Bekhorot 32

ולדותיהן פטורין ולדי ולדותיהן חייבין

THEIR OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT [FROM THE LAW OF] THE FIRSTLING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, in the first place, a half of the offspring belongs to the heathen and secondly the latter will seize the offspring if he cannot have the flock');">¹</span>

העמיד ולדותיהן תחת אמותיהן ולדי ולדות פטורין וולדי וולדי וולדות חייבים

BUT THE OFFSPRING OF THEIR OFFSPRING ARE LIABLE [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the heathen will not go as far as to seize the third generation in place of the mother.');">²</span>

רשב"ג אומר

IF [THE ISRAELITE] PUT THE OFFSPRING IN THE PLACE OF THEIR MOTHERS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Israelite has expressly stipulated that if the flock died, the heathen could have the offspring.');">³</span>

אפילו עד עשרה פטורים שאחריותן לעובד כוכבים

THEN THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the owner has a hold on the succeeding generation of animals.');">⁴</span>

רחל שילדה מין עז ועז שילדה מין רחל פטורה מן הבכורה ואם יש בו מקצת סימנין חייב:

BUT THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE LIABLE [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING].

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למימרא דכיון דלא נקט מרא זוזי ברשותא דמרא קיימא

RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN UNTO TEN GENERATIONS THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT [FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING].

ורמינהו

SINCE THEY ARE PLEDGED TO THE HEATHEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For every time the heathen would lay hands on whatever he found.');">⁵</span>

אין מקבלין צאן ברזל מישראל מפני שהוא רבית

IF A EWE GAVE BIRTH TO WHAT LOOKED LIKE A KID, OR A KID WHICH GAVE BIRTH TO WHAT LOOKED LIKE A EWE, IT IS EXEMPT FROM [THE LAW OF] THE FIRSTLING BUT IF IT POSSESSES CERTAIN CLEAR MARKS [RESEMBLING THE MOTHER] IT IS LIABLE [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING].

אלמא ברשותא דמקבל קיימא

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Does this mean to say that since the owner does not take money, therefore it is still the property of the owner?

אמר אביי

Against this I quote: One must not receive a flock from an Israelite on 'iron terms', because It is usury.

לא קשיא הא דקביל עליה אונסא וזולא והא דלא קביל עליה אונסא וזולא

This shows that it is in the ownership of the receiver?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it is as if the giver in return for waiting for his money receives a share of the offspring, which is usury, whereas if the money remained in the possession of the giver, it would not be usury.');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה רבא

- Said Abaye: This is no difficulty.

דקביל עליה אונסא וזולא צאן ברזל קרית ליה

In the one case [our Mishnah] he [the heathen owner] took the risks of accidents and a fall in value while in the other he [the owner] did not take the risks of accidents and a fall in value.

ועוד מאי פסקא

Raba said to him: If took the risks of accidents and a fall in value, do you call this receiving a flock on 'iron terms',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then there would be no security like 'iron' for the giver of the animal.');">⁷</span>

ועוד אדתני סיפא

and, moreover, where is this distinction implied [in the context]?

אבל מקבלין צאן ברזל מן העובד כוכבים ליפלוג וליתני בדידה

And, moreover, why does the second part [of the passage quoted above] state: 'One may receive from a heathen a flock on "iron terms"'?

בד"א דלא קביל עליה אונסא וזולא אבל קביל עליה אונסא וזולא שפיר דמי

Why not draw a distinction in the first part [itself, as follows]: When does this apply?

אלא אמר רבא

Where he [the owner] did not undertake the risks of accidents and a fall in value, but where he undertook the risks of accidents and a fall in value, it is permitted! - Rather said Raba, In both cases he [the owner] did not take the risks of accidents and a fall in value.

אידי ואידי דלא קביל עליה אונסא וזולא

But here, in connection with the firstling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is not because it is in the possession of the heathen, but because it is a pledge with the Israelite.');">⁸</span>

והכא גבי בכורה היינו טעמא

this is the reason.

דאילו אתי עובד כוכבים בעי זוזי ולא יהיב ליה תפיס לה לבהמה ואי לא משכח לה לבהמה תפיס ולדות דידה והרי יד עובד כוכבים באמצע וכל יד עובד כוכבים באמצע פטורה מן הבכורה:

If the heathen came and wanted money and the Israelite did not give it to him, he would seize the animal, and if he did not find the animal, he would seize its offspring.

העמיד ולדותיהן תחת אמותיהן ולדי ולדות פטורים:

Therefore the heathen has a share in it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the hand (finger) of the heathen is between'.');">⁹</span>

א"ר הונא

and wherever the heathen has a share [in an animal], it is exempt from [the law of] the firstling.

ולדות פטורין וולדי ולדותיהן חייבין

<br>(IF THE ISRAELITE PUT THE OFFSPRING IN THE PLACE OF THEIR MOTHERS, THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT:)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The bracketed passage is best left out. V. Marginal Gloss Z.K.].');">¹⁰</span>

ורב יהודה אמר

Said R'Huna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to the first passage in the MISHNAH:');">¹¹</span>

ולדי ולדות נמי פטורין וולדי ולדי ולדות חייבין

Their offspring are exempt from the law of the firstling, but the offspring of the offspring are liable to the law of the firstling.

תנן

Rab Judah.

העמיד ולדות תחת אמותיהן ולדי ולדות פטורין

however, said: The offspring of the offspring are also exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable [to t law of the firstling].

טעמא דהעמיד הא לא העמיד לא

We have learnt in a Mishnah: IF THE ISRAELITE PUT THE OFFSPRING IN THE PLACE OF THEIR MOTHERS, THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [No objection is raised from the first clause of our Mishnah, as the phrase 'OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING there may be of a more general connotation meaning simply that with certain later generations the liability begins. V. Sh. Mek. and p. 115. n. 1.]');">¹²</span>

תיובתא דרב יהודה

The reason for exemption is because he put them in place of their mothers.

אמר לך רב יהודה

But if he did not do so, they would not be exempt.

הוא הדין אע"ג דלא העמיד

Now, is this not an argument against Rab Judah? - Rab Judah can answer: The same applies even if he did not put the offspring [in the place of the mothers];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the second generation of offspring are exempt from the law of the firstling.');">¹³</span>

והא קמ"ל

but the Mishnah, however, teaches us this, that even if he put [the offspring in the place of their mothers],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus mortgaged the first generation for the heathen, so that the latter ought not to have any further claim on successive generations of offspring.');">¹⁴</span>

אפילו העמיד נמי דאורחיה דעובד כוכבים למיתפס בנה והוי כמי דלא העמיד ולדי ולדות פטורין וולדי ולדי ולדות חייבין

since it is the custom of the heathen to seize the offspring [failing the mother], it is as if he had not put the offspring [in place of their mothers].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore I might have said that successive generations of offspring should always be exempted.');">¹⁵</span>

תנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר

We are therefore informed [that even so] the offspring of the offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable [to the law of the firstling].

אפי' עד עשרה דורות פטורין שאחריותן לעובד כוכבים

We have learnt in the Mishnah: RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN UNTO TEN GENERATIONS THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT, SINCE THEY ARE PLEDGED TO THE HEATHEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel refers to the first clause.');">¹⁶</span>

בשלמא לרב יהודה דאמר

Now there is no difficulty on the view of Rab Judah who said that the first Tanna [in the Mishnah] goes up to [two] generations,

נחית תנא קמא לדרי