Question: How does R. Yosi expound the two times it says "Peter Chamor"?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yosi) Suggestion: "Ach Pado Sifdeh Es Bechor ha'Adam v'Es Bechor ha'Behemah ha'Teme'ah Tifdeh" - perhaps we redeem even firstborn horses and camels!

Rejection: We redeem "Peter Chamor", but not firstborn horses and camels.

Suggestion: Perhaps Kedushas Bechor applies to horses and camels, and the verse teaches that only a Peter Chamor can be redeemed through a Seh!

Rejection: The second "Peter Chamor" excludes other Tamei animals from any Kedushas Bechor.

Question (Rav Achai): Had the Torah written it only once, one might have thought that Peter Chamor is a matter that was bi'Chlal (in the general category of Tamei animals) and it received a special law (Kedushas Bechor). The law applies to the entire Klal, including redemption with a Seh;

Therefore, the second "Peter Chamor" should exclude other Teme'im from redemption with a Seh, but not from Kedushas Bechor!

Answer: If so, it would have sufficed to repeat "Chamor Tifdeh b'Seh" without repeating "Peter";

The extra "Peter" teaches that Kedushas Bechor does not apply to horses and camels.

Question: What is our Tana's source to exclude them?

Answer (Rav Papa): "V'Chol Miknecha Tizachar" is a Klal (general term). "Shor v'Seh v'Chamor" are Peratim (specific terms). From a Klal u'Ferat we only learn the Peratim.

R. Yosi argues. It says "u'Peter" in between "Shor v'Seh" and "Chamor". This separates (they are not part of the Klal u'Ferat).

Chachamim: The "Vav" ("u'Peter") connects it.

R. Yosi: If so, the Torah should not have written "Peter" nor the "Vav"!

Chachamim: The Torah says "Peter" to separate between Kedushas ha'Guf (something that it itself is used for Avodah) and Kedushas Damim (only its value is Kodesh). The "Vav" connects for the sake of the Klal u'Frat.

Question #1: If a cow gave birth to a donkey, and it resembles its mother in some ways, what is the law?

If a sheep born to a goat (or vice-versa) resembles its mother in some ways, it has Kedushas Bechor because the child and mother are both Tehorim and both (can) receive Kedushas ha'Guf. Here, the mother is Tahor and can receive Kedushas ha'Guf, but the child is Tamei and can receive only Kedushas Damim;

Or, since Kedushas Bechor applies to both mother and child, it becomes Kodesh!

Question #2: If (in Question #1) it becomes Kodesh, what is the law of a horse born to a donkey?

Kedushas Bechor does not apply to a horse. Surely it is not Kodesh;

Or, since it is Tamei like its mother, it is Kodesh!

Question #3: If (in Question #2) it becomes Kodesh, what is the law of a horse born to a cow?

Kedushas Bechor does not apply to a horse. Surely it is not Kodesh;

Or, resemblance is important! (It is always enough to cause Kedushas Bechor.)

Answer #1 (Beraisa): If a Tahor animal gave birth to a Tamei animal, it is exempt from Bechorah;

If it resembles its mother in some ways, Bechorah applies to it.

Suggestion: This applies even to a horse born to a cow (because resemblance is important. This answers all three questions.)

Partial rejection: No, it applies only to a donkey born to a cow. (The Beraisa resolves only Question #1.)

Answer #2 (Beraisa): If a cow gave birth to a donkey, or a donkey gave birth to a horse, it is exempt from Bechorah;

If it resembles its mother in some ways, Bechorah applies to it.

Suggestion: This applies to both cases. (This answers Questions 1 and 2.)

Rejection: No, it applies only to the first case.

Question: If so, why does it teach about a horse born to a donkey?

It is no Chidush that (without resemblance) it is exempt from Bechorah. Even a donkey born to a cow is exempt unless there is resemblance, even though Bechorah applies to both species!

Answer: No, it is a Chidush;

One might have thought that a donkey born to a cow is exempt because they are very different. A cow has horns and split hooves, but a donkey does not;

Neither donkeys nor horses have horns or split hooves. A horse is just a red donkey;

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah) Question: May one eat them?

Question: The Mishnah (permitted a Tamei born to a Tahor, and forbade a Tahor born to a Tamei, and then) says that what comes from Tamei is Tamei, and what comes from Tahor is Tahor. Why must it say this?

Answer: The Tana gives a way to remember the law, lest one switch the laws, and say that it depends on the child;

Rather, the Heter to eat depends on the mother.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): "Ach Es Zeh Lo Sochelu mi'Ma'alei ha'Gera umi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah" - there is an animal that chews the cud and has split hooves, yet one may not eat!

This is a Tahor animal born to a Tamei animal.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is a Tamei born to a Tahor!

Question: If so, how would we explain "mi'Ma'alei ha'Gera umi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah"?

Answer: It means 'do not eat a (Tamei) animal whose mother is Ma'aleh Gera and Mafris Parsah.'

Rejection: "Gamal Tamei Hu" - it is Tamei, but a Tamei born to a Tahor is Tahor.

R. Shimon says "Gamal" is written (in Parshas Shemini) and repeated (in Parshas Re'eh), to forbid a camel born to a camel, and a camel born to a cow.

Question: How do Chachamim expound "Gamal" and "Gamal"?

Answer: One forbids a camel itself, and the other forbids its milk.

Question: What is R. Shimon's source to forbid its milk?

Answer: He learns from "Es ha'Gamal."

Chachamim do not expound "Es."

(Beraisa): Shimon ha'Amsoni used to expound every "Es" in the Torah (to include something). When he came to "Es Hash-m Elokecha Sira," he found nothing to include (to be feared like Hash-m).

His Talmidim: If so, nor should you expound "Es" in other places!

R. Shimon: Indeed, I retract them all! Just like I will receive reward for what I expounded (at the time, I believed that it was true), I will be rewarded for retracting.

R. Akiva: "Es Hash-m Elokecha Sira" includes Talmidei Chachamim.

Question (Rav Acha): Chachamim learn (to forbid camel milk) from "Gamal... Gamal." R. Shimon learns from "Es ha'Gamal." If not, we would permit;

Why don't we learn from Sheratzim (that what comes from something forbidden is forbidden)?

(Beraisa): "Ha'Teme'im" forbids their brine, soup (the water in which they were cooked), and Kipah (spices and shredded meat that accumulate at the bottom of the pot).

Answer #1: We cannot learn from there;

(All blood is forbidden, even menstrual blood of Tahor animals.) In a nursing animal, (what normally comes out as) menstrual blood is converted into milk. It is a Chidush that (even Tahor) milk is permitted;

One might have thought that since a Chidush permits Tahor milk, also Tamei milk is permitted. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Question: This is like the opinion (R. Meir) that a nursing woman (or animal) does not (normally) have Dam Nidah because it turns to milk;

According to the opinion (R. Yosi) that it is because her limbs are perturbed by the birth, and do not return to normal until 24 months, how can we answer?

Answer: Normally, anything that comes from a living being is forbidden. Since the Torah permits milk, one might have thought that it permits even milk of Teme'im. Therefore, the verse is needed.

Question: What is the source that Tahor milk is permitted?

Answer #1: The Torah forbids Basar b'Chalav (meat and milk cooked together). This implies that milk by itself is permitted.

Rejection #1: Perhaps one may not drink milk, but one may benefit from it. Basar b'Chalav is Asur b'Hana'ah (one may not benefit from it)!

This is unlike R. Shimon, who permits Hana'ah from Basar b'Chalav.

Rejection #2: R. Shimon could forbid all milk, and explain that the verse of Basar b'Chalav is needed to require lashes for cooking them together.

Answer #2: Rather, regarding Pesulei ha'Mukdashim (blemished Korbanos) it says "Tizbach (slaughter)" but do not shear them. (You may eat their) "Basar," but not milk;

Inference: Chulin milk is permitted.

Rejection: Perhaps one may not drink Chulin milk, but one may benefit from it. Milk of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim is Asur b'Hana'ah!

Answer #3: We learn from "v'Dei Chalev Izim l'Lachmecha l'Lechem Beisecha v'Chayim l'Na'arosecha" (that one may subsist on milk)!

Rejection: Perhaps the verse teaches that one will sell the milk (to Nochrim)!

Answer #4: "(David brought) v'Es Aseres Charitzei he'Chalav" (to the leader of 1000 men in the war. Surely, it may be eaten!)

Question: Perhaps he brought it to him to sell!

Answer: In war, one does not sell food to the enemy!

Answer #5: Eretz Yisrael is called "Eretz Zavas Chalav u'Devash." It would not be praised for something forbidden to eat!

Answer #6: "U'Lechu Shivru b'Lo Chesef uv'Lo Mechir Yayin v'Chalav."

Question: If we expound "Gamal... Gamal," we should also expound the repetitions of "Shafan," "Arneves" and "Chazir"!

Rather, we must say that the entire Parshah was repeated for the following teaching:

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): The Parshah of Tahor and Tamei animals was repeated (in Parshas Re'eh) due to Shesu'ah (a species or mutation that has two backs and two spines). The birds were repeated due to Ra'ah. (These were not mentioned in Parshas Shemini.)

Also "Gamal" was repeated. We need not expound the repetition!

Answer: Even when a Parshah is repeated for a Chidush, if we can expound other laws from some of the repetitions, we do so.

(Beraisa): If a sheep gave birth to a goat (or vice-versa), it is exempt from Bechorah;

If it resembles its mother in some ways, it has Kedushas Bechor;

R. Shimon says, it is not Kodesh unless its head and majority resemble its mother.

Question: Does R. Shimon require the head and majority to resemble its mother (or another Kosher animal) to permit eating it?

Perhaps he requires the head and majority only regarding Bechorah, for it says "Ach Bechor Shor." A calf has Kedushas Bechor only if it and its mother are cattle, but one may eat it as long as it is not "Gamal" (even a small resemblance to a cow suffices);

Or, perhaps he requires the same to eat?