitted, one can reject this proof and say that milk alone is forbidden only for consumption but permitted with regard to deriving benefit from it. By contrast, meat that was cooked in milk is forbidden with regard to deriving benefit from it as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now asks for a source for something nobody doubts, and the hunt occupies the rest of the amud. The natural proof — that the Torah forbids cooking meat in milk, implying milk alone is fine — does not hold, since milk alone might be forbidden merely for eating while permitted for benefit, with the combination adding a benefit prohibition on top.
Key Terms:
- בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב = meat cooked in milk
- אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה = forbidden for consumption but permitted for benefit
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
And on Rabbi Shimon’s view the prohibition still has work to do.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּשָׁרֵי בַּהֲנָאָה, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ לְמִילְקֵי עַל בִּישּׁוּלֵיהּ!
English Translation:
And according to Rabbi Shimon, who deems meat that was cooked in milk permitted with regard to deriving benefit from it, you find a reason for the Torah to mention the prohibition of meat and milk together, even if milk alone is forbidden as well, and that is in order to render one liable to receive lashes for cooking them together, which would not apply to cooking milk alone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The refutation is reinforced for the one authority it might not have covered. Rabbi Shimon permits deriving benefit from meat cooked in milk, so the benefit distinction is unavailable to him — but the verse still earns its place on his view, since it creates liability to lashes for the act of cooking, which milk alone would not.
Key Terms:
- מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ = you find it — a case where it applies
- לְמִילְקֵי עַל בִּישּׁוּלֵיהּ = to be flogged for cooking it
Segment 13
TYPE: דרשה
A second attempt from the laws of redeemed consecrated animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא דְּבִפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, ״תִּזְבַּח״ — וְלֹא גִּיזָּה, ״בָּשָׂר״ — וְלֹא חָלָב, הָא דְּחוּלִּין שְׁרֵי.
English Translation:
Rather, one can prove that milk is permitted for consumption since the Merciful One revealed that with regard to disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed: “You may slaughter and eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:15). This verse is interpreted in the following manner: “You may slaughter,” but you may not use its wool from shearing. You may eat its “meat,” but you may not consume its milk. It can be inferred from here that milk of non-sacred kosher animals is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The next candidate reads a verse about disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed. תִּזְבַּח is taken to permit slaughter but not shearing, and בָּשָׂר to permit the flesh but not the milk — and if sacred milk needed a verse to forbid it, ordinary milk must be permitted. The inference is plausible and is undone in the next segment by the same benefit distinction as before.
Key Terms:
- פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = consecrated animals disqualified and redeemed
- תִּזְבַּח וְלֹא גִּיזָּה = you may slaughter, but not shear
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Rejected: the contrast may be about benefit rather than eating.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא: דְּחוּלִּין אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּשְׁרֵי בַּהֲנָאָה, דְּקָדָשִׁים בַּהֲנָאָה נָמֵי אָסוּר!
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof: But one could say the distinction between non-sacred milk and milk from sacrificial animals is not with regard to the permissibility of consumption. Rather, milk of non-sacred animals is forbidden for consumption but is permitted with regard to deriving benefit from it, but the milk of sacrificial animals is forbidden with regard to deriving benefit as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection recycles the distinction that defeated the first proof. The verse may separate ordinary milk from sacred milk on the axis of benefit rather than consumption, forbidding both for eating while permitting benefit only from the ordinary. Two scriptural derivations have now failed for the same reason, and the Gemara turns from Torah law to narrative and poetic verses.
Key Terms:
- קָדָשִׁים = consecrated animals
- בַּהֲנָאָה נָמֵי אָסוּר = forbidden for benefit as well
Segment 15
TYPE: ראיה
Mishlei: goats’ milk is enough for your food and your household’s.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, מִדִּכְתִיב: ״וְדֵי חֲלֵב עִזִּים לְלַחְמְךָ לְלֶחֶם בֵּיתֶךָ וְחַיִּים לְנַעֲרוֹתֶיךָ״.
English Translation:
Rather, proof may be brought that milk is permitted from the fact that it is written: “And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household, and maintenance for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:27). According to the verse, goats’ milk serves as food, and therefore must be kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The search moves to Ketuvim, where Mishlei 27:27 describes goats’ milk as לְלַחְמְךָ, for your bread, and as sustenance for a household and its servants. A verse that treats milk as ordinary provision assumes it may be eaten, which is the kind of incidental testimony the Gemara often finds more telling than a legal derivation.
Key Terms:
- וְדֵי חֲלֵב עִזִּים = and goats’ milk enough (Mishlei 27:27)
- לְלַחְמְךָ = for your food
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Perhaps it is sold rather than eaten; the ten cheeses are brought instead.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִילְמָא לִסְחוֹרָה? אֶלָּא מִדִּכְתִיב ״וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת חֲרִיצֵי הֶחָלָב״.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects the proof: But perhaps the verse is referring to selling the milk as merchandise and using the money to buy food, and not to consuming the milk itself. Rather, proof may be brought from the fact that it is written with regard to Jesse’s instructions to his son David upon sending him with provisions for his brothers, who were at war against the Philistines: “And these ten cheeses you shall bring to the captain of their thousand” (I Samuel 17:18), which indicates they ate dairy products.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is pedantic in a productive way: the verse says the milk provides food, not that it is the food, so it might be sold and the proceeds spent. The Gemara answers with a narrative detail instead — the ten cheeses Yishai sent with David to the officer of his brothers’ unit at the front, in Shmuel I 17:18.
Key Terms:
- לִסְחוֹרָה = for commerce — to be sold
- חֲרִיצֵי הֶחָלָב = cheeses (Shmuel I 17:18)
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Answered with a question: is commerce the way of war?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא לִסְחוֹרָה? אַטּוּ דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל מִלְחָמָה לִסְחוֹרָה?!
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof as well: But perhaps this verse too means the captain can sell the cheese as merchandise. The Gemara responds: Is that to say that it is the norm during war to engage in commerce? Clearly the cheese was meant for consumption, which proves it is permitted to eat dairy products.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same objection is raised against the cheeses and dismissed by appeal to the setting. אַטּוּ דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל מִלְחָמָה לִסְחוֹרָה — provisions carried to a commander at the front are food, not stock to trade, and nobody sends cheese into a battle line as merchandise. The argument is from plausibility rather than exegesis, and the Gemara treats it as sufficient.
Key Terms:
- אַטּוּ = is that to say — introducing a rhetorical objection
- דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל מִלְחָמָה = the way of war
Segment 18
TYPE: ראיה
Two further proofs: a land flowing with milk, and Yeshayahu’s invitation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ״, וְאִי לָא דִּשְׁרֵי, מִשְׁתַּבַּח לַן קְרָא בְּמִידֵּי דְּלָא חֲזֵי? וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״לְכוּ שִׁבְרוּ וֶאֱכֹלוּ, וּלְכוּ שִׁבְרוּ בְּלֹא כֶסֶף וּבְלֹא מְחִיר יַיִן וְחָלָב״.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead that proof may be brought from here: The Torah praises Eretz Yisrael as: “A land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:17), and if milk was not permitted, would the verse praise the land to us with an item that is not suitable for consumption? And if you wish, say instead a proof from here: “Come, buy, and eat; and come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1).
קלאוד על הדף:
Two alternatives are offered with וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא. The Torah praises the Land as זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ, and the Gemara asks whether Scripture would commend a place with something inedible — מִשְׁתַּבַּח לַן קְרָא בְּמִידֵּי דְּלָא חֲזֵי. The second is Yeshayahu 55:1, where wine and milk are offered to be bought and consumed without price.
Key Terms:
- אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ = a land flowing with milk and honey
- מִשְׁתַּבַּח לַן קְרָא = would Scripture praise to us
- וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא = and if you wish, say instead
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
If doubled words teach halachot, what of שפן, ארנבת and חזיר?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״שָׁפָן״ ״שָׁפָן״, ״אַרְנֶבֶת״ ״אַרְנֶבֶת״, ״חֲזִיר״ ״חֲזִיר״, לְהָנֵי הוּא דְּאָתוּ?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, who interpret the repetition of the word “camel” as indicating the prohibitions against eating a camel born from a cow and consuming its milk, respectively, and asks: But if that is so, that the repetition indicates these halakhot, then with regard to the words: “Hare,” “hare,” “rock badger,” “rock badger,” “swine,” “swine” (see Leviticus 11:5-7; Deuteronomy 14:7-8), which are all mentioned twice as being forbidden, do these words come to teach these halakhot as well?
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection tests the method that produced the whole dispute. The hare, the rock badger and the swine are each named twice, in Vayikra 11 and again in Devarim 14, exactly as the camel is — so if repetition generates rulings, these repetitions should generate them too, and no such rulings are known.
Key Terms:
- שָׁפָן = the rock badger
- אַרְנֶבֶת = the hare
- חֲזִיר = the swine
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
The Devarim list exists for the שסועה and the ראה.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְכִדְתַנְיָא: לָמָּה נִשְׁנוּ בַּבְּהֵמָה — מִפְּנֵי ״הַשְּׁסוּעָה״, וּבָעוֹפוֹת — מִפְּנֵי ״הָרָאָה״.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: They are necessary only for that which is taught in a baraita: Why were all of the non-kosher animals and birds repeated in Deuteronomy (14:7-20), after having been mentioned already in Leviticus (11:10-20)? With regard to the animals, it is because of the shesua (see Deuteronomy 14:7), an animal with two backs and two spines, which is not mentioned in Leviticus, and with regard to the birds, it is because of the ra’a (see Deuteronomy 14:13).
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer supplies a structural reason for the second list. Devarim repeats the catalogue in order to add the שְׁסוּעָה among the animals and the רָאָה among the birds, so the repeated names are a by-product of including two new creatures rather than a series of separate derivations.
Key Terms:
- שְׁסוּעָה = the shesua — a creature named only in Devarim 14:7
- רָאָה = the ra’ah — a bird named only in Devarim 14:13
- לָמָּה נִשְׁנוּ = why were they repeated
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
Then the camel too — answered by כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִידְרָשׁ דָּרְשִׁינַן.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״גָּמָל״ ״גָּמָל״ נָמֵי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא! כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִידְרָשׁ דָּרְשִׁינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: If so, then the double reference of “camel,” “camel,” also comes for this purpose of teaching about the shesua, and not to teach a separate halakha about the camel. The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, anywhere that it is possible to interpret the verse as teaching an additional halakha, we interpret it in that manner. Only where there is no possibility of such an interpretation is the concept of repeating the passage merely to introduce one additional detail invoked.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the second list exists for the two new creatures, the camel’s repetition should be equally incidental. The Gemara concedes the structural explanation but subordinates it to a principle of method: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִידְרָשׁ דָּרְשִׁינַן, wherever a derivation is available we take it, and the by-product explanation is reserved for repetitions that yield nothing.
Key Terms:
- כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִידְרָשׁ = wherever there is something to expound
- דָּרְשִׁינַן = we expound
Segment 22
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita on partial signs, with Rabbi Shimon requiring head and majority.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְעֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִים — חַיֶּיבֶת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ דּוֹמֶה לְאִמּוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara discusses an additional source that cites the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: The Sages taught in a baraita that in the case of a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts, in each case the mother is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn. And if it has some of the characteristics of its mother, the mother is obligated, i.e., subject to accounting its offspring a firstborn. Rabbi Shimon says: The offspring does not have firstborn status unless its head and the majority of its body are similar to the appearance of its mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita restates the ewe-and-goat rule with its partial-signs exception and then records Rabbi Shimon setting a far higher threshold: רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ, the head and the greater part of the body must resemble the mother. Partial characteristics are not enough for him, which is consistent with the stringency he showed on the camel born to a cow.
Key Terms:
- רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ = its head and the majority of it
- דּוֹמֶה לְאִמּוֹ = resembling its mother
Segment 23
TYPE: בעיא
Does Rabbi Shimon require head and majority for eating as well, or only for bechora?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לַאֲכִילָה, מִי בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ, אוֹ לָא?
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the permissibility of eating a non-kosher animal that was born to a kosher animal, does Rabbi Shimon require its head and most of its body to resemble its mother, or not, and possessing some of the characteristics of its mother suffices?
קלאוד על הדף:
The closing dilemma asks whether Rabbi Shimon’s threshold is a single standard or two. It was stated in the context of firstborn status, and the question is whether the same degree of resemblance governs whether such an animal may be eaten — a question with a good deal riding on it, since he already holds that a camel born to a cow is forbidden.
Key Terms:
- לַאֲכִילָה = with regard to consumption
- מִי בָּעֵי = does he require
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
The two contexts rest on different verses — and the daf breaks off mid-sentence.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעִנְיַן בְּכוֹרָה, כְּתִיב: ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר. אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה, גָּמָל הוּא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דַּאֲסִיר, הָא
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: With regard to the halakha of firstborn status, it is written: “But the firstborn of an ox” (Numbers 18:17), which indicates that it does not have firstborn status unless it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox. If its head and most of its body do not resemble an ox, it does not have firstborn status according to Rabbi Shimon. But with regard to consumption, where Rabbi Shimon holds a camel born to a kosher animal is forbidden, perhaps it is only an ordinary-looking camel that the Merciful One states is forbidden, but if
קלאוד על הדף:
The distinction is drawn from the sources. Firstborn status rests on אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר, which demands that the animal be an ox and its firstborn an ox, plausibly requiring full resemblance; but the eating prohibition rests on the word גָּמָל, and the Torah may have forbidden only a recognisable camel, leaving a partial one permitted. The daf ends mid-sentence on that הָא, with the completion on 7a.
Key Terms:
- אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר = but the firstborn of an ox (Bamidbar 18:17)
- גָּמָל הוּא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דַּאֲסִיר = it is a camel that the Merciful One declared forbidden