Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Tana learns from the Pasuk "Kol Mikn'cha Tizachar (Klal) Peter Shor va'Seh u'Feter Chamor (P'rat) - that the Din of Pidyon Peter Chamor does not pertain to other Tamei animals (which Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learned from the repetition of "Peter Chamor").

(b) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's argument that ...

1. ... the word "u'Feter" interrupts the sequence (since as it could have relied on the first "Peter"), preventing "Chamor" from being part of the K'lal - by pointing out that the Torah adds the 'Vav' in "u'Peter" in order to include it.
2. ... the Torah should then have omitted both the 'Vav' and "Peter" - that it was necessary to insert "Peter", in order to differentiate between Kedushas ha'Guf and Kedushas Damim.

(a) We ask whether, if a cow gave birth to a firstborn that resembles a donkey, one or two Simanim of a cow will suffice to render it subject to the Bechorah. Assuming that it will not - it will require the majority of Simanim of its mother in order to be Chayav Bechorah.

(b) The reason that it might not, even though in the case of a sheep that gave birth to a firstborn goat it does is - because a. the baby resembles a Beheimah Temei'ah, and b. it is a species which is only Kadosh Kedushas Damim (as opposed to the latter, where the baby resembles a species of Beheimah Tehorah and one which is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, like its mother).

(c) Assuming that in the previous case, it is subject to the Bechorah, a donkey that gave birth to a horse, which had only one or two Simanim of a donkey, might not - because, unlike the former, the latter baby resembles a species that is not subject to the Bechorah.

(d) And assuming that in the latter case it is also subject to the Bechorah, a cow that gave birth to a horse might not be subject to the Bechorah - because unlike the former, where the baby resembles its mother in that it has the form a Beheimah Temei'ah, the latter baby differs from its mother in that regard.

(e) In spite of all the differences, one or two Simanim might suffice even in the last case - because Simanim is totally reliable (whereas up to now, we maintained that they are not).

(a) The only one of the three above She'eilos that we can prove from the Beraisa which renders a Bechor, a Beheimah Tehorah that gave birth to a Beheimah Temei'ah which had one or two Simanim of the mother is - the first one (a cow that gave birth to a firstborn that resembles a donkey, since we have no proof that Beheimah Temei'ah means anything more than that).

(b) Another Beraisa exempts a cow that gave birth to a donkey and a donkey that gave birth to a horse from the Bechorah, but adds that if the baby has one or two Simanim of the mother, it is Chayav. The problem with saying that the latter ruling pertains exclusively to the first case and not the second is - that there then appears to be no reason to mention it, because if a cow that gave birth to a donkey (where both are subject to the Bechorah) is Patur, then a donkey that gave birth to a horse (where the baby is not subject to the Bechorah) certainly ought to be.

(c) A good reason to have nevertheless thought that a donkey that gave birth to a horse should be subject to the Bechorah more than a cow that gave birth to a donkey is - the fact that both animals neither possess horns nor do they have hooves that are completely cloven.

(a) The problem with the fact that, after teaching us that one is permitted to eat a donkey that is born to a cow, but not vice-versa, the Mishnah adds 'she'ha'Yotzei min ha'Tamei, Tamei ... ' is - that seeing as it does come to teach us anything new (in which case the Tana would have introduced it with 'Zeh ha'K'lal'), why does the Tana mention it?

(b) And we answer - that he does so as a Si'man, that we should remember go after the mother and not after the animal itself.

(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ach es Zeh Lo Tochlu *mi*'Ma'alei ha'Geirah u'*mi*'Mafrisei ha'Parsah" - that sometimes an animal is forbidden even though it chews its cud and has cloven hooves (i.e. when its mother is a Beheimah Temei'ah).
2. ... "Gamal, Tamei *Hu*" - that a camel is only Tamei in a regular case (where its mother is a camel too), but not where its mother is a Beheimah Tehorah.

(d) Rebbi Shimon learns from the fact that the Torah repeats the Isur of Gamal in Re'ei - that a camel whose mother is a Beheimah Tehorah is forbidden as well as one whose mother is a camel.

5)

(a) The Rabbanan learn from the two "Gamals" - that not only is the actual camel forbidden - but so is its milk.

(b) They disagree with Rebbi Shimon, who learns the prohibition of milk from "*es* ha'Gamal" - because they do not Darshen all the "es's in the Torah.

(c) The Rabbanan hold like Rebbi Shimon ha'Amsuni, who did not know whom to include when he arrived at the Pasuk in Re'ei "*es* Hashem Elokecha Tiyra". When his Talmidim asked him what would happen to all the 'es's' that he had Darshened up to that point, he replied that (that was not his business, because) - just as he would receive reward for all the D'rashos that he made, so too, would he now receive reward for having retracted.

(d) Rebbi Akiva however, Darshened "es Hashem Elokecha Tiyra" - to include Talmidei-Chachamim, whom one is obligated to respect no less than Hashem Himself.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Eileh *ha*'Temei'im Lachem be'Chol ha'Sharetz" - that the juice, the gravy and the bits of meat and vegetables at the bottom of the pot non-Kasher meat or fish are forbidden, just like the fish and meat itself.

(b) This would not automatically incorporate the milk of Temei'im (which both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon would agree would be permitted, were it not for their respective Pesukim forbidding it) - because milk even of Kasher species is anyway a Chidush, as we shall now see.

(c) Assuming that the reason that a woman who gives birth does not see blood for twenty-four months, because the blood of Nidus turns into milk - the Chidush is that we nevertheless permit it in the case of a Beheimah Tehorah, in which case, we may as well permit that of a Beheimah Temei'ah.

(d) The alternative way of explaining her not seeing blood, is on account of the affect of the birth on her blood-producing limbs - that cease to function for two years.

(e) In that, the Chidush in permitting the milk of a Beheimah Tehorah would be - that any other limb of a live animal is Asur, yet the Torah permits its milk.

(a) The source of the Heter to drink milk cannot be ...

1. ... the Torah's prohibition of Basar be'Chalav (implying that milk alone is permitted) - because perhaps the Isur and the Heter in this Pasuk pertain to deriving benefit from it, and not to eating it.
2. ... the same prohibition of Basar be'Chalav, according to Rebbi Shimon, who permits deriving benefit from them - becuase then the Pasuk might be referring to the Isur and Heter of cooking them.
3. ... the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) "Tizbach ... Basar", 've'Lo Chalav' (implying that Chulin milk is permitted) - because here too, who says that the Pasuk is talking about the Isur and Heter Achilah, and not just that of Hana'ah.
4. ... the Pasuk in Mishlei "ve'Si Chalav Izim le'Lachmecha le'Lechem Beisecha ... " - since this Pasuk may well be referring to to doing business with it.

(b) We nevertheless cite the source for the Heter as the Pasuk in Shmuel, where Yishai sends his son David to the battlefront with cheese for his brothers. Neither can we refute this proof in the same way as we rejected the previous proof (from the Pasuk in Mishlei) - because the battlefront is not a place where one generally does business (To whom would one sell it anyway? To the enemy whom one about to kill)

(c) The second source that we cite from the Pasuk in Sh'mos is - "Eretz Zavas Chalav u'Devash" (and the Torah would be unlikely to praise Eretz Yisrael, through something that is forbidden to eat.

(d) And our final source is - the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Lechu Lachmu be'Lachmi, u'Lechu Shivru be'Lo Kesef ... Yayin ve'Chalav" (which is clearly talking about eating and drinking, and not about doing business with it.

(a) The problem regarding the Torah's repetition of "Shafan, Arneves and Chazir" is - what do we Darshen from there (like we do from the repetition of Gamal)?

(b) To solve this problem, we cite a Beraisa. which explains the Torah only repeats all ...

1. ... the animals - for the sake of inserting the Sheu'ah (an animal with two backs and to spinal cords) in the Parshah of the forbidden animals, even though it did not appear in Shemini.
2. ... the birds - to be able to insert the Ra'ah, which does not appear under that name in Shemini.

(c) We nevertheless see fit to explain the repetition of "Gamal" - because whenever it is possible to Darshen, we do.