Bekhorot 63

Chapter 63

א דבר שאינו נישום מחיים לא גזור רבנן וביתמי אוקמוה רבנן אדאורייתא
1 but in the case of an object which is not valued when alive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the skin, etc.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ואף רב שמואל בר רב יצחק סבר לה להא דרבא דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק מנין למעשר בהמה של יתומים שמוכרים אותו כדרכו
2 the Rabbis did not prohibit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The value of the animal being not on account of these things, disposing of them indirectly is permissible even in the case of an adult.');"><sup>2</sup></span> and in the case of orphans, the Rabbis let the law remain according to the biblical ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That after having been slaughtered a tithing animal may be sold even in the ordinary manner.');"><sup>3</sup></span> And R'Samuel son of R'Isaac also held Raba's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to the biblical law a tithing animal may be sold after having been slaughtered.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג שנאמר (דברים יב, טו) רק בכל אות נפשך תזבח ואכלת בשר איזהו דבר שאין בו ברכה מחיים אלא לאחר שחיטה הוי אומר זה מעשר בהמה
3 For R'Samuel son of R'Isaac said: Whence is it proved that we may sell a tithing animal belonging to orphans in the ordinary way? Because it is said, Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy gates after all the desire of thy soul [according to the blessing of the Lord thy God]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 15. Sifri a.l. explains this verse as referring to consecrated animals that have received a blemish.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד איבעיא להו מהו להבליעו בעצמות רבי חייא ור' שמעון ברבי חד אמר מבליעו וחד אמר אין מבליעו
4 Now which [dedicated] object has no blessing [from the dedication] when alive but only after being slaughtered? You must say that this is a tithing animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For any other consecrated object with a blemish may after redemption be sold when alive to anybody. And the blessing referred to here means the permission of selling it just as the blessing denied when alive refers to its selling. Consequently we see that according to the biblical law, a tithing animal may be sold after having been slaughtered and there is only a rabbinic restriction which is not invoked when it belongs to orphans.');"><sup>6</sup></span> The following query was put forward: What of selling its flesh in conjunction with the bones?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tithing animal belonging to an adult.');"><sup>7</sup></span> R'Hiyya and R'Simeon son of Rabbi differ [in this matter]. One says.
ה ולא פליגי הא בדקה הא בגסה
5 
ו ואיבעית אימא אידי ואידי בגסה ולא פליגי מר כי אתריה ומר כי אתריה
6 he may sell indirectly, and the other says he must not sell indirectly: And they do not [really] differ. The teacher [who forbids] refers to the bones of small cattle, and the other refers to bones of large cattle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may be fashioned into vessels or instruments like flutes, and therefore selling the flesh in conjunction with the bones is permissible, as it will be said that the price is for the bones, since these can be of use.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ז גופא בבכור הוא אומר לא יפדה ונמכר במעשר נאמר לא יגאל ואינו נמכר לא חי ולא שחוט ולא תם ולא בעל מום מנא הני מילי
7 Or, if you prefer. I can say: In the one case as well as in the other it refers to large cattle, and yet there is no differ opinion. One follows the custom of his place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where flutes for example are made from bones, and therefore this teacher permits the selling of flesh in connection with the bones.');"><sup>9</sup></span> and the other that of his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where these articles are not made from bones, and therefore when they are sold it is obvious that the money is for the flesh, which is forbidden. ktdh tk');"><sup>10</sup></span> The [above] text states: In connection with a firstling Scripture says: 'Thou shalt not redeem', implying th it may be sold when alive, and in connection with tithing, it is said in the Scriptures: 'It shall not be redeemed', intimating that it is forbidden to be sold either alive or ritually cut, whether unblemished or blemished. Whence is this proved?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a tithing animal must not be sold and that the expression , rendered 'It shall not be redeemed' also connotes selling.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ח אמר רב חיננא אמר רב וכן אמר רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן נאמר לא יגאל במעשר ונאמר ולא יגאל בחרמים מה להלן מכירה עמו אף כאן מכירה עמו
8 - R'Hanina reported in the name of Rab and likewise when R'Dimi came he reported in the name of R'Johanan: It is said in connection with tithing the expression 'It shall not be redeemed', and we read in the Scriptures in connection with haramim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Devoted things'. Dedications for use by the priests or the Temple. ktdh tk');"><sup>12</sup></span> the expression It shall not be redeemed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 28.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ט אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מפני דאי לא מפני איכא למפרך מה לחרמים שכן חלים על הכל
9 just as the latter includes [the prohibition of] selling so the former includes selling. Said R'Nahman the son of Isaac to R'Huna son of Joshua: [The text 'It shall not be redeemed'] is free [for interpretation], for if it were not free [for interpretation], it may be objected [against this analogy] that th case of haramim is different because they take effect upon everything.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even upon sacred objects as well, whereas tithing only has affect on hullin. Moreover herem applies to all the herd, whereas tithing only applies to every tenth animal of the herd.');"><sup>14</sup></span> Is it not so?
י לאיי אפנויי מפני לא יאמר ולא יגאל בחרמים ויגמר ממעשר מה מעשר קדוש ואינו נגאל אף חרמים קדושים ואינם נגאלין ולא יגאל דכתב רחמנא למה לי לאפנויי
10 It is indeed open for interpretation. [For if Scripture] should not have stated 'It shall not be redeemed' in connection with haramim, one could have inferred this from the case of a tithing animal: just as a tithing animal is holy and is not redeemed, so haramim are holy and are not redeemed. What need therefore is there for [the words] 'It shall not be redeemed'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with haramim.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יא איכא למיפרך מה למעשר שכן קדוש לפניו ולאחריו
11 Deduce from here consequently that it is free for interpretation. But it may be objected [to this analogy] that the case of a tithing animal is different because the animals which preceded and followed [the tenth in the counting] are all holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for example, he called the ninth animal the tenth and the eleventh the tenth, the three are holy.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יב אלא לא יאמר לא יגאל בחרמים ויגמר מבכור מה בכור קדוש ואינו נגאל אף חרמים קדושין ואינן נגאלין לא יגאל דכתב רחמנא ל"ל לאפנויי
12 Rather [argue thus]: [Scripture] should not have stated 'It shall not be redeemed'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with animal tithing.');"><sup>17</sup></span> in connection with haramim, and one could have inferred this from the case of the firstling; as a firstling is holy and is not redeemed, so haramim are holy and cannot be redeemed.
יג איכא למיפרך מה לבכור שכן קדושתו מרחם
13 What need then is there for [Scripture] to write 'It shall not be redeemed'? This shows that it is free for interpretation.
יד אלא לא יאמר לא יגאל במעשר ויגמר העברה העברה מבכור מה בכור קדוש ואינו נגאל אף מעשר קדוש ואינו נגאל לא יגאל דכתב רחמנא במעשר למה לי לאפנויי
14 But it may still be objected that the case of a firstling is different because it is hallowed fr birth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas this is not the case with a tithing animal.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Rather [argue thus: Scripture] should not have used the expression 'It shall not be redeemed' in connection with a tithing animal, and one could have inferred this from the analogy between 'passing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'All that passeth under the rod' Lev. XXVII, 32 in connection with tithing and 'that thou shalt cause to pass (set apart) ' mentioned with reference to a first-born in Ex. XIII, 12.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
טו ואכתי במעשר נמי לא מפני דאיכא למפרך כדפרכינן
15 here and passing mentioned in con nection with a firstling; as a firstling is holy and is not redeemed, so a tithing animal is holy and is not redeemed.
טז והעברת קרא יתירא הוא
16 What need then is there for [Scripture] to write 'It shall not be redeemed' in connection with a tithing animal?
יז בכור נמי נילף גאולה גאולה מחרמים דמעשר מפני דבכור לא מפני
17 It is therefore free [for interpretation]. But still [the expression] in connection with a tithing animal is not free, since we can refute the analogy as we did above?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a firstling being different, as it is hallowed from birth.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יח ומאי חזית דלא תפדה דבכור לגופיה ודמעשר לאפנויי ואימא דמעשר לגופיה דבכור לאפנויי
18 - [The text That thou shalt cause to pass' is superfluous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would have sufficed if Scripture had stated: All that openeth the womb is the Lord's. The term 'cause to pass' here is therefore free for the deduction of an analogy between it and the term used in connection with tithing, as we do not refute an analogy drawn from congruent expressions, since the latter is a tradition. Therefore the text 'It shall not be redeemed' is redundant, and we consequently compare it with a similar text in connection with haramim, deducing that tithes must not be sold as well as not redeemed. vsp ktd');"><sup>21</sup></span> But why not also make a comparison between the text 'Thou shalt not redeem' used in connection with a firstling and the text 'It shall not be redeemed' used in connection with haramim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a firstling must not be sold, though the Hebrew expressions in each are different, in the one and in the other, identical in meaning.');"><sup>22</sup></span> - The 'redemption' mentioned in connection with tithing is free for interpretation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore we make the analogy of firstling with haramim.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יט דנין גאולה מגאולה ואין דנין פדייה מגאולה
19 whereas the 'redemption' mentioned in connection with a firstling is not free [for interpretation].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first place, it is required for its own sake, to show that the animal cannot be redeemed, and secondly for the analogy between 'passing' and 'passing'.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
כ מאי נפקא מינה הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יד, לט) ושב הכהן ובא הכהן זו היא שיבה זו היא ביאה
20 But why do you see fit to say that the text mentioning 'redemption' in connection with a firstling is required for its own sake,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for the analogy with tithing.');"><sup>25</sup></span> while the text 'It shall not be redeemed' in connection with tithing is free [for interpretation]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To compare with haramim with regard to selling.');"><sup>26</sup></span> Why not say that the text 'It shall not be redeemed' in connection with tithing is required for its own sake, while the text 'Thou shalt not redeem' referring to a firstling is free for interpretation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That just as in the case of haramim selling is forbidden, so a firstling must not be sold.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
כא הני מילי היכא דליכא דדמי ליה אבל איכא דדמי ליה מדדמי ליה ילפינן
21 - We compare the word ge'ulah with the word ge'ulah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in connection with haramim and tithing respectively.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
כב ולילף בכור העברה העברה ממעשר דהא מעשר נמי גמר גאולה גאולה מחרמים
22 whereas we do not compare the word pediyah [used in connection with a first-born], with the word ge'ulah [mentioned in connection with haramim].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 205, n. 3 .');"><sup>29</sup></span>
כג מיעט רחמנא גבי חרמים הוא הוא ולא בכור ואימא הוא ולא מעשר מעשר גאולה כמותו
23 But what is the practical difference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both the words pediyah and ge'ulah mean the same thing.');"><sup>30</sup></span> Did not a Tanna of the school of R'Ishmael teach: [Scripture says]: And the Priest shall come again and [later it says]: Then the Priest shall come,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV. 39 and 44 (with reference to leprosy of house) .');"><sup>31</sup></span> to show that the same rule applies to his coming [the second time] as to his entering [after a week]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the words are not identical, yet the ruling is the same. v. Hul 85a.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
כד רבא אמר לא יגאל דחרמים לא צריך דאיתנהו היכא אי בי בעלים הקדש נינהו אי בי כהן חולין נינהו
24 - This is the case only where no identical words are to be found [with which to compare], but where identical words are to be found, we rather make the comparison with identical words. But why not infer the case of a firstling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it must not be sold.');"><sup>33</sup></span> from that of a tithing animal [by means of the analogy] between 'passing' and 'passing', for, as regards the [forbidding of the sale] of a tithing animal, we have already compared the word ge'ulah with the word ge'ulah mentioned in connection with haramim? - Scripture excludes this in connection with haramim, [saying]: It is [most holy]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII. 28.');"><sup>34</sup></span> implying 'it is [most holy],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is forbidden to be sold.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
כה דתניא חרמים כל זמן שהן בבית בעלים הרי הן כהקדש לכל דבריהם שנאמר (ויקרא כז, כח) כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה' נתנן לכהן הרי הן כחולין לכל דבריהם שנאמר (במדבר יח, יד) כל חרם בישראל לך יהיה לא
25 but not a firstling'. But why not say that the text implies 'it is [most holy] but not tithing? ' - It is reasonable to maintain that the word ge'ulah is used [in connection with tithing] and the word ge'ulah is used [with reference to haramim] in order that the former may be compared with the latter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards the prohibition of selling, and to exclude the case of a firstling, since the expression used there is pediyah.');"><sup>36</sup></span> Raba said: [The text] 'It shall not be redeemed' in connection with haramim is superfluous. For, where were [these haramim]? If in the possession of the owners, then they are holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And cannot therefore unless blemished be redeemed.');"><sup>37</sup></span> If in the possession of the priest, then they are hullin [and may be sold]. For it has been taught: So long as haramim are in the possession of the owners, they are considered as holy in all respects, for it is said: Every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII. 28.');"><sup>34</sup></span> If however he gave them to the priest, they are considered as hullin in all respects, as it is said: Everything devoted in Israel shall be thine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 14.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter