Bekhorot 25

Chapter 25

א רב ששת אמר לומר שאינו עובר עליו
1 R'Shesheth said: [The above Baraitha means] to inform us that he does not transgress on account of the first-birth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The duty to redeem the first-birth of an ass is indeed immediately after its birth, and the Baraitha which says that redemption does not take place for thirty days means that he does not transgress the command to redeem until the period of thirty days has elapsed.');"><sup>1</sup></span> Rami the son of Hama raised an objection from the following: The duty of redemption is for the entire period of thirty days.
ב מתיב רמי בר חמא מצותו כל שלשים יום מכאן ואילך או פודהו או עורפו מאי לאו מצוה לשהותו כל שלשים יום לא מצוה לפדותו כל שלשים יום
2 After that, either he redeems it, or breaks its neck. What [does it mean]? Does it not mean that it is a religious duty to retain it for the whole period of thirty days?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the opinion of R. Nahman, who maintains that redemption does not take place before thirty days have elapsed. This seems to contradict the opinion of R. Shesheth.');"><sup>2</sup></span> No, it means that it is a religious duty to redeem it all the thirty days.
ג אי הכי מכאן ואילך או פודהו או עובר עליו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר רבא לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר דמקשי הא רבנן דלא מקשי:
3 If this is the case, what it should say is: After that, either redeems it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: He either breaks its neck. V. R. Gershom.');"><sup>3</sup></span> or he transgresses [the command to redeem]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since it says: 'Either he redeems it or breaks its neck', we infer that redemption only commences after the thirty days and that during the thirty days it is a duty to retain it.');"><sup>4</sup></span> Rather, said Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We may indeed say that it is a religious duty to retain the first-birth for thirty days and still we do not ex plain the Baraitha cited by Rami b. Hama as being in accordance with R. Nahman's view (Rashi) . Sh. Mek.: Raba's reply can be explained as being entirely independent of the opinions of R. Shesheth and R. Nahman and that it merely explains the conflicting statements regarding when redemption should take place.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> לא רצה לפדותו עורפו מאחוריו וקוברו מצות הפדייה קודמת למצות עריפה שנאמר (שמות יג, יג) אם לא תפדה וערפתו
4 There is no contradiction: the one statement [that redemption is after thirty days] gives the opinion of R'Eliezer who compares [an unclean animal with the first-born of a man], and the other statement [that redemption takes place immediately] gives the opinion of the Rabbis who do not make this comparison. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE DOES NOT WISH TO REDEEM IT [THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS], HE BREAKS ITS NECK FROM BEHIND AND BURIES IT. THE MIZWAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A religious act and duty.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה מצות יעידה קודמת למצות הפדייה שנאמר (שמות כא, ח) אשר לא יעדה והפדה
5 OF REDEMPTION IS PRIOR TO<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., has precedence over.');"><sup>7</sup></span> THE MIZWAH OF BREAKING ITS NECK, FOR IT SAYS: AND IF THOU WILT NOT REDEEM IT, THEN THOU SHALT BREAK ITS NECK.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 13. The verse implies that redemption comes first.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו מצות הייבום קודמת למצות חליצה בראשונה שהיו מתכוונין לשם מצוה ועכשיו שאין מתכוונין לשם מצוה אמרו מצות חליצה קודמת למצות יבום
6 THE MIZWAH OF YI'UD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Designation, especially the betrothal of a Hebrew handmaid.');"><sup>9</sup></span> IS PRIOR TO THE MIZWAH OF REDEMPTION, FOR IT SAYS: WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 8. The verse implies that the first duty is to betroth her.');"><sup>10</sup></span> THE MIZWAH OF YIBBUM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry the wife of a brother who died without issue.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז מצות הגאולה באדון הוא קודם לכל אדם שנאמר (ויקרא כז, כז) ואם לא יגאל ונמכר בערכך:
7 IS PRIOR TO THE MIZWAH OF HALIZAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ceremony of taking off the brother-in-law's shoe after refusing to marry his brother's widow. Deut. XXV, (5-11) .');"><sup>12</sup></span> THIS WAS THE CASE AT FIRST WHEN THE PARTIES CONCERNED USED TO CARRY OUT THE LAW WITH RELIGIOUS INTENTIONS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to preserve the name of the dead brother.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח <br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הלוקח עובר חמורו</strong></big><br><br>
8 BUT NOW THAT THEY DO NOT CARRY OUT THE LAW RELIGIOUSLY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But merely for sexual pleasure, and, since this is the case, it is sexual intercourse with a brother's wife, which is one of the forbidden relations.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט מתני׳ <big><strong>הלוקח</strong></big> עובר פרתו של עובד כוכבים והמוכר לו אע"פ שאינו רשאי והמשתתף לו והמקבל ממנו והנותן לו בקבלה פטור מן הבכורה שנאמר בישראל אבל לא באחרים
9 THE [RABBIS] HAVE SAID: THE MIZWAH OF HALIZAH IS PRIOR TO THE MIZWAH OF YIBBUM. THE MIZWAH OF REDEMPTION [OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL WHOSE VALUE IS DEDICATED TO THE SANCTUARY] RESTS WITH THE OWNER'HE IS FIRST, BEFORE ANY OTHER MAN, FOR IT SAYS: OR IF IT BE NOT REDEEMED, THEN IT SHALL BE SOLD ACCORDING TO THY VALUATION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 27. The verse therefore implies that redemption is a prior duty. Also redemption takes precedence, because where the owner redeems he has to add a fifth part, but in the case of another redeeming, there is no addition of a fifth for the benefit of the sanctuary, as Scripture says in the first part of the verse quoted in this connection: 'And If it be of an unclean beast, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation and shall add unto it the fifth part thereof'.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
י הכהנים והלוים חייבים שלא נפטרו מבכור בהמה טהורה אלא מפדיון הבן ומפטר חמור:
10 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[AN ISRAELITE] WHO BUYS AN EMBRYO<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A firstling.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יא <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי איריא דתני עובר חמורו ברישא והדר תני עובר פרתו ליתני ברישא עובר פרתו דקדושת הגוף הוא והדר ליתני עובר חמורו דקדושת דמים הוא
11 OF A COW BELONGING TO A HEATHEN, OR WHO SELLS ONE TO HIM, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT PERMITTED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is forbidden to sell large cattle to a heathen, because the animal is worked on the Sabbath.');"><sup>17</sup></span> OR WHO FORMS A PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both purchasing an animal between them.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יב אמרי במערבא איבעית אימא איידי דחביבא ליה כדרבי חנינא ואי בעית אימא איידי דזוטרן מיליה דבהמה טמאה פסיק ושדי לה
12 OR WHO RECEIVES AN ANIMAL FROM HIM TO LOOK AFTER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Israelite in return for attending to the animal receives in payment half of the offspring, but the animal itself belongs to the heathen.');"><sup>19</sup></span> OR WHO GIVES [HIS COW] TO HIM TO LOOK AFTER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Israelite sharing a half or a third of the offspring.');"><sup>20</sup></span> IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING, FOR IT SAYS: [I HALLOWED UNTO ME ALL THE FIRST-BORN] IN ISRAEL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. III, 13. The text implies that where a gentile has a share in the mother or an offspring, the firstling is not holy.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יג אמר ר' יצחק בר נחמני אמר ריש לקיש משום ר' אושעיא ישראל שנתן מעות לעובד כוכבים בבהמתו בדיניהם אע"פ שלא משך קנה וחייבת בבכורה ועובד כוכבים שנתן מעות לישראל בבהמתו בדיניהם אע"פ שלא משך קנה ופטור מן הבכורה
13 BUT NOT IN GENTILES. PRIESTS AND LEVITES ARE SUBJECT [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING]. THEY ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM [THE LAW OF] THE FIRSTLING OF A CLEAN ANIMAL, BUT ONLY OF A FIRST-BORN SON AND THE FIRST-BORN OF AN ASS.
יד אמר מר ישראל שנתן מעות לעובד כוכבים בדיניהם אף על פי שלא משך קנה וחייבת בבכורה
14 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why does [the redactor of the Mishnah] state the case of the embryo of an ass in the first [chapter],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Mishnah in the first chapter of the tractate.');"><sup>22</sup></span> and subsequently [in the second chapter], the case of an embryo of a cow?
טו מאי בדיניהם אי נימא בדיניהם דגופיה דאתי בקל וחומר אם גופיה קני ליה ישראל בכסף דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מו) לרשת אחוזה
15 Why not state in the first [chapter] the case of an embryo of a cow, since it is a case of an animal consecrated as such, and, subsequently. in the case of an embryo of an ass, as it is a case of an animal consecrated only for its value? - It was explained in the West [Palestine]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Palestine is designated as the West, being so situated geographically relative to Babylon, where the Talmud Babli was evolved.');"><sup>23</sup></span> If you choose, I may say the reason is because he dwelt with peculiar pleasure on this case, in the manner of R'Hanina [explained above].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 5b.');"><sup>24</sup></span> Or if you prefer, I can say it is because the regulations concerning an unclean animal are relatively few;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only one chapter is devoted to the rules and regulations appertaining to an unclean animal, whereas the remainder of the tractate of Bekoroth deals with the firstling of a clean animal.');"><sup>25</sup></span> [the redactor of the Mishnah] therefore cleared them out of the way first.
טז הקישו הכתוב לאחוזה מה אחוזה נקנית בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה אף עבד כנעני נקנה בכסף ממונו לא כל שכן הוא
16 R'Isaac B'Nahmani reported in the name of Resh Lakish on behalf of R'Oshiah: If an Israelite gave money to a heathen for his animal, [we judge the transaction] according to their laws and even though he did not pull the animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into his possession, which is one of the ways of effecting transference between Israelites, whereas with reference to a gentile, the handing over of the money effects transference; v. Glos. s.v. Meshikah.');"><sup>26</sup></span> he acquires possession and is subject to the law of the firstling.
יז אם כן אפי' בשטר ובחזקה נמי ועוד ישראל מישראל יוכיחו דגופיה קני ליה בכסף ממונו במשיכה
17 If a heathen gives money to an Israelite for his animal, [we also judge the transaction] according to their laws, and although he did not pull [the animal], he acquires possession and is exempt from the law of the firstling. The Master says: 'If an Israelite gave money to a heathen, [we judge the transaction] according to their laws, and although he did not pull [the animal], he acquires possession and is subject to the law of the firstling'.
יח אלא אמר אביי בדיניהם שפסקה להם תורה (ויקרא כה, יד) או קנה מיד עמיתך מיד עמיתך הוא דבמשיכה הא מיד עובד כוכבים בכסף
18 What does 'their laws mean? Shall we say that 'according to their laws' means, as regards the person [of the heathen], and we conclude a fortiori, that if the person [of a heathen] is acquired by the Israelite for money, as Scripture writ To hold for possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 46.');"><sup>27</sup></span> - [Scripture] compares a Canaanitish slave with a possession: as a possession is acquired by handing over the money to the seller, by a bill of sale, and taking possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Performing some kind of work on the estate. V. Kid, 26a.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יט ואימא מיד עובד כוכבים כלל כלל לא אמרי לא ס"ד ק"ו הוא אם גופו קונה ממונו לא כ"ש
19 so a Canaanitish slave is acquired with money - how much more so, therefore, is this the case with reference to a heathen's property?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is acquired from him by handing over the purchase money.');"><sup>29</sup></span> If this were the case, then a heathen's property should also be acquired even by means of a bill of sale and taking possession? And, moreover, this idea can be confuted by the case of an Israelite [having a transaction] with an Israelite. For though the person [of an Israelite] is acquired with money. yet his property is acquired by means of meshikah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 90, n. 3 and Kid, 26a. Similarly, although the person of the heathen is acquired with money, his property may require another form of acquiring possession.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
כ ואימא מיד עובד כוכבים עד דאיכא תרתי אמרי ולאו ק"ו הוא גופו באחת ממונו בשתים ואימא או בהא או בהא דומיא דעמיתך
20 Rather said Abaye: The expression 'according to their laws' means, those which the Torah laid down for them. [For Scripture says]: Or buy of thy neighbour's hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 14.');"><sup>31</sup></span> [and we deduce from this that] from 'the hand of thy neighbour' the way of acquiring possession is meshikah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'of thy neighbour's hand' implies that the object has to be filled from the hands of the seller into the hands of the buyer.');"><sup>32</sup></span> but from the hand of a heathen the way of acquiring possession is with money. But why not deduce that from the hand of a heathen there is no way of acquiring possession at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Short of actually bringing the object completely into the domain of the Israelite.');"><sup>33</sup></span> - It was explained: You cannot assume this a fortiori: If [the heathen's] person can be acquired, how much more so his property! But perhaps say that in the case of a heathen, two ways of effecting possession are required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Possession by means of money and meshikah, but not with money alone.');"><sup>34</sup></span> - The answer was given: Have we not here an a fortiori [argument]? If his person is acquired only in one way.
כא מה עמיתך בחדא אף עובד כוכבים נמי בחדא
21 
כב אמר מר ועובד כוכבים שנתן מעות לישראל בבהמתו בדיניהן אע"פ שלא משך קנה ופטור מן הבכורה מאי בדיניהן אילימא בדיניהן דגופיה משום דאתי בק"ו אם גופו ישראל קני ליה בכסף דכתיב (ויקרא כה, נא) מכסף מקנתו ממונו לא כ"ש
22 shall his property be acquired in two ways? But why not say that [a heathen acquires an object] either by means of one or the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Money or Meshikah.');"><sup>35</sup></span> - [The method of his acquiring] must resemble [the form of acquiring mentioned In connection with the text] 'thy neighbour'. Just as in the case of 'thy neighbour', [i.e., an Israelite], possess [can be acquired] only in one way, so in the case of a heathen only in one way. The Master said: 'But if a heathen gave money to an Israelite for his animal, [we judge the transaction according to their laws, and even though he did not pull [the animal], he acquires possession and is exempt from the law of the firstling'. What does 'according to their laws' mean?
כג ישראל מישראל יוכיחו דגופו קני בכסף ממונו במשיכה אלא אמר אביי בדיניהם שפסקה להם תורה (ויקרא כה, יד) וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך לעמיתך במשיכה הא לעובד כוכבים בכסף
23 If the expression 'according to their laws' refers to the person [of the Israelite] who is acquired with money by a heathen and we infer a fortiori: I the person [of an Israelite] is acquired with money - for Scripture writes: Out of the money that he was bought for,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 51. And the verse deals with a gentile who purchases a Hebrew slave.');"><sup>36</sup></span> - how much more so is [the Israelite's] property [acquired by means of money by a gentile]? This can be refuted by the case of a transaction between Israelites, for his person is acquired with money and yet his property is acquired by meshikah! Rather, said Abaye: 'According to their laws' means those which the Torah laid down for them. [Scripture says]: 'And if thou sell aught to thy neighbour';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 14.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
כד ואימא לעובד כוכבים כלל כלל לא אמרי לאו ק"ו הוא אם גופו קנה ממונו לא כ"ש
24 [we infer from this] that 'to thy neighbour' the way of acquiring possession is by meshikah, but in the case of a gentile, possession is acquired with money. But why not say that for a heathen there is no way [for acquiring possession] at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that in order to secure possession of an Israelite's chattels, he must transfer them completely to his domain.');"><sup>38</sup></span> - I can answer, No. Have we not an a fortiori [argument]? If a heathen can acquire the person [of an Israelite] with money, how much more so is this the case with the property [of an Israelite]?
כה אימא לעובד כוכבים עד דאיכא תרתי לאו ק"ו הוא גופו באחד ממונו בשתים
25 But why not say that for a heathen there must be two ways of acquiring possession? - But is there not the a fortiori argument [to the contrary]? If a heathen acquires possession of the person [of an Israelite] by one act only, should the Israelite's property be acquired only by two acts? But why not say that [a heathen acquires possession of an Israelite's property] either by means of one or the other! - [The way of acquiring possession] must resemble [what is mentioned in connection with the text] 'thy neighbour'.
כו ואימא או בהא או בהא דומיא דעמיתך
26 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter