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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.”

§ 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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].

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.

§ 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?

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.

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”?