Bekhorot 10

Chapter 10

א והא מאתן וארבעין הויין אלא ש"מ מנה של קודש מנה כפול היה
1 Now would not this [maneh] be two hundred and forty [denars]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a maneh has only one hundred dear or zuz, for there are twenty-five shekels to a maneh and four denar to a shekel.');"><sup>1</sup></span> Therefore deduce from this that the sacred maneh was double [the common].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., fifty shekels would be the maneh. This is two hundred denar and the remaining forty were added subsequently.');"><sup>2</sup></span> And further deduce from here that we may add to the measures, but not more than a sixth part.
ב ושמע מינה מוסיפין על המדות ואין מוסיפין יתר על שתות ושמע מינה שתותא מלבר
2 And still further deduce from here, that the sixth part added, is a sixth of the total.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from outside'. I.e., to each five portions, one is added, an addition of twenty per cent. And here, also, there was an addition to the two hundred denar which constitute the sacred maneh of twenty per cent, making a total of two hundred and forty denar. This addition of forty denar makes therefore a sixth part of the sum total, i.e., a sixth 'from the outside', although not a sixth part of the value of the sacred maneh as such, as forty denar would be a fifth part of two hundred denar.');"><sup>3</sup></span> Said R'Hanina: I asked [R'Eliezer] in the great School of Learning [Beth Hamidrash:] 'Why were the first-born of asses different from the first-born of horses and camels? ' - He replied: 'It is a decree of Scripture'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no special reason for this differentiation.');"><sup>4</sup></span> Moreover, they [the asses] helped the Israelites when they departed from Egypt, for there was not an Israelite who did not possess ninety Libyan asses laden with the silver and gold of Egypt. I also asked him: 'What does the word "Rephidim" signify? ' And he told me: 'Rephidim was the name [of a place]'.
ג אמר ר' חנינא שאלתי את ר' אליעזר בבית מותבא רבא מה נשתנו פטרי חמורים מפטרי סוסים וגמלים א"ל גזירת הכתוב היא ועוד שסייעו ישראל בשעת יציאתם ממצרים שאין לך כל אחד ואחד מישראל שלא היו עמו תשעים חמורים לובים טעונים מכספה וזהבה של מצרים
3 There is a difference between Tannaim. R'Eliezer says: 'Rephidim' was the name [of a place], but R'Joshua says, it means that they relaxed [rifu] their hold on the words of the Law. And so Scripture says: The fathers shall not look back to their children for [rifyon] feebleness of hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XLVII, 3. The feebleness being due to their neglect of the Law.');"><sup>5</sup></span> And I asked him further: 'What is the meaning of the word "Shittim"? ' And he told me: 'Shittim was the name [of a place]'. Here too Tannaim differ. R'Eliezer says: 'Shittim' was the name of the place, whereas R'Joshua says, it means that they gave themselves up to lust.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'Shetuth' (a stupid thing, like lust) and the word 'Shittim', have a verbal resemblance.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד ועוד שאלתיו מאי לשון רפידים ואמר לי רפידים שמה כתנאי ר' אליעזר אומר רפידים שמה ר' יהושע אומר שריפו עצמן מדברי תורה וכן הוא אומר (ירמיהו מז, ג) לא הפנו אבות אל בנים מרפיון ידים
4 'And they called to the people unto the sacrifices of their gods'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXV, 2. itre,u vre');"><sup>7</sup></span> R'Eliezer says, this verse means that they [the Israelites] came into contact with naked bodies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For lustful purposes. The word is also derived from the word to meet; they themselves, their bodies, met naked bodies in order to stimulate sexual desire. itre,u hre');"><sup>8</sup></span> But R'Joshua says they all became polluted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' is connected here with the word meaning seminal pollution,');"><sup>9</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A COW GAVE BIRTH TO A SPECIES OF ASS, OR AN ASS GAVE BIRTH TO A SPECIES OF HORSE, IT IS EXEMPT FROM [THE LAW OF] THE FIRSTLING, FOR IT IS SAID: FIRSTLING [PETER] OF AN ASS',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 13.');"><sup>10</sup></span> 'FIRSTLING [PETER] OF AN ASS',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXXIV, 20.');"><sup>11</sup></span> TWICE [TO TEACH] [THAT THE LAW OF THE FIRSTBORN DOES NOT APPLY] UNTIL THAT WHICH GIVES BIRTH IS AN ASS AND THAT WHICH IS BORN IS AN ASS. AND WHAT IS THE LAW WITH REFERENCE TO EATING THEM?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animals born which do not resemble their mother.');"><sup>12</sup></span> IF A CLEAN ANIMAL GAVE BIRTH TO A SPECIES OF UNCLEAN ANIMAL, IT IS PERMITTED TO BE EATEN. BUT IF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL GAVE BIRTH TO A SPECIES OF A CLEAN ANIMAL, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO BE EATEN, FOR THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN IS UNCLEAN AND THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE CLEAN IS CLEAN.
ה ועוד שאלתיו מאי לשון שטים ואמר לי שטים שמה כתנאי ר' אליעזר אומר שטים שמה רבי יהושע אומר שנתעסקו בדברי שטות
5 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>We have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra ');"><sup>13</sup></span> If a ewe gave birth to a species of goat or a goat gave birth to a Species of ewe, it is exempt from [the law of] the firstling. But if the offspring possesses some marks [resembling the mother], it is subject to [the law of] the firstling. Whence is this proved? Said Rab Judah: Scripture says: 'But the firstling of an ox',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 17.');"><sup>14</sup></span> meaning that it [the animal] should be an ox and its firstling must be an ox; 'Firstling of a sheep',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. rufc');"><sup>15</sup></span> indicating that [the animal] should be a sheep and its firstling must be a sheep; 'Firstling of a goat',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. In connection with the words 'ox', 'sheep' and goat', Scripture prefaces in each case the word (firstling) which in each case is superfluous, as it is clearly dealing with the subject of a firstling.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ו (במדבר כה, ב) ותקראן לעם לזבחי אלהיהן רבי אליעזר אומר ערומות פגעו בהן ר' יהושע אומר שנעשו כולן בעלי קריין:
6 indicating that [the animal] 'Firstling of a goat' ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. In connection with the words 'ox', 'sheep' and goat', Scripture prefaces in each case the word (firstling) which in each case is superfluous, as it is clearly dealing with the subject of a firstling.');"><sup>16</sup></span> indicating that [the animal] should be a goat and its firstling must be a goat. You might think that even if it [the offspring] possesses some marks [similar to the mother]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is also excluded from the law of the firstling.');"><sup>17</sup></span> There the text stated 'ak' [but],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the firstling etc.');"><sup>18</sup></span> intimating that there is a distinction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between total physical change in the offspring and where there is a partial resemblance to the mother, the word 'ak' having limiting qualifications.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> פרה שילדה מין חמור וחמור שילדה כמין סוס פטורה מן הבכורה שנאמר (שמות י״ג:י״ג) פטר חמור (שמות לד, כ) פטר חמור שני פעמים עד שיהא היולד חמור והנולד חמור
7 But does not the Tanna [of our Mishnah] derive the ruling [for the exemption] of a cow [which gave birth to a species of ass] from 'peter' [firstling[ 'peter' [firstling].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why therefore does R. Judah bring his own Scriptural proof since what applies to a cow whose offspring changes species applies equally to a sheep whose offspring changes?');"><sup>20</sup></span> - He [R'Judah] follows the view of R'Jose the Galilean.
ח ומה הם באכילה בהמה טהורה שילדה כמין בהמה טמאה מותר באכילה וטמאה שילדה כמין בהמה טהורה אסור באכילה שהיוצא מן הטמא טמא והיוצא מן הטהור טהור:
8 For it was taught: R'Jose the Galilean said: 'But the firstling of an ox':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 17.');"><sup>21</sup></span> [the law of the firstling does not apply] until it [the animal] is an ox and its firstling is an ox; 'firstling of a sheep': [th the firstling does not apply] until it [the animal] is a sheep and its firstling is a sheep; 'firstling of a goa law of the firstling does not apply] until it [the animal] is a goat and its firstling is a goat.
ט <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנן התם רחל שילדה מין עז ועז שילדה מין רחל פטור מן הבכורה ואם יש בו מקצת סימנין חייב
9 You might thin that even if it [the offspring] possesses some marks [similar to its mother]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra.');"><sup>22</sup></span> The text states 'ak' intimating that there is a distinction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
י מנא הני מילי אמר רב יהודה דאמר קרא (במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור שיהא הוא שור ובכורו שור בכור כשב שיהא הוא כשב ובכורו כשב בכור עז שיהא הוא עז ובכורו עז
10 Wherein do they differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna in our Mishnah and R. Jose the Galilean.');"><sup>24</sup></span> - Our Tanna [in the Mishnah] holds that the Divine Law informs us in that case of that which is consecrated for its value<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of an ass which is not holy in itself and is redeemed with a sheep.');"><sup>25</sup></span> [that a change in the offspring exempts it from the law of the firstling], and the same applies to an object consecrated as such.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a cow or any clean animal where it is holy as such, and is irredeemable. In such an instance, the law of the firstling should certainly only apply where the offspring resembles its mother, as since it is irredeemable, the offspring should be required all the more to resemble its mother.');"><sup>26</sup></span> But R'Jose the Galilean maintains that the Divine Law informs us in connection with an object consecrated as such [that a change in the offspring exempts it from the law of the firstling] and the same principle applies in connection with an object which is consecrated for its value.
יא יכול אפי' יש בו מקצת סימנין ת"ל אך חלק
11 And we derive an object which is consecrated for its value from an object which is consecrated as such. And our Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the MISHNAH:');"><sup>27</sup></span> - what does he make of 'bekor' [firstling], 'bekor' [firstling].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The threefold repetition of the word 'bekor' (firstling) in Num. XVIII, 17.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יב והא תנא פטר פטר קנסיב לה לפרה
12 - He requires it for R'Jose B'Hanina's [explanation].
יג הוא דאמר כרבי יוסי הגלילי דתניא ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר אך בכור שור עד שיהא הוא שור ובכורו שור בכור כשב עד שיהא הוא כשב ובכורו כשב או בכור עז עד שיהא הוא עז ובכורו עז
13 For R'Jose B'Hanina said: Why does Scripture mention 'emurim'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The portion of the animal sacrificed on the altar. Scripture says: Thou shalt dash their blood against the altar and shalt make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire, which verse refers to all the three cases of firstlings mentioned in the text. If Scripture had written 'emurim' in connection with one of the firstlings mentioned, I could have inferred the rest.');"><sup>29</sup></span> in connection with the firstling of an ox, emurim in connection with the firstling of a sheep, emurim in connection with the firstling of a goat? It is necessary.
יד יכול אפי' יש בו מקצת סימנין ת"ל אך חלק
14 For if the Divine Law had written 'emurim' in connection with the firstling of an ox [only], [I might have said], the reason [for the emurim was] because there was an increased drink offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A half of a hin, whereas with reference to a goat or a sheep, the amount is only a quarter of a hin.');"><sup>30</sup></span> [And if the Divine Law had written 'emurim'] in connection with the firstling of a sheep [only], [I might have said] the reason [for the 'emurim'] was because of the fat-tail which was included [to be sacrificed together with the emurim].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike the case of a goat or an ox.');"><sup>31</sup></span> [And if the Divine Law had written 'emurim'] in connection with the firstling of a goat [only], [I might have said] the reason [for the 'emurim' was] because a goat was included as a suitable offering in the case of the sin of idolatry committed by an individual.
טו במאי קמיפלגי תנא דידן סבר גלי רחמנא בקדושת דמים וה"ה בקדושת הגוף
15 You could not have derived 'emurim' in connection with any single case [of a firstling of an ox, firstling of a sheep or firstling of a goat] from any other single case. [Perhaps could derive however 'emurim' in a single case [of a firstling mentioned] from the remaining two cases?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the references to 'emurim' would, then, be unnecessary.');"><sup>32</sup></span> in connection with what case should the Divine Law have omitted to write 'emurim'?
טז ור' יוסי סבר גלי רחמנא בקדושת הגוף וה"ה בקדושת דמים וגמר קדושת דמים מקדושת הגוף
16 Should the Divine Law not have written ['emurim'] in connection with the firstling of an ox, and should we have proceeded to derive this from the remaining two cases, [the firstling of a sheep and the firstling of a goat quoted above], [ might have raised the objection] that the two cases [mentioned where emurim was written], were dif ferent, for a sheep and a goat are included as suitable to be brought as Passover sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas an ox is not brought as a passover sacrifice.');"><sup>33</sup></span> Or should the Divine Law have omitted [emurim] in connection with the firstling of a sheep and should we then have derived this from the remaining two cases [of the firstling of an ox and the firstling of a goat], [I might have raised the objection] that the cases [of an ox and a goat] were different, for they are included as suitable offerings for the sin of idolatry committed communally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bull for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin-offering.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
יז ותנא דידן האי בכור בכור מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדר' יוסי בר' חנינא
17 Or should the Divine Law have omitted [emurim] in connection with the firstling of a goat and should we then have derived this from the remaining two cases [of the firstling of an ox and the firstling of a sheep], [I might have raised the objection] that the cases [of ox and a sheep] were different, for they have the [common] point of an increased offering upon the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Compared with a goat. For an ox has an increased drink-offering and a sheep has, in addition, its fat-tail offered up on the altar.');"><sup>35</sup></span> Therefore, all the three cases [to which the verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thou shalt dash their blood against the altar etc. quoted above.');"><sup>36</sup></span>
יח דאמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא למה נאמרו אימורין בבכור שור אימורין בבכור כשב אימורין בבכור עז
18 refers] are necessary.
יט צריכא דאי כתב רחמנא בבכור שור שכן נתרבה בנסכים
19 And R'Jose the Galilean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he explains the verse: 'But the firstling of an ox etc.' quoted above, as teaching that the mother and its offspring must be of the same species, how does he then explain the references to 'emurim' in connection with the three cases of firstlings mentioned above?');"><sup>37</sup></span>
כ כשב שכן נתרבה באליה
20 
כא בעז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים ביחיד
21 
כב חדא מחדא לא אתיא תיתי חדא מתרתי
22 - [His answer is:] If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the verse only teaches what R. Jose b. Hanina says.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
כג בהי לא ליכתוב לא ליכתוב רחמנא בשור ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן נתרבו אצל פסחים
23 let the Divine Law write: 'But the firstling of an ox, sheep and goat'. What need is there f the words 'bekor' 'bekor'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The threefold repetition of the word 'bekor' ('firstling') .');"><sup>39</sup></span>
כד לא לכתוב בכשב ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן נתרבו אצל עבודת כוכבים בציבור
24 Hence you must deduce from here [the teaching also] that both [the animal] and its firstling must be an ox.
כה לא ניכתוב רחמנא בעז ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן יש בהן צד רבוי אצל מזבח הילכך צריכי
25 And R'Jose the Galilean, what does he do with the texts 'peter hamor' 'peter hamor'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Employed by our Mishnah as basis for its teaching.');"><sup>40</sup></span> - He requires this for what was taught.
כו ורבי יוסי הגלילי אם כן ליכתוב קרא אך בכור שור כשב ועז בכור בכור למה לי אלא לאו ש"מ עד שיהא הוא שור ובכורו שור
26 R'Jose the Galilean says: Because it is said in the Scriptures: Howbeit the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 15.');"><sup>41</sup></span> I might infer from the text that even the first-born of horses and camels [are liable to the la of the first-born]. Therefore, there the text stated 'peter hamor'. I have only spoken to you [says Scripture] o firstlings of asses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As liable to redemption.');"><sup>42</sup></span> but not of the firstlings of horses and camels.
כז ורבי יוסי הגלילי האי פטר חמור פטר חמור מאי עביד ליה
27 I can still maintain, however, that the firstlings of asses are to be redeemed with a sheep but the firstlings of horses and camels may be redeemed with any object.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the law of the firstling will apply to these as well.');"><sup>43</sup></span>
כח מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר מתוך שנא' (במדבר יח, טו) אך פדה תפדה את בכור האדם ואת בכור הבהמה הטמאה תפדה שומע אני אפי' פטרי סוסים וגמלים ת"ל פטר חמור פטר חמור אמרתי לך ולא פטרי סוסים וגמלים
28 
כט ועדיין אני אומר פטרי חמור בשה פטרי סוסים וגמלים בכל דבר
29 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter