Bekhorot 20

Chapter 20

א הכא במאי עסקינן כגון ששחטו להתלמד בו ובפלוגתא דנימוס ור' אליעזר
1 But here we are dealing with a case where e.g. , he ritually killed [the ass] to practice therewith [to kill ritually],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not for the purpose of eating therefrom.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב דתניא אמר ר' יוסי
2 and the difference here corresponds to the difference of opinion of Nimos and R'Eleazar.
ג סח לי נימוס אחיו של ר' יהושע הגרסי שהשוחט את העורב להתלמד בו דמו מכשיר
3 For it has been taught: R'Jose said: Nimos the brother of Joshua the grist-maker told me that if one killed a raven ritually in order to practice therewith, its blood renders food fit [to receive uncleanness].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the blood fell on food or vegetables. And certainly this would be the case if he killed it ritually in order to eat therefrom; its blood would render itself and other food fit to receive levitical uncleanness.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד ר' אליעזר אומר
4 [R'Eleazar] says: The blood of shechitah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The act of ritual slaughter of an animal or bird.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה דם שחיטה לעולם מכשיר
5 always renders fit [to receive uncleanness].
ו רבי אליעזר היינו תנא קמא
6 Now is not [R'Eleazar's] opinion identical with the first Tanna?
ז אלא לאו איסורו חישובו איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר
7 We must suppose then that the difference between them is whether its prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition referred to here in the context must be understood to mean the fact that it was not a proper schechitah, in the sense that it was not being killed for eating purposes but merely in order to practice.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ח דמו מכשיר לעלמא אבל לגופיה בעי מחשבה
8 renders it important [as fit to receive uncleanness]?
ט ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר
9 The first Tanna holds: Its blood renders it [for conveying uncleanness] to other [food], but as regards [the raven itself], it requires the intention [of being used as food].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For its prohibition does not render it fit to receive uncleanness and its shechitah here is of no importance to cause it to be considered as food. R. Simeon, therefore, holds as regards the first-birth of an ass which was ritually killed, according to the view of Nimos that it does not receive the uncleanness of food, and the Rabbis agree with the opinion of R. Eleazar that the ritual killing, in itself, causes it to be regarded as food, without the express intention of regarding it as such.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
י דם שחיטה לעולם מכשיר ואפי' לגופיה נמי לא בעי מחשבה
10 Upon which [R'Eleazar] remarks: The blood of shechitah always renders it fit [to convey or receive uncleanness] and as regards the [raven] itself too, it does not require the intention [of using it as food] in order to receive [levitical uncleanness].
יא ממאי
11 But how do you know [this]?
יב דילמא טעמא דר' אליעזר התם דשאני עורב הואיל ויש בו סימני טהרה
12 Perhaps the reason of R'Eleazar there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the passage quoted above where R. Eleazar differs with Nimos in connection with a raven ritually killed for practice.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
יג ומנלן דסימני טהרה מילתא היא דקתני עלה דההיא א"ר שמעון
13 is because the case of a raven is different, since it has marks of cleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A raven has a crop, which is one of the signs of a clean bird, and, therefore, it is considered as food as regards levitical uncleanness. But in the case of the first-birth of an ass, which does not possess any marks of cleanness, unless he intended to use it as food, the Rabbis would not hold that it receives the uncleanness pertaining to food, and R. Simeon would maintain that even if he had thought of it as food, it receives no uncleanness, owing to the fact that it is forbidden to be used after its neck has been broken.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יד מה טעם הואיל ויש בו סימני טהרה
14 And how do we know that marks of cleanness are of importance? - Because it says in connection with the Baraitha above,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A carcass of a clean animal in all places etc.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
טו וכי תימא אי משום סימני טהרה מאי איריא להתלמד
15 R'Simeon said: What is the reason?
טז אפי' להתעסק נמי
16 Since it has marks of cleanness.
יז אין הכי נמי ומשום נימוס
17 And should you object that if the reason is because of the marks of cleanness, why should it say [according to R'Eleazar] [that he killed the raven] in order to practice, since even if he unintentionally ritually killed it, the case should also be identical; the answer is, Yes, it is so, but it is on account of Nimos [that it does not state this].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To inform us that according to Nimos, although there was a deliberate ritual killing for practice purposes, nevertheless the raven itself does not receive the uncleanness relating to food. But as regards R. Eleazar, it is true that even if the raven was killed unintentionally, (the intention having been to cut some other object) , the blood renders other food fit to receive uncleanness, and the raven itself also receives uncleanness. Consequently, you cannot explain the difference between the Rabbis and R. Simeon on the basis of the difference of Nimos and R. Eleazar. Therefore, the difference of the former disputants refers to the case where the ass's neck was broken, and the reason why R. Simeon maintains that it is not clean is because, as Rabbah explains, it is forbidden to be used.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יח איתיביה
18 Abaye<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted from Sh. Mek.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יט לא רצה לפדותו עורפו בקופיץ מאחוריו וקוברו ואסור בהנאה דברי רבי יהודה
19 raised the following objection.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to the ruling of Rabbah concerning the ass which had its neck broken and which is forbidden to be used, for any purpose.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
כ ורבי שמעון מתיר
20 If he did not wish to redeem [the ass], he breaks its neck with a hatchet from the back and buries it, and it must not be used.
כא אימא ומחיים אסור בהנאה ור"ש מתיר
21 These are the teachings of R'Judah.
כב והא מדסיפא מחיים הוי רישא לאו מחיים
22 But R'Simeon permits it [to be used]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore we derive from here the reverse of the ruling of Rabbah.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
כג דקתני סיפא
23 - Explain [in the following manner]: When alive it is forbidden to use [the first-birth of an ass], but R'Simeon permits this.
כד לא ימיתנו לא בקנה ולא במגל ולא בקרדום ולא במגירה ולא יכניסנו לחדר וינעול דלת לפניו בשביל שימות
24 But since the second part [of the above passage] refers to it when alive, then the first part must refer to it when it is not alive?
כה ואסור בגיזה ועבודה דברי רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון מתיר
25 For the second part states: 'He must not kill [the ass] wi cane, nor with a sickle, nor with a spade, nor with a saw.
כו רישא וסיפא מחיים רישא בהנאת דמיו סיפא בהנאת גופו
26 Nor may he let it enter an enclosure and lock the door on it, in order that it may die.
כז וצריכא דאי תנא הנאת דמיו בההוא קא שרי רבי שמעון אבל בהנאת גופו אימא מודה ליה לרבי יהודה
27 And it is forbidden to shear it or to work with it.
כח ואי תנא בהנאת גופו בההיא קאסר רבי יהודה אבל בהנאת דמיו אימא מודה לרבי שמעון צריכא
28 These are the teaching of R'Judah.
כט וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה
29 But R'Simeon permits this'! - The first and the second parts [we may explain] both refer to an ass when alive.
ל מודה רבי שמעון לאחר עריפה שהוא אסור
30 The first part, however, refers to monetary benefit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he hired or sold it to others.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
לא ואמר רב נחמן
31 and the second part refers to the benefit derived from its body.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the shearing and the working with it.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
לב מנא אמינא לה
32 [And both parts] require [to be stated].
לג דתניא
33 For if we had only the part referring to monetary benefit,I might have assumed that in that peculiar case R'Simeon permits, whereas with regard to the benefit derived from its body, I might have said that he agrees with R'Judah.
לד (שמות יג, יג) וערפתו נאמר כאן עריפה ונאמר להלן עריפה מה להלן אסור אף כאן אסור
34 And if we had only the part referring to the benefit derived from its body, I might have supposed that R'Judah forbids in that particular case, whereas in the case of monetary benefit, I might have said that he agrees with R'Simeon, [Therefore both parts] are necessary.
לה מני
35 And so R'Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah, the son of Abbuha: R'Simeon agrees that after the neck has been broken it is forbidden to be used.
לו אילימא רבי יהודה מחיים מיסר אסור
36 And R'Nahman said: On what evidence do I say this?
לז אלא לאו רבי שמעון היא
37 Because it has been taught, [Scripture says]: Then thou shalt break its neck.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 13.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לח א"ל רב ששת ספרא חבריך תרגומה
38 Here [the word] "arifah'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating the broken neck of the first-birth of an ass.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
לט לעולם רבי יהודה ואיצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא עריפה במקום פדייה עומדת מה פדייה מתרת אף עריפה מתרת קמ"ל
39 is used and above<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the ceremony of the heifer, whose neck was broken when an unknown man's body was found dead.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
מ אמר רב נחמן
40 [the word] "arifah' is used; just as above it is forbidden to b used, so here also it is forbidden to be used.
מא מנא אמינא לה
41 Whose opinion does this represent?
מב מדתני לוי הוא הפסיד ממונו של כהן לפיכך יופסד ממונו
42 Shall I say it is according to the opinion of R'Judah?
מג מני
43 Surely he prohibits it even when alive, Must you not therefore admit that it is the opinion.
מד אילימא רבי יהודה הא מיפסד וקאי
44 of R'Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We therefore see here that R. Simeon agrees that it is prohibited after its neck is broken.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
מה אלא לאו רבי שמעון היא
45 - Said R'Shesheth to him: Safra our fellow-student interpreted it as follows: [The above Baraitha] can still be the opinion of R'Judah, and yet there is need [for stating it].
מו איבעית אימא רבי יהודה ואיבעית אימא רבי שמעון
46 I might have assumed that since 'arifah' stands in the place of redemption, as redemption makes it permissible [to be used], so "arifah' is permitted.
מז איבעית אימא רבי יהודה אפסידא דביני ביני ואיבעית אימא רבי שמעון לפחת מיתה
47 He consequently informs us [that it is not so].
מח וכן אמר ריש לקיש
48 Said R'Nahman: On what evidence do I say this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Simeon agrees that it is forbidden for all use after its neck is broken.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
מט מודה רבי שמעון לאחר עריפה שהוא אסור
49 From what R'Levi taught, The Israelite causes a monetary loss to the priest;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By not redeeming the ass with a lamb and giving it to the priest.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
נ ורבי יוחנן ואי תימא רבי אלעזר אמר
50 therefore he should suffer a monetary loss.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Beth din should therefore compel him to have its neck broken after thirty days.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
נא עדיין היא מחלוקת
51 Whose opinion does this represent?
נב איכא דמתני לה להא דרב נחמן אהא
52 Shall I say that it is the opinion of R'Judah?
נג המקדש בפטר חמור אינה מקודשת
53 Surely his loss is of long standing!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even when the ass was alive it was forbidden to be used according to R. Judah.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
נד לימא מתני' דלא כרבי שמעון
54 [Must we not therefore admit] that it is the opinion of R'Simeon? - If you choose I may say it is the opinion of R'Judah, and, if you choose, I may say that it is the opinion of R'Simeon, If you choose I may say that it is the opinion of R'Judah, and he speaks of the loss entailed in the difference.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between its value when alive and dead. For whereas when it was alive, although forbidden to be used, it could be redeemed, now he loses everything.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
נה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה
55 And if you choose I may say that it is the opinion of R'Simeon, and he speaks of the loss incurred by its death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For being dead it can only be given to dogs to eat and therefore, there has been a considerable loss.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
נו לאחר עריפה ודברי הכל
56 And so did Resh Lakish say: R'Simeon agrees that the ass after its neck has been broken is forbidden to be used.
נז איכא דאמרי
57 But R'Johanan, (or as some say, R'Eleazar) says: The difference between the Rabbis and R'Simeon still prevails even in such circumstances.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the neck of a first-born of an ass was broken.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
נח הא מני
58 Some report this, R'Nahman's ruling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That after the ass's neck had been broken it was forbidden to use it and this was expressed not as separate and independent ruling but with reference to the following MISHNAH:');"><sup>26</sup></span>
נט לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי שמעון אי רבי שמעון תיקדש בכוליה אי רבי יהודה תיקדש בהך דביני ביני
59 in connection with the following: If one betrothed a woman with the first-birth of an ass, she is not betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 56b.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
ס אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב
60 Are we to say that the Mishnah is not according to the opinion of R'Simeon? - R'Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah the son of Abbuha: [The Mishnah refers to a case] where the neck had been broken and therefore agrees with all the authorities concerned.
סא לעולם רבי יהודה וכגון שאינו שוה אלא שקל
61 Some there are who Say: Whose opinion does this represent?
סב וסבר לה כרבי יוסי בר יהודה
62 Neither the opinion of R'Judah nor that of R'Simeon, For if it is the opinion of R'Simeon, let her become betrothed with the whole value of the ass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the whole of it may be used.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
סג דתניא
63 And if it is the opinion of R'Judah, let her become betrothed with the difference!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difference between the ass of the value of a shekel and a sheep even of the value of a danka i.e., a sixth of a denar.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
סד {שמות יג } תפדה תפדה [תפדה] מיד תפדה כל שהוא
64 - Said Rabbah B'Abbuha in the name of Rab: [The Mishnah] can still be the opinion of R'Judah, e.g. , where the ass was of the value only of a shekel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the sheep being not less in value than a shekel as stated below, there is no difference in value between it and the ass in order that a woman may be betrothed thereby.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
סה רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר
65 and he holds according to the view of R'Jose B'Judah.
סו אין פדייה פחותה משקל
66 For it has been taught, [Scripture says]: 'Thou shalt redeem'.'
סז אמר מר
67 Thou shalt redeem'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 13. There is a repetition of the text.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
סח תפדה תפדה [תפדה] מיד תפדה כל שהוא
68 [One text] 'Thou shalt redeem' intimates immediately,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the period of thirty days has elapsed.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
סט פשיטא
69 [and the other text] 'Thou shalt redeem' intimates with whatever value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no fixed sum and redemption may therefore be carried out even for less than a shekel or sela'.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
ע איצטריך סד"א
70 But R'Jose B'Judah says: There can be no redemption with less than the value of a shekel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sheep must therefore posses at least the value of a shekel, so that there is no surplus left to effect a betrothal.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
עא הואיל ואיתקש לבכור אדם מה בכור אדם אחר שלשים וחמש האי נמי אחר שלשים וחמש קמ"ל
71 The Master said.'
עב תפדה מיד תפדה כל שהוא
72 [Scripture says]: "Thou shalt redeem,.
עג רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר
73 Thou shalt redeem".
עד אין פדייה פחותה משקל
74 [The one text] "Thou shalt redeem" intimates immediately [and the other text] "Thou shalt redeem" intimates with whatever value'.
עה ממה נפשך אי מקיש לבכור אדם חמש ליבעי ואי לא מקיש שקל מנא ליה
75 Is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture does not mention that redemption commences when the ass is a month old nor does it say that the lamb must be of some specific value.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
עו לעולם לא מקיש
76 - It is necessary [to state it].
עז אמר רבא
77 I might have assumed that since an unclean animal is compared with the first-born of a man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Howbeit the first-born of man shalt thou surely redeem and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. Num. XVIII, 15.');"><sup>36</sup></span>
עח אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, כה) וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקדש כל ערכין שאתה מעריך לא יהו פחותין משקל
78 just as in the case of a first.
עט ורבנן
79 born o man the redemption takes place after a period of thirty days and with the sum of five sela's,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sela' is a coin equal to two common shekels.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
פ ההוא
80 so here also the redemption should take place after a period of thirty days and with the sum of five sela's. [Therefore Scripture states]: 'Thou shalt redeem, viz, immediately, 'Thou shalt redeem', viz. , with whatever value. R'Jose B'Judah says: There is no redemption with less than the value of one shekel'. But which way do you take it; if R'Jose compares an unclean animal with the first-born of a man, then the sum of five sela's is required for redemptions and if he does not compare [an unclean animal with the first-born of a man], whence does he derive that the redemption is with a shekel? - In fact he does not compare [an unclean animal with the first-born of a man]; [yet] said Rabba: Scripture says: And all thy valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 25.');"><sup>38</sup></span> intimating that any valuations which you assess shall be no less in value than a shekel. And the Rabbis [who differ with R'Jose], what say they? -
Previous ChapterNext Chapter