Bekhorot 64

Chapter 64

א יגאל דכתב רחמנא למה לי אם אינו ענין לחרמים תנהו ענין למעשר אימא תנהו ענין לבכור מעשר גאולה כמותו
1 What need then is there for the text 'It shall not be redeemed'? If it has no bearing on the subject of haramim, make it bear on the subject of tithing [as regards selling]. But why not say: Make it bear on the subject of a firstling? - [It is reasonable to maintain that] the word ge'ulah used in connection with haramim is [to be applied to tithing since the identical word] ge'ulah [is used with reference to tithing] as with the former.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi for various reasons rejects this version and gives the following version: Without the analogy between tithing and haramim one can infer that tithing must not be sold, for the text 'It shall not be sold' in connection with haramim is not necessary, for if haramim are in the possession of the owners then they are holy, and if in the possession of the priest, then they are hullin. We therefore, declares Raba, maintain that the text 'It shall not be sold' refers to tithing.');"><sup>1</sup></span> R'Ashi says: 'It shall not be redeemed' mentioned in connection with tithing means that it shall not be sold. Said R'Ashi: Whence can I prove this?
ב רב אשי אמר לא יגאל דמעשר לא ימכר הוא אמר רב אשי מנא אמינא לה דכתיב (ויקרא כז, לג) והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש לא יגאל
2 [Scripture writes]: Then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII. 33.');"><sup>2</sup></span> Now, when is it that the law of Substitution applies? When [the animal] is alive. Therefore, when may it not be redeemed? When it is alive, thus implying that after having been slaughtered it may be redeemed.
ג אימתי עושה תמורה מחיים אימתי אינו נגאל מחיים הא לאחר שחיטה נגאל הא בעי העמדה והערכה
3 But does it not require presentation and valuation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore you must admit it does not come under the law of redemption and that its value does not assume any holiness, the selling being prohibited because a secular action was performed with the animal.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אלא שמע מינה לא יגאל לא ימכר הוא
4 Therefore you must deduce from here that the text 'It shall not be redeemed' means that it shall not be sold. This would indeed hold good according to him who holds that objects consecrated for the altar are included in the law of presentation and valuation.
ה הניחא למ"ד קדשי מזבח היו בכלל העמדה והערכה אלא למ"ד קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה מאי איכא למימר
5 But according to him who holds that objects consecrated for the altar are not included in the law of presentation and valuation, what can you reply? - We mean this [R'Ashi argues]: Is there any object which cannot be redeemed when alive and can yet be redeemed after being slaughtered! - But why not?
ו אנן הכי קאמרינן מי איכא דמחיים לא מיפריק ולאחר שחיטה מיפריק אלמה לא מחיים דאלימא קדושתיה לא מיפריק לאחר שחיטה דאקיל ליה קדושתיה מיפריק
6 [It is natural that] when an object is alive, its holiness being strong, it cannot be redeemed, whereas after its slaughtering, its holiness having been weakened, it may be that it can be redeemed! - But is it not a matter of course? For if when the animal is alive, when it is qualified to effect redemp tion [Scripture says that] it cannot be redeemed, after having been slaughtered, when it has not the strength to effect redemption, how much more so is it the case that it cannot be redeemed? Consequently [we deduce from here that] the text 'It shall not be redeemed' means that it shall not be sold. But why does not the Divine Law then write explicitly 'It shall not be sold'? - If the Divine Law had written 'It shall not be sold'. I migh have thought that it cannot indeed be sold, since he performed a secular action [in exchanging], but it can be redeemed, because its money enters [the coffers of] the Sanctuary, the Divine Law therefore writes 'It shall not be redeemed' teaching that it can neither be sold nor redeemed.
ז ולא כל דכן הוא ומה מחיים דאלים למיתפס פדיונו לא מיפריק לאחר שחיטה דלא אלים למיתפס פדיונו מיפריק אלא ש"מ לא יגאל לא ימכר הוא
7 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>BETH SHAMMAI SAY: AN ISRAELITE MUST NOT BE INVITED TO SHARE [A BLEMISHED FIRSTLING] WITH A PRIEST, WHEREAS BETH HILLEL PERMIT THIS. EVEN IN THE CASE OF A HEATHEN. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whose view does the Mishnah represent? - That of R'Akiba. For it has been taught: Only a company all of whom are priests may enter for a share of a firstling. These are the words of Beth Shammai.
ח ולכתוב רחמנא לא ימכר אי כתב רחמנא לא ימכר הוה אמינא איזדבוני הוא דלא מזדבן דקא עביד עובדין דחול אבל איפרוקי מיפריק דהא עיילי דמיו להקדש להכי כתב רחמנא לא יגאל דלא איזדבוני מיזדבן ולא איפרוקי מיפריק:
8 But Beth Hillel permit even strangers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., non-priests.');"><sup>4</sup></span> R'Akiba permits [according to Beth Hillel] even heathens. What is the reason of Beth Shammai? - It is written, And the flesh of them shall be thine, as the wave-breast and as the right shoulder [are thine].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 18.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Just as there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the wave-breast and shoulder.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בש"א לא ימנה ישראל עם הכהן לבכור וב"ה מתירין ואפי' עובד כוכבים:
9 priests may [eat] but not a lay Israelite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture writes, Thou and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, thus excluding a lay Israelite.');"><sup>7</sup></span> so here priests are allowed [to eat] but not an Israelite.
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מתני' מני ר"ע היא דתניא בכור אין נמנין עליו אלא חבורה שכולה כהנים דברי בית שמאי וב"ה אומרים אפילו זרים רבי עקיבא מתיר אפי' עובד כוכבים
10 
יא מ"ט דב"ש דכתי' (במדבר יח, יח) ובשרם יהיה לך וגו' מה התם כהנים אין ישראל לא אף הכא כהנים אין ישראל לא
11 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter