## Bekhorot Daf 10a

###### Bekhorot 10a:1
[Bekhorot 10a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:1)

אִי הָכִי, בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב מַאי אִירְיָא דְּהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר? תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּאוֹכֶל שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** if this is indeed Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, **why,** then, does he **specifically** state that **meat** cooked **in milk** is susceptible to impurity **because it had a period of susceptibility** to contracting impurity before they were cooked together? **Derive** this *halakha* from the fact **that it is food that you can feed to others,** as Rabbi Shimon maintains that deriving benefit from meat and milk cooked together is not prohibited.


###### Bekhorot 10a:2
[Bekhorot 10a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:2)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאַנְשֵׁי קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיוּן לִי״, מָה לְהַלָּן אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַף כָּאן אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:** With regard to **meat** cooked **in milk, eating** it **is forbidden and** deriving **benefit** from it is permitted, **as it is stated: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk”** (Deuteronomy 14:21). **And elsewhere** the verse **states: “And you shall be holy men to Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by animals in the field”** (Exodus 22:30). **Just as there,** with regard to an animal torn by animals, which is forbidden as a *tereifa*, i.e., an animal possessing a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, **eating** it **is forbidden but** deriving **benefit** from it is permitted, **so too here,** with regard to meat cooked in milk, where the verse mentions being holy just as the other verse did, **eating** it **is forbidden but** deriving **benefit** from it is permitted.


###### Bekhorot 10a:3
[Bekhorot 10a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:3)

חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא — דְּאוֹכֶל שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים הוּא, וְעוֹד — לְדִידֵיהּ נָמֵי הֲרֵי הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* that cites Rabbi Shimon’s opinion **states one** reason why meat cooked in milk is susceptible to impurity **and** adds **another. One** reason is **because** it **is food that you can feed to others.** Therefore, it is called food for the purpose of being susceptible to impurity. **And another** reason is because **even for him,** i.e., a Jew, although eating the milk and meat is currently prohibited, **it had a time** when it was **fit** for consumption, i.e., before they were cooked together, and therefore they remain susceptible to impurity.


###### Bekhorot 10a:4
[Bekhorot 10a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:4)

וְאִם אִיתָא דִּלְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה שָׁרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לִיתְנֵי: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֶׁמִּטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The opinion of Rabbi Shimon that all items from which deriving benefit is prohibited are not susceptible to the impurity of food except for meat cooked in milk has been elucidated. Rava now proceeds to explain his proof that even according to Rabbi Shimon, deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey after the breaking of its neck is forbidden: **And if it is so, that after breaking the neck** of the firstborn donkey **Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted** for one to derive benefit from it, **let** the *tanna* **teach: And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to a firstborn donkey and meat** cooked **in milk, that they are susceptible to the impurity of food.** Since a firstborn donkey is not listed as an exception, Rabbi Shimon must hold that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it after its neck is broken, and it is therefore not susceptible to impurity.


###### Bekhorot 10a:5
[Bekhorot 10a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:5)

אִי דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ — הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דְּלָא חַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If** it is a case **where** the one who broke the neck of the donkey **intended** at the time that people would eat from **it, so too** it would be susceptible to the impurity of food according to Rabbi Shimon, as it is permitted to derive benefit from it. **Here we are dealing with** a case **where he did not intend** for **it** to be eaten, as even gentiles do not usually consume the meat of a donkey, and it therefore is not considered food.


###### Bekhorot 10a:6
[Bekhorot 10a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:6)

וְטַעְמָא מַאי מְטַמְּאִי רַבָּנַן? אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הוֹאִיל וְאִיסּוּרוֹ חִישּׁוּבוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if he did not intend for anyone to eat it, **what is the reason the Rabbis deem** the flesh **susceptible to** the **impurity** of food? **The Sages said before Rav Sheshet:** It is susceptible to the impurity of food **because the prohibition** to eat it serves as **intent** to treat **it** as food, i.e., the very fact that it is forbidden renders it significant enough to be deemed a food.


###### Bekhorot 10a:7
[Bekhorot 10a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:7)

וּלְרַבָּנַן מִי אָמַר הוֹאִיל וְאִיסּוּרוֹ חִישּׁוּבוֹ? וְהָא תְּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים אָמְרוּ בְּנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר, וְזוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן — צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to the Rabbis, did** they actually **say** that an item is susceptible to the impurity of food **since its prohibition** serves as **its intent? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Teharot* 1:1) that the Sages **stated thirteen matters concerning the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, and this is one of them: It requires** explicit **intent** that it will be eaten in order to become susceptible to the impurity of food, as most gentiles are unaccustomed to eating it, **but it does not require** contact with liquid to be **rendered** susceptible to ritual impurity.


###### Bekhorot 10a:8
[Bekhorot 10a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:8)

וְאִי אִיסּוּרוֹ חִישּׁוּבוֹ, לְמָה לִּי מַחְשָׁבָה? הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the logic of: **Its prohibition** serves as **its intent,** is accepted, **why do I** need the **intent** here, as an unslaughtered carcass is forbidden to be eaten? The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who does not hold that its prohibition serves as its intent.


###### Bekhorot 10a:9
[Bekhorot 10a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר וְהַחֵלֶב בַּכְּפָרִים — צְרִיכִים מַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵינָם צְרִיכִים הֶכְשֵׁר. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אִיסּוּרוֹ חִישּׁוּבוֹ, לְמָה לִּי מַחְשָׁבָה? הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from another mishna (*Okatzin* 3:3): **A carcass of a non-kosher animal,** such as a horse or donkey, found **in any location; or an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird or the fat** of a kosher animal found **in the villages,** where the local gentiles are unaccustomed to eating it, all **require intent** to consume it in order to become susceptible to the impurity of food, **but they do not require** being **rendered** susceptible to impurity by coming in contact with liquid. **And if you say its prohibition** serves as **its intent, why do I** need **intent?** All these foods are forbidden for consumption by a Jew. The Gemara responds: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Bekhorot 10a:10
[Bekhorot 10a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְנִבְלַת עוֹף הַטָּהוֹר וְהַחֵלֶב בַּשְּׁוָוקִים — אֵינָן צְרִיכִין מַחְשָׁבָה וְלֹא הֶכְשֵׁר. הָא טְמֵאָה בָּעֲיָא מַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the continuation of the same mishna: **An unslaughtered carcass of a kosher animal** found **in any location, or the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird** found in any location, **or the fat** of a kosher animal found **in the marketplaces,** i.e., in a large city that has marketplaces, where some people do eat it, **do not require intent** for consumption in order to be regarded as subject to impurity, as they are presumed to be food for gentiles; **nor** do they require contact with liquid in order for them to be **rendered** susceptible to impurity. The Gemara infers that only the carcass of a kosher animal does not require intent, **but** the carcass of **a non-kosher** animal **requires intent.** If its prohibition serves as its intent, why does it require intent for consumption?


###### Bekhorot 10a:11
[Bekhorot 10a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא — הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָוֵי, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף הַגָּמָל וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת וְהַשָּׁפָן וְהַחֲזִיר אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לֹא מַחְשָׁבָה וְלֹא הֶכְשֵׁר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה טַעַם? הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן סִימָנֵי טׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this, it is** also in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon;** one could respond that **since the latter clause is** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** it follows that **the former clause,** which is written without attribution, **is not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. As the latter clause teaches: Rabbi Shimon says even** the meat of **the camel, and the hare, and the rock badger, and the pig do not require intent or** contact with liquid to be **rendered** susceptible to impurity. **And Rabbi Shimon said: What** is the **reason?** The reason is **that they have** some **characteristics of kosher** animals (see Leviticus 11:4–7). If so, the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis cannot be based on whether the prohibition of the animal serves as its intent.


###### Bekhorot 10a:12
[Bekhorot 10a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10a:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא אָמְרִינַן אִיסּוּרוֹ חִישּׁוּבוֹ, וְאִי דְּעַרְפֵיהּ מִיעְרָף — הָכִי נָמֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says: Everyone,** including the Rabbis, agrees that **we do not say its prohibition** serves as **its intent. And** with regard to a firstborn donkey, **if** one **broke its neck, so too,** the Rabbis hold that it is not susceptible to the impurity of food, since the one who broke its neck did not intend for it to be eaten.