Bekhorot 68

Chapter 68

א ונקצצה טהור קצצה מתכוין רבי אליעזר אומר לכשיולד לו נגע אחר יטהר הימנו
1 and it was cut off [unintentionally] he becomes clean. If, however, he cut it off intentionally. R'Eliezer says When another plague spot appears on him [from which he is pronounced clean], then he is cleansed from [the first].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this proves that the first leprous spot would also have healed had it not been cut off.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב וחכ"א עד שתפרח בכולו או עד שתמעט בהרתו מכגריס
2 But the Sages say: [In order for him to be clean], either [the second plague] must break out all over his flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture saying: If the leprosy have covered all the flesh, he shall pronounce him clean. Lev. XIII. 13.');"><sup>2</sup></span> or [before the cutting off of the first leprous spot], it must have decreased to less than the of a bean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if the bahereth was of the size of a bean before being cut off, he is never clean. (Neg. VII, 5) . Consequently, we see that R. Eliezer does not condemn him to be unclean for ever.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרווייהו כי קניס ר' אליעזר בממונו בגופו לא קניס
3 - Rabbah and R'Joseph both replied: R'Eliezer penalizes thus only where a person's property is concerned, not where his body is concerned. As regards his property [i.e.the firstling], one can say that he may do it [in either case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we argue that if by causing the blemish he is permitted to slaughter the animal, then he benefits thereby, and if he has to wait till another blemish appears, then he has lost nothing, as in any case he intended waiting for another blemish to appear. We therefore condemn him never to slaughter the firstling, so as to prevent him causing blemishes.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד ממונו איכא למימר דאתי למיעבד גופו מי איכא למימר דאתי למיעבד
4 but as regards his body, can it be said that he would do it in either case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, if we do not make him unclean for ever, he will cut off the bahereth, and put himself in a doubtful position and wait for the next plague. He will not do so, first because if there does not appear another plague spot he will never be clean, and secondly, because even if there appears another plague spot what benefit is it to him, since he is afflicted as before? It is therefore better for him not to cut off the bahereth and to wait in case it heals.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ה אמר רבא דר' אליעזר אדרבי אליעזר קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא
5 Said Raba: Is there only a contradiction between R'Eliezer here [in the Mishnah] and R'Eliezer [in Nega'im]? Is there not a similar contradiction between the Rabbis [in the Mishnah] and the Rabbis [in Nega'im]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who evidently condemn him to be unclean for ever unless it spreads over the whole flesh or it decreased etc.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ו אלא דר' אליעזר אדרבי אליעזר לא קשיא כדשנינן רבנן אדרבנן נמי לא קשיא הכא במאי דעבד קנסוה הכא במאי דעבד קנסוה
6 - The difficulty with regard to R'Eliezer has already been solved and as regards the difficulty in the case of the Rabbis, this is also no problem. In the one case we punish him for what he did, and in the other also we punish him for what he did.
ז במאי איכוין למישרייה בהאי מומא בהאי מומא קנסוה רבנן דבהאי מומא לא לישתרי ליה והכא במאי דעבד קנסוה איכוין לטהורי נפשיה בהאי קציצה בהאי קציצה קנסוה רבנן
7 In one case, [that of a firstling], we punish him for what he did, for how did he intend to make it permitted? By means of this blemish.
ח בעי רב פפא יטהר תנן או ויטהר תנן
8 The Rabbis therefore punished him by ordering that the firstling should not be permitted on account of this very blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Treating the firstling as if nothing at all had been done to it.');"><sup>7</sup></span> And in the other case we punish him for what he did.
ט למאי נפקא מינה לחתן שנראה בו נגע
9 For how did he intend to make himself appear clean?
י דתנן חתן שנראה בו נגע נותנין לו ז' ימים לו ולאצטליתו ולכסותו וכן ברגל נותנין לו כל ימי הרגל
10 By cutting off this [bahereth].
יא אי אמרת יטהר תנן מקמייתא טהר ליה לבתרייתא נטרין ליה ז' ימי משתה
11 The Rabbis therefore punished him for this very cut.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding him as if he had never cut off the bahereth at all, so that even if he becomes clean from the second plague, he is not clean from the first, unless the latter plague covers all his flesh.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יב אלא אי אמרת ויטהר תנן סוף סוף כי לא מטמיא לבתרייתא הא מיטמא וקאי מקמייתא מאי תיקו
12 R'Papa inquired: Does it mean 'He shall become clean'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that directly there appears a second plague, he is clean from the first.');"><sup>9</sup></span> or 'And then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only after he is pronounced clean from the latter leprous spot is he clean from the former.');"><sup>10</sup></span> he shall become clean'?
יג בעי מיניה ר' ירמיה מר' זירא צורם אוזן בבכור ומת מהו לקנוס בנו אחריו
13 What is the practical difference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in any case he remains unclean until the second plague heals, even if he is clean from the first.');"><sup>11</sup></span> - In the case of a bridegroom on whom there appeared this [second] leprous spot.
יד אם תימצי לומר מוכר עבדו לעובדי כוכבים ומת קנסו בנו אחריו דכל יומא ויומא מפקע ליה ממצות
14 For we learnt: In the case of a bridegroom on whom there appears a plague spot, we give him seven days [of the wedding week not to see the priest] - to him, to his garment and to his covering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should a plague appear on it.');"><sup>12</sup></span> And likewise in the case of any person on a Festival, we give him the whole Festival [in which not to see a priest].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. III. 2.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טו אם תימצי לומר כוון מלאכתו במועד ומת לא קנסו בנו אחריו משום דלא עבדא לאיסורא
15 Now if you say that it means 'He shall become clean' then he is clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Immediately when the other appears, and he is not unclean on account of the latter, as we wait until after the wedding week or after the Festival.');"><sup>14</sup></span> from the first plague and as regards the second, we wait seven days for him.
טז הכא מאי דידיה קנסו רבנן והא ליתיה או דלמא לממוניה קנסו רבנן והא איתיה
16 But if you say that it means 'And then he shall become clean' of what avail is it that he is not unclean from the second plague, if he remains unclean by reason of the first plague?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of what use is it that we wait in connection with the second plague, not allowing the priest to examine it, seeing that he is not clean from the first plague until the second is healed?');"><sup>15</sup></span> What [is the answer]? - Let [the question] stand over.
יז א"ל תניתוה שדה שנתקווצה בשביעית תזרע למוצאי שביעית ניטייבה נידיירה לא תזרע למוצאי שביעית ואמר רב אסי בר' חנינא נקטינן הטיבה ומת בנו זורעה אלמא לדידיה קנסו רבנן לבריה לא קנסו רבנן
17 R'Jeremiah inquired from R'Ze'ira: If one slit the ear of a firstling and he died, what is the ruling as regards penalizing his son? Should you take as a guide the rule that if a man sells his slave to a heathen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being a penalty for one who sells his slave to a heathen, the owner being required to redeem him even up to ten times his price.');"><sup>16</sup></span> and he dies, his son is penalized after him, the reason [there] may be because every day he is prevented from carrying out commandments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his non-Jewish environment.');"><sup>17</sup></span> And should you be guided by the rule that if a man plans some work<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To cut e.g., the grapes of his vineyard, since if a real loss would be entailed through not working during the Festival, the work is permitted, but this man deliberately arranged for this work to be done during the intermediate days, though he could have done it earlier.');"><sup>18</sup></span> for [the intermediate days of] the Festival and dies, his son is not penalized after him, the reason [there] may be because he did not actually do anything forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he died before the Festival.');"><sup>19</sup></span> What then is the ruling here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he actually committed an offence in causing a blemish to a firstling.');"><sup>20</sup></span> Did the Rabbis penalize the man himself and he is no more, or perhaps does the penalty of the Rabbis apply to his property and this is still in existence? - He replied to him: We have learnt this [in a Mishnah]: A field which had its thorns removed in the sabbatical year may be sown in the period beginning with the end of the sabbatical year.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We do not penalize him, as the work done was of little value.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יח אמר אביי נקטינן
18 If, however, the field had been improved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By tilling oftener than usual or by unloading manure on it.');"><sup>22</sup></span> or manured with [the excrement of cattle],it must not be sown in the period beginning with the end of the sabbatical year.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the work is important, and we therefore punish him.');"><sup>23</sup></span> And R'Jose B'Hanina said: We hold a tradition: If he improved the field and died, his son may sow it. Consequently we see that the Rabbis punished the man himself, but the Rabbis did not punish his son; here also the Rabbis punish the man himself but not his son. Said Abaye: We hold a tradition:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter