Bekhorot 24

Chapter 24

א לר' שמעון נמי צבי ואיל כתיב בהו

1 it may be that even according to the opinion of R'Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For although it is permitted according to his view to benefit from the first-birth of an ass, we are, nevertheless, not allowed to redeem it with a dedicated animal which became unfit for the altar.');">1

ב איבעיא להו מהו לפדות בבהמת שביעית

2 [it is forbidden to redeem with it], since the tex says in connection with them: 'As the gazelle and the hart'. The question was raised: What is the ruling as regards redeeming with an animal bought with the fruits of the sabbatical year?

ג ודאי לא תיבעי לך לאכילה אמר רחמנא ולא לסחורה כי תיבעי לך ספק

3 With reference to an ass, distinctly a first-birth, there is no need for you to ask, since the Divine Law says [that the fruits of the sab batical year are]: For food,2 implying, but not to trade therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Redeeming the first-birth with an animal bought with the fruits of the sabbatical year is like trading with sabbatical fruits, and, moreover, while the fruits of the sabbatical year may be eaten by means of this redemption, he acquires an ass which cannot be eaten.');">3

ד ואליבא דרבי שמעון לא תיבעי לך דלית ליה ספק כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבי יהודה

4 The question does arise regarding the uncertain [first-birth of an ass]. And according to the opinion of R'Simeon you need not ask, because he holds there is no uncertain [first-birth of an ass which requires redemption].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An uncertain birth, e.g. where its mother gave birth to a male and a female and there was a doubt as to whether the male was born first. The Mishnah states above that in such a case, a lamb is set aside and it remains for himself. And according to R. Simeon, since he permits a first-birth of an ass to be used, (v. supra p. 9b) , there is no need to set aside a lamb to release the first. birth from any prohibition attaching to it.');">4

ה מאי כיון דמפריש טלה והוא לעצמו לאכלה קרינא ביה או דילמא כיון דכמה דלא מפקע איסוריה לא מישתרי כסחורה דמי

5 The question does arise, however, according to the opinion of R'Judah. What is the ruling? Since he sets aside a lamb and it remains for himself, we can apply to it [the designation]: 'For food'?

ו ת"ש דא"ר חסדא בהמת שביעית אין פודין בה את הודאי אבל פודין בה את הספק

6 Or perhaps, since as long as the ass's prohibitio is not canceled it is not permitted,5 it is like trading [with the fruits of the sabbatical year]? - Come and hear: For R'Hisda said: If an animal has been purchased with the fruits of the sabbatical year, we are not permitted to redeem with it an ass, distinctly a first-birth, but it is permitted to redeem therewith an uncertain first-birth. R'Hisda further said: An animal bought with the fruits of the sabbatical year is not liable to the law of the firstling.

ז ואמר רב חסדא בהמת שביעית פטורה מן הבכורה וחייבת במתנות

7 It is subject, however, to the law of the gifts [which are the prerogative o priest].6 It is not liable to the law of the firstling, because the Divine Law says: 'For food', implying, but n for burning.7

ח פטורה מן הבכורה לאכלה אמר רחמנא ולא לשריפה וחייבת במתנות דלאכלה קרינא בה

8 And it is subject to the law of gifts, for we can apply to it8

ט מיתיבי האוכל מעיסת שביעית עד שלא הורמה חלתה חייב מיתה

9 [the designation], 'For food'. An objection was raised from the following: If one eats from the dough of the sabbatical year before the hallah9

י ואמאי כיון דאילו מטמיא בת שריפה היא לאכלה אמר רחמנא ולא לשריפה

10 has been taken, he incurs the guilt of death [at the hands of Heaven]. But why?10

יא שאני הכא דכתיב לדורותיכם

11 Since, if it became levitically unclean, it is fit for burning, and the Divine Law says: 'For food', implying, but not for burning? - The case is different here, for it says: Throughout your generations.11

יב תנ"ה מנין לאוכל מעיסת שביעית עד שלא הורמה חלתה שחייב מיתה שנאמר לדורותיכם

12 It has been taught to the same effect: Whence do we derive that if one eats from the dough of the sabbatical year before its hallah is taken, he incurs the guilt of death? Because it is said: 'Throughout your generations'. But why not derive [that the firstling bought with the fruits of the sabbatical year is liable to the law of the firstling],from the case [of hallah]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why do we not make an exception in the application of the text 'For food', implying, 'but not for burning', with reference to a firstling, as we do in the case of hallah.');">12

יג ולגמר מינה התם עיקר לאכילה הכא עיקר לשריפה:

13 - In the case of hallah [its separation] is mainly 'for the eating [of the priests], [except when it receives uncleanness], but in the case of the firstling, [the portion for the altar] is mainly for burning.13 IF HE GAVE IT TO THE PRIEST etc. We have learnt here that which our Rabbis have taught: 'If an Israelite had a first- birth of an ass in his house and the priest said to him, "Give it to me and I will redeem it", he should not give it to him, except [the priest] redeem it in his presence'.

יד נתנו לכהן כו': תנינא להא דת"ר ישראל שהיה לו פטר חמור בתוך ביתו ואמר לו הכהן תנהו לי ואני אפדהו הרי זה לא יתנו לו אא"כ פדאו בפניו

14 R'Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah the son of Abbuha: 'This proves14 that the priests are suspected of neglecting the redemption of the first-births of asses'. Surely [this deduction] is evident? - You might have assumed that this is the case only where he is known to be suspected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where we have reason to suspect him. Or, where we actually saw him working the firstling of an ass prior to its redemption, either wilfully or through ignorance of the law on the matter.');">15 but generally we do not suspect the priest.

טו א"ר נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה זאת אומרת נחשדו הכהנים על פטרי חמורים פשיטא מהו דתימא ה"מ היכא דמחזק לן דמיקרי אבל בסתמא לא קמ"ל דמורה בה היתירא:

15 He therefore informs us that he usually decides that it is a legitimate act.16 <big>MISHNAH: </big>IF ONE SETS ASIDE [A LAMB] FOR THE REDEMPTION OF THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS AND IT DIED, R'ELIEZER SAYS: HE IS RESPONSIBLE AS IS THE CASE WITH THE FIVE SELA'S IN CONNECTION WITH THE REDEMPTION OF THE FIRST-BORN. BUT THE SAGES SAY: HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE, AS IS THE CASE WITH THE REDEMPTION OF THE SECOND [YEAR'S] TITHING.17 R'JOSHUA AND R'ZADOK TESTIFIED CONCERNING THE REDEMPTION OF THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS WHICH DIED THAT THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING [IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES] - IF THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS DIED [AFTER THE LAMB FOR REDEMPTION HAD BEEN SET ASIDE], R'ELIEZER SAYS: IT SHALL BE BURIED, BUT THE LAMB MAY BE USED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as R. Eliezer maintains that the Israelite is responsible, it is as if the lamb had not yet been set aside and the Israelite may therefore benefit from it. But the first-birth must be buried, since it is forbidden to use it, as is the case when alive.');">18 WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY: IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE BURIED AND THE LAMB BELONGS TO THE PRIEST.

טז <big>מתני׳</big> המפריש פדיון פטר חמור ומת רבי אליעזר אומר חייבין באחריותו כחמש סלעים של בן וחכ"א אין חייבין באחריותו כפדיון מעשר שני

16 <big>GEMARA: </big>Said R'Joseph: What is the reason of R'Eliezer? - Because Scripture writes: Nevertheless the first-born of man shalt thou surely redeem [and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem].19 Just as in the case of the first-born of a man, he is responsible [if the redemption money is lost], similarly, in the c of the first-birth of an unclean animal, he is responsible [if the redemption lamb dies] - Said Abaye to him: [If the comparison be correct, then] as in the case of the first-born of a man, it is permitted to benefit [from work before redemption], so in the case of an unclean animal, it should be permitted to benefit from it. And should you assume that this is so, have we not learnt in a Mishnah: IF THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS DIES, R'ELIEZER SAYS: IT SHALL BE BURIED? What does he mean by the phrase IT SHALL BE BURIED?

יז העיד רבי יהושע ורבי צדוק על פדיון פטר חמור שמת שאין כאן לכהן כלום מת פטר חמור ר"א אומר יקבר ומותר בהנאתו של טלה וחכ"א א"צ להקבר וטלה לכהן:

17 Does he not mean that it is forbidden to use it? - No, It means,it shall be buried as in the case of the first-born o man.20 But [am I to infer that on]y] a first-born of a man requires burial, but that a plain Israelite does not require burial? And moreover, it has been taught: R'Eliezer agrees that if an Israelite has an uncertain first-birth of an ass in his house, he sets aside a lamb on its behalf and it is his?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And although with reference to an ass, distinctly a first-birth, he maintains that so long as the lamb is not in the possession of the priest it is not redeemed, he agrees with regard to an uncertain first-birth that he need not give its redemption to the priest but sets aside a lamb, thus implying that the first-birth of an ass is forbidden to be used otherwise. And since we do not compare an unclean animal with the first-born of man in this respect, the same should apply in respect of his responsibility for it. The question therefore remains, what is the reason of R. Eliezer in the opening passage of our Mishnah?');">21 - Rather, said Raba; [the following is the reason of R'Eliezer]. Scripture says: Nevertheless the first-born of man shalt thou surely redeem.

יח <big>גמ׳</big> אמר רב יוסף מ"ט דר' אליעזר דכתיב (במדבר יח, טו) אך פדה תפדה וגו' מה בכור אדם חייב באחריותו אף בכור בהמה טמאה חייב באחריותו

18 Scripture implies, 'I have compared [an unclean animal with the first-birth of a man] in connection with [the responsibility for] redemption, but not as regards any other matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The limiting word 'nevertheless', indicates that only with regard to the responsibility for redemption is an unclean animal compared with the firstborn of a man.');">22 We have learnt elsewhere [in a Mishnah]:23 Valuations are according to their period;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the ages of one month and five years, if one said, 'I vow my valuation' and he delayed till the age of six, when there is an increased valuation, he still only gives the original valuation, as laid down in Scripture. Some maintain that since a child of that age is not legally permitted to dedicate its valuation to the sanctuary, therefore it means hare that somebody else said, 'I vow the child's valuation upon myself'.');">24 the redemption of the first-born takes place after thirty days and the redemption of the first-birth of an ass takes place immediately.

יט א"ל אביי אי מה בכור אדם מותר בהנאה אף בכור בהמה טמאה מותר וכי תימא ה"נ והתנן מת פטר חמור רבי אליעזר אומר יקבר מאי יקבר לאו דאסור בהנאה

19 But does the redemption of the first-birth of an ass take place immediately? Against this I quote the following in contradiction: The period of valuation or redemption of the first-born, or Naziriteship,25 or redemption of the first-birth of an ass, is in no case less than thirty days. But we can extend the time in each of these cases indefinitely!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to valuations, as the ages increase the valuation will correspondingly increase, as mentioned in Scripture. A Nazirite also can vow for a period of years and the first-birth of an ass may be redeemed even after the lapse of years and it is not necessary to give more because of the delay.');">26 - Said R'from it, but owing to the fact that an unclean animal is compared with the first-born of man; and usually a dead first-born receives burial. Nahman: [The statement above, that the redemption of a first-birth takes place immediately means] to inform us that if he redeemed it, it is redeemed.27

כ לא יקבר כבכור אדם אלא אדם בכור הוא דבעי קבורה פשוט לא בעי קבורה

20 This would imply that in the case of his first-born son, if he redeemed him within the thirty days he is not redeemed? Has it not been stated: If one redeems his son within the thirty days, Rab holds: his son is redeemed? - But surely has it not been stated in this connection: Raba said: All authorities agree [that if he said that the first-born sho be redeemed] from now [before the expiry of the thirty days], then his son is not redeemed?28

כא ועוד תניא מודה ר' אליעזר בישראל שיש לו ספק פטר חמור בתוך ביתו שמפריש טלה עליו והוא שלו

כב אלא אמר רבא אמר קרא אך פדה תפדה לפדייה הקשיתיו ולא לדבר אחר

כג תנן התם הערכין בשעתן ופדיון הבן אחר שלשים יום פדיון פטר חמור לאלתר

כד ופדיון פטר חמור לאלתר ורמינהי אין בערכין ובפדיון הבן ובנזירות ובפטר חמור פחות משלשים

כה ומוסיפין עד עולם

כו אר"נ לומר שאם פדאו פדוי מכלל דבנו אם פדאו אינו פדוי והאיתמר הפודה את בנו בתוך ל' יום רב אמר בנו פדוי

כז לאו איתמר עלה אמר רבא דכ"ע מעכשיו אין בנו פדוי

Previous Chapter Next Chapter