## Bekhorot Daf 6a

###### Bekhorot 6a:1
[Bekhorot 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:1)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים — פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 6a:2
[Bekhorot 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:3
[Bekhorot 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:3)

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ אַחֲרִינָא, פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים וְלֹא פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים, וְאֵימָא: מַעֲטִינְהוּ מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעוֹלָם בְּכׇל דָּבָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 6a:4
[Bekhorot 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


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

וְתַנָּא דִידַן, לְמַעוֹטֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים, מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:7
[Bekhorot 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:7)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי? ״פֶּטֶר״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן, וְרַבָּנַן? וָי״ו הֲדַר עָרְבֵיהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:8
[Bekhorot 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:8)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי? לָא לִכְתּוֹב לָא וָי״ו וְלָא ״פֶּטֶר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:9
[Bekhorot 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:9)

וְרַבָּנַן? אַיְּידֵי דְּהָא קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְהָא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף — פָּסֵיק לְהוּ וַהֲדַר עָרֵיב לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.”


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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין חֲמוֹר, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*?


###### Bekhorot 6a:11
[Bekhorot 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:11)

עֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל, וְרָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, דְּכִי יֵשׁ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה, דְּהָא טְהוֹרָה וְהָא טְהוֹרָה, הָא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְהָא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 6a:12
[Bekhorot 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:12)

הָכָא, דְּהָא טְמֵאָה וְהָא טְהוֹרָה, הָא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְהָא קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים — לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּנֵי מִיקְדָּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה — קָדוֹשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:13
[Bekhorot 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:13)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:14
[Bekhorot 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:14)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:15
[Bekhorot 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:15)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:16
[Bekhorot 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:16)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:17
[Bekhorot 6a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:17)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bekhorot 6a:18
[Bekhorot 6a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:18)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ: הָתָם הוּא דְּיֵשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם, וְהָא אֵין לָהּ קַרְנַיִם; הָא פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ סְדוּקוֹת, וְהָא פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ קְלוּטוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*].**


###### Bekhorot 6a:19
[Bekhorot 6a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:19)

אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אֵין לָהּ קַרְנַיִם, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ קְלוּטוֹת, אֵימָא חֲמוֹר אָדוֹם בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 6a:20
[Bekhorot 6a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:20)

וּמָה הֵן בַּאֲכִילָה כּוּ׳. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי ״שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Bekhorot 6a:21
[Bekhorot 6a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:21)

סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, דְּלָא תִּיחַלַּף לָךְ, דְּלָא תֵּימָא: זִיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ, וְהַאי טָהוֹר מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, וְהַאי טָמֵא מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, אֶלָּא זִיל בָּתַר אִימֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 6a:22
[Bekhorot 6a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/6a:22)

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״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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”?**