## Bekhorot Daf 5b

###### Bekhorot 5b:1
[Bekhorot 5b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:1)

וְהָא מָאתַן וְאַרְבְּעִין הָוְיָין! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ מָנֶה כָּפוּל הָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** each shekel consists of four dinars, and therefore sixty shekels **is** equivalent to **two hundred and forty** dinars, not a *maneh*, which is generally worth one hundred dinars. **Rather, learn from** this verse a number of matters: First, learn that the ***maneh* of the Sanctuary** to which Ezekiel was referring **was a *maneh*** that was **double** its standard value. Therefore, it was worth fifty shekels, which is equivalent to two hundred dinars.


###### Bekhorot 5b:2
[Bekhorot 5b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:2)

וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַמִּדּוֹת, וְאֵין מוֹסִיפִין יָתֵר עַל שְׁתוּת, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁתוּתָא מִלְּבַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, as Ezekiel stated that the *maneh* will be sixty dinars, not fifty, **learn from it** that a community may **increase measures, but they may not increase** them by **more than one-sixth. And learn from it** that **the one-sixth** is calculated **from the outside,** i.e., it is one-sixth of the final sum, which is one-fifth of the previous sum. Therefore, adding one-fifth of the original fifty shekels, which is ten shekels, to the total equals sixty shekels. It is from this sum that the one-sixth from the outside, ten shekels, is calculated.


###### Bekhorot 5b:3
[Bekhorot 5b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּבֵית מוֹתְבָא רַבָּא, מָה נִשְׁתַּנּוּ פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים מִפִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים? אָמַר לִי: גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא, וְעוֹד שֶׁסִּיְּיעוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאָתָם מִמִּצְרַיִם, שֶׁאֵין לָךְ כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ עִמּוֹ תִּשְׁעִים חֲמוֹרִים לוּבִים טְעוּנִים מִכַּסְפָּהּ וּזְהָבָהּ שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discussing the redemption of firstborn donkeys: **Rabbi Ḥanina said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer in the great study hall:** In **what** way **are firstborn donkeys different from firstborn horses and camels,** i.e., other non-kosher animals, which are not redeemed? Rabbi Eliezer **said to me:** It **is a Torah edict. And furthermore,** donkeys **assisted the Jewish people at the time of their exodus from Egypt, as there was not one** member **of the Jewish people that did not have ninety Nubian donkeys with him,** which were considered to be of superior quality, **laden with the silver and gold of the Egyptians.**


###### Bekhorot 5b:4
[Bekhorot 5b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:4)

וְעוֹד שְׁאִלְתִּיו: מַאי לְשׁוֹן ״רְפִידִים״? וְאָמַר לִי: רְפִידִים שְׁמָהּ. כְּתַנָּאֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: רְפִידִים שְׁמָהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: שֶׁרִיפּוּ עַצְמָן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא הִפְנוּ אָבוֹת אֶל בָּנִים מֵרִפְיוֹן יָדָיִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina continues: **And furthermore, I** also **asked** Rabbi Eliezer: **What** is the meaning of **the term: “Rephidim,”** in the verse: “Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim” (Exodus 17:8)? **And he said to me** that **Rephidim** was **its name,** i.e., of the location. The Gemara comments that this answer is **like** one side of a dispute between ***tanna’im*: Rabbi Eliezer says** that **its** actual **name** was **Rephidim. Rabbi Yehoshua says:** This moniker is an allusion to the fact **that** the Jewish people **became lax [*rippu*] with regard to the statements of the Torah** in Rephidim, **and so it says: “The fathers look not back to their children because of feebleness [*rifyon*] of hands”** (Jeremiah 47:3).


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

וְעוֹד שְׁאִלְתִּיו: מַאי לְשׁוֹן ״שִׁטִּים״? וְאָמַר לִי: שִׁטִּים שְׁמָהּ. כְּתַנָּאֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שִׁטִּים שְׁמָהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: שֶׁנִּתְעַסְקוּ בְּדִבְרֵי שְׁטוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, I** also **asked him** the following question: **What** is the meaning of **the term “Shittim”** in the verse: “And Israel dwelled in Shittim” (Numbers 25:1)? **And he said to me** that **Shittim** was **its name.** The Gemara comments that this answer is **like** one side of a dispute between ***tanna’im*: Rabbi Eliezer says: Shittim** is **the** actual **name of** the place. **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** This moniker is an allusion to the fact **that they were engaged in matters of nonsense [*shetut*],** i.e., prostitution and idol worship (see Numbers, chapter 25).


###### Bekhorot 5b:6
[Bekhorot 5b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:6)

״וַתִּקְרֶאןָ לָעָם לְזִבְחֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶן״ — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: עֲרוּמּוֹת פָּגְעוּ בָּהֶן, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ כּוּלָּן בַּעֲלֵי קְרָיִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The same *tanna’im* also dispute the meaning of another verse discussing that incident. With regard to the verse: **“And they called [*vatikrena*] the people to the offerings of their gods”** (Numbers 25:2), **Rabbi Eliezer says: Naked women encountered them,** which is how they were convinced to engage in idol worship. **Rabbi Yehoshua says that they all became those who experienced seminal emissions [*kerayyin*]** resulting from the lust they experienced.


###### Bekhorot 5b:7
[Bekhorot 5b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין חֲמוֹר, וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין סוּס — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַיּוֹלֵד חֲמוֹר וְהַנּוֹלָד חֲמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts and a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts are exempt from** their offspring being counted **a firstborn, as it is stated:** “And every **firstborn of a donkey** you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 13:13); “and the **firstborn of a donkey** you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:20). The Torah states this *halakha* **twice,** indicating that one is not obligated **unless** both **the birth mother is a donkey and the** animal **born is a donkey.**


###### Bekhorot 5b:8
[Bekhorot 5b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:8)

וּמַה הֵם בַּאֲכִילָה? בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, וּטְמֵאָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה — אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא — טָמֵא, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּהוֹר — טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what** is the halakhic status of offspring that are unlike the mother animal **with regard to** their **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.**


###### Bekhorot 5b:9
[Bekhorot 5b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:9)

**גְּמָ׳** תְּנַן הָתָם: רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְעֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל — פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the issue of a kosher animal that gave birth to a donkey of sorts and its firstborn status, the Gemara comments: **We learned** in a mishna **there** (16b): **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 **obligated,** i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status.


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

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״ — שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר, ״בְּכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב״ — שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא כֶּשֶׂב וּבְכוֹרוֹ כֶּשֶׂב, ״בְּכוֹר עֵז״ — שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא עֵז וּבְכוֹרוֹ עֵז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rav Yehuda says** they are derived from a verse, **as the verse states** with regard to a firstborn kosher animal: **“But the firstborn of an ox,** or the firstborn of a lamb, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem, they are holy” (Numbers 18:17). The word firstborn seems superfluous in this verse, as it is clear from the context that it is referring to a firstborn. Therefore, the phrase “the firstborn of an ox” is interpreted as teaching **that it must be an ox and its firstborn** must be **an ox** in order for firstborn status to apply. Likewise, the phrase **“the firstborn of a lamb”** teaches **that it must be a lamb and its firstborn a lamb,** and not another animal. Similarly, the phrase **“the firstborn of a goat”** teaches **that it must be a goat and its firstborn a goat.**


###### Bekhorot 5b:11
[Bekhorot 5b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:11)

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״ — חִלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that **even** if the offspring **has some of the characteristics** of the mother it should still be exempt, as it does not entirely resemble the mother. Therefore, **the verse states: “But,”** indicating that the Torah **makes a distinction** with regard to this principle, in that it does not apply when the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother; and the offspring therefore does have firstborn status.


###### Bekhorot 5b:12
[Bekhorot 5b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:12)

וְהָא תַּנָּא ״פֶּטֶר״ ״פֶּטֶר״ קָנָסֵיב לַהּ, לְפָרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t the *tanna*** of the mishna here **cite** the verses **“firstborn,” “firstborn,”** from Exodus (13:13, 34:20), **with regard to** the case of **a cow** that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, as teaching that the offspring has no firstborn status? Why, then, does Rav Yehuda resort to interpreting a different verse?


###### Bekhorot 5b:13
[Bekhorot 5b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:13)

הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר, ״בְּכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא כֶּשֶׂב וּבְכוֹרוֹ כֶּשֶׂב, ״אוֹ בְכוֹר עֵז״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא עֵז וּבְכוֹרוֹ עֵז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that this interpretation was not suggested originally by Rav Yehuda; rather, **he says** it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says** the phrase **“but the firstborn of an ox”** indicates that the offspring does not have firstborn status **unless it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox.** The phrase **“the firstborn of a lamb”** indicates that the offspring does not have firstborn status **unless it is a lamb and its firstborn is a lamb.** Likewise, the phrase **“or the firstborn of a goat”** indicates that the offspring does not have firstborn status **unless it is a goat and its firstborn is a goat.**


###### Bekhorot 5b:14
[Bekhorot 5b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:14)

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״ — חִלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that **even** if the offspring **has some of the characteristics** of the mother this principle that it must be entirely like the mother applies, and it does not have firstborn status. Therefore, **the verse states: “But,”** indicating that the Torah **makes a distinction** with regard to this principle, in that it does not apply when the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother; and the offspring therefore does have firstborn status.


###### Bekhorot 5b:15
[Bekhorot 5b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:15)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? תַּנָּא דִידַן סָבַר: גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** matter **do** the *tanna* of the mishna and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili **disagree,** and therefore derive this *halakha* from different verses? The Gemara answers: **The *tanna* of our** mishna **holds** that **the Merciful One revealed** in the Torah that a firstborn donkey, which is subject **to sanctity** that inheres in its **value** in that a lamb is given to the priest to redeem it, does not have firstborn status unless it resembles its mother, **and the same is true with regard to** a kosher firstborn animal, which has **inherent sanctity** and is sacrificed on the altar.


###### Bekhorot 5b:16
[Bekhorot 5b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:16)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְגָמַר קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים מִקְּדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei** HaGelili **holds** that **the Merciful One revealed** that a kosher firstborn animal, which is subject **to inherent sanctity,** does not have firstborn status unless it resembles its mother, **and the same is true with regard to** a donkey, which has **sanctity** that inheres in its **value, and he derives** the *halakha* of **sanctity** that inheres in its **value from** the *halakha* of **inherent sanctity.**


###### Bekhorot 5b:17
[Bekhorot 5b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:17)

וְתַנָּא דִידַן, הַאי ״בְּכוֹר״ ״בְּכוֹר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **the *tanna* of our** mishna, **what does he do with this** repetition of the word: **“Firstborn,” “firstborn,”** employed both with regard to an ox and with regard to a lamb and goat, from which Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: He **requires it to** teach the *halakha* of burning the sacrificial portions of the animal on the altar, which is mentioned in this verse: “And you shall make their fat burn” (Numbers 18:17), **in accordance with** the interpretation **of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.**


###### Bekhorot 5b:18
[Bekhorot 5b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:18)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרוּ אֵימוּרִין בִּבְכוֹר שׁוֹר, אֵימוּרִין בִּבְכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב, אֵימוּרִין בִּבְכוֹר עֵז?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Why were sacrificial portions stated with regard to a firstborn ox,** and the **sacrificial portions** are mentioned again **with regard to a firstborn lamb,** and the **sacrificial portions** are mentioned again **with regard to a firstborn goat?**


###### Bekhorot 5b:19
[Bekhorot 5b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:19)

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּבְכוֹר שׁוֹר — שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בִּנְסָכִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is necessary, as had the Merciful One written** the *halakha* of burning the sacrificial portions on the altar only **with regard to a firstborn ox,** one might have said only an ox’s sacrificial portions are burned, **as** an ox offering **has more** wine **libations** than a lamb or a goat. Therefore, perhaps the additional obligation of burning the sacrificial portions applies only to an ox.


###### Bekhorot 5b:20
[Bekhorot 5b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:20)

כֶּשֶׂב — שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בְּאַלְיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, if this *halakha* had been written only with regard to **a lamb,** one might have thought only a lamb’s portions are burned, **as it has more** sacrificial portions than other animals because its **tail** is also included.


###### Bekhorot 5b:21
[Bekhorot 5b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:21)

בְּעֵז — שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה אֵצֶל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, if it had been written only **with regard to a goat,** one might have thought the burning of the portions applies only in that case, **as it has an increased** applicability **with regard to** the case of **an individual** guilty of **idol worship,** who brings a goat as a sin offering; unlike one who commits other sins unwittingly, for which a lamb may be brought.


###### Bekhorot 5b:22
[Bekhorot 5b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:22)

חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: The *halakha* with regard to **one** of these cases, i.e., an ox, lamb, or goat offering, evidently **cannot be derived from one** of the others. Why not **derive one** of them **from** the other **two?**


###### Bekhorot 5b:23
[Bekhorot 5b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:23)

בְּהֵי לָא לִיכְתּוֹב? לָא לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּשׁוֹר, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ — מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבּוּ אֵצֶל פְּסָחִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **With regard to which** case **shall** the Torah **not write** this *halakha*? If **the Merciful One shall not write** it **with regard to an ox, and** one should **derive** it **from these** other cases, that derivation is not valid. **What** is notable **about these** offerings, i.e., a lamb and a goat? They are notable in **that they have an increased** applicability **with regard to the Paschal offering,** for which a lamb or a goat is suitable but not an ox.


###### Bekhorot 5b:24
[Bekhorot 5b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:24)

לָא לִכְתּוֹב בְּכֶשֶׂב, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ — מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבּוּ אֵצֶל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּצִיבּוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the Merciful One **should not write** this *halakha* **with regard to a lamb, and** one should **derive** it **from these** cases of an ox and a goat, that derivation is not valid either. **What** is notable **about these** offerings, i.e., an ox and a goat? They are notable in **that they have an increased** applicability **with regard to** a case where the entire Jewish **community** is guilty of unwitting **idol worship,** as in such a case the community brings an ox as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:24), but not a lamb.


###### Bekhorot 5b:25
[Bekhorot 5b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:25)

לָא נִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּעֵז, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ — מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד רִבּוּי אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ! הִילְכָּךְ צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the Merciful One shall not write** the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions **with regard to a goat, and** one should **derive** it **from these** cases of an ox and a lamb, that derivation is not valid either. **What** is notable **about these** offerings, namely, an ox and a lamb? They are notable in **that they have an element of increase with regard to the altar,** as the libations for an ox are larger than those for a goat; and also the tail of a lamb, but not that of a goat, is a sacrificial portion. The Gemara concludes: **Therefore,** all three cases **are necessary.**


###### Bekhorot 5b:26
[Bekhorot 5b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:26)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, אִם כֵּן לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר כֶּשֶׂב וְעֵז״, ״בְּכוֹר״ ״בְּכוֹר״ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili** interpret this verse as teaching that a firstborn must resemble its mother in order to have firstborn status? Isn’t the verse necessary to teach the *halakha* of burning the sacrificial portions upon the altar? The Gemara answers: **If** it is **so** that the verse teaches only that *halakha*, **let the verse write: But a firstborn ox, lamb, or goat. Why do I** need the word **“firstborn”** to be repeated with regard to a lamb, and the word **“firstborn”** to be repeated again with regard to a goat? **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** here that the mother is not subject to having its offspring counted as a firstborn **unless** it resembles its mother, e.g., the mother **is an ox and its firstborn is an ox?**


###### Bekhorot 5b:27
[Bekhorot 5b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:27)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הַאי ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, what does he do with this** phrase: **“Firstborn of a donkey,” “firstborn of a donkey,”** mentioned twice in Exodus, from which the *tanna* of the mishna derives that the offspring must resemble its mother in order to have firstborn status?


###### Bekhorot 5b:28
[Bekhorot 5b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:28)

מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה אֶת בְּכוֹר הָאָדָם וְאֵת בְּכוֹר הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה תִּפְדֶּה״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ — פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **he requires** that phrase **for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says** that **since it is stated: “Yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem”** (Numbers 18:15), **I** would **derive** that **even firstborn horses and camels** must be redeemed, as they too are non-kosher animals. Therefore, **the verse states: “Firstborn of a donkey,”** which indicates **I said to you** that firstborn status applies to **a firstborn donkey, but not** to **firstborn horses or camels.**


###### Bekhorot 5b:29
[Bekhorot 5b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/5b:29)

וַעֲדַיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹר בְּשֶׂה, פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים בְּכׇל דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And still I can say** that the phrase “firstborn of a donkey” merely indicates that **firstborn donkeys** alone are redeemed **by means of a lamb,** while **firstborn horses and camels** are redeemed **by means of any** other **item.**