Parallel
בכורות 10
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But if this is so, then in the case of [the mixture] of meat and milk, why should it be said that the reason that it receives levitical uncleanness is because, at one time, it was fit for the uncleanness relating to food? Why not derive this from the fact that it is a food which you can give to gentiles? For it has been taught: R. Simeon, the son of R. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon: [The mixture of] meat and milk is forbidden to be eaten but it is permitted for general use since [Scripture says]: For thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God. And, in another place, Scripture says: And ye shall be holy men unto Me. As in that case, it is forbidden to be eaten but it may be used generally, so here [in connection with the mixture of meat and milk] it is forbidden to be eaten but it may be used generally! — R. Simeon gives one [reason] and still another [reason]. One [reason why it should receive the uncleanness of food is because it is a food] which can be given to gentiles. And still another [reason], because for [the Israelite] himself, too, there was a time [before its boiling] when it was fit to receive uncleanness. Now, if there is any substance in the opinion that after the ass's neck is broken it is permitted according to R. Simeon to be used, let the above [Baraitha] state: But R. Simeon agrees in connection with the first-birth of an ass and [the mixture of] meat and milk that they receive the levitical uncleanness relating to food? — [No]. If one had formed the intention [of using the ass as food], it would be so [as you argue] We are dealing here, however, in a case where he had not formed such an intention. And what is then the reason that [the majority of] the Rabbis, [R. Simeon's disputants], make it receive uncleanness? — Rabbis said the following in the presence of R. Shesheth: [The reason is that] its prohibition [by Scripture] renders it important [to be regarded as food]. But, do we say according to the Rabbis that the reason Is, since its prohibition renders it important? Have we not learnt [in a Mishnah]: Thirteen things were said with reference to the carcass of a clean bird, and this is one of them: it requires the intention [to be used as food], but it does not need to be rendered fit [to receive uncleanness]. Now, if its prohibition signalizes it [as food] [to receive uncleanness], what need is there for the intention of using it as food? — [The Mishnah just quoted] represents the opinion of R. Simeon. Come and hear: ‘The carcass of an unclean animal in all places, and the carcass of a clean bird and the fat [of the carcass of a clean animal] in the villages, require the intention [of being used as food in order to receive uncleanness], but they do not need to be rendered fit [to receive uncleanness]. Now, if you say that its prohibition renders it important [to receive uncleanness], what need is there for the intention [of using it as food]? — This, [too], represents the opinion of R. Simeon. Come and hear: The carcass of a clean animal in all places, or the carcass of a clean bird, or the fat [of a ritually slaughtered animal] in market places, do not require the intention [of being used as food]. Nor do they need to be rendered fit [to receive uncleanness of food]. This implies that an unclean animal does require the intention [of using it as food in order to receive uncleanness]. And should you say that this too represents the opinion of R. Simeon; surely since the second part [quoted below] is the opinion of R. Simeon, then the first part cannot be according to the opinion of R. Simeon. For the second part states: R. Simeon says: Also a camel, hare, rockbadger and swine, do not require the intention [of using them as food in order to receive uncleanness], nor need they be rendered fit [to receive uncleanness]. And R. Simeon [further] explained. What is the reason? Since [these animals mentioned] have marks of a clean animal! — No, said Rabbah: All [the authorities mentioned] agree that we do not say that its prohibition [by the Scriptures] renders it important [to receive the uncleanness relating to food]. And [as to your question, what is the reason of the Rabbis]? If the ass's neck has been broken, it would really be so.20
—
But here we are dealing with a case where e.g., he ritually killed [the ass] to practice therewith [to kill ritually], and the difference here corresponds to the difference of opinion of Nimos and R. Eleazar. For it has been taught: R. Jose said: Nimos the brother of Joshua the grist-maker told me that if one killed a raven ritually in order to practice therewith, its blood renders food fit [to receive uncleanness]. [R. Eleazar] says: The blood of shechitah always renders fit [to receive uncleanness]. Now is not [R. Eleazar's] opinion identical with the first Tanna? We must suppose then that the difference between them is whether its prohibition renders it important [as fit to receive uncleanness]? The first Tanna holds: Its blood renders it fit [for conveying uncleanness] to other [food], but as regards [the raven itself], it requires the intention [of being used as food]. Upon which [R. Eleazar] remarks: The blood of shechitah always renders it fit [to convey or receive uncleanness] and as regards the [raven] itself too, it does not require the intention [of using it as food] in order to receive [levitical uncleanness]. But how do you know [this]? Perhaps the reason of R. Eleazar there, is because the case of a raven is different, since it has marks of cleanness. And how do we know that marks of cleanness are of importance? — Because it says in connection with the Baraitha above, R. Simeon said: What is the reason? Since it has marks of cleanness. And should you object that if the reason is because of the marks of cleanness, why should it say [according to R. Eleazar] [that he killed the raven] in order to practice, since even if he unintentionally ritually killed it, the case should also be identical; the answer is, Yes, it is so, but it is on account of Nimos [that it does not state this]. Abaye raised the following objection. If he did not wish to redeem [the ass], he breaks its neck with a hatchet from the back and buries it, and it must not be used. These are the teachings of R. Judah. But R. Simeon permits it [to be used]? — Explain [in the following manner]: When alive it is forbidden to use [the first-birth of an ass], but R. Simeon permits this. But since the second part [of the above passage] refers to it when alive, then the first part must refer to it when it is not alive? For the second part states: ‘He must not kill [the ass] with a cane, nor with a sickle, nor with a spade, nor with a saw. Nor may he let it enter an enclosure and lock the door on it, in order that it may die. And it is forbidden to shear it or to work with it. These are the teachings of R. Judah. But R. Simeon permits this’! — The first and the second parts [we may explain] both refer to an ass when alive. The first part, however, refers to monetary benefit, and the second part refers to the benefit derived from its body. [And both parts] require [to be stated]. For if we had only the part referring to monetary benefit,I might have assumed that in that peculiar case R. Simeon permits, whereas with regard to the benefit derived from its body, I might have said that he agrees with R. Judah. And if we had only the part referring to the benefit derived from its body, I might have supposed that R. Judah forbids in that particular case, whereas in the case of monetary benefit, I might have said that he agrees with R. Simeon. [Therefore both parts] are necessary. And so R. Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah, the son of Abbuha: R. Simeon agrees that after the neck has been broken it is forbidden to be used. And R. Nahman said: On what evidence do I say this? Because it has been taught, [Scripture says]: Then thou shalt break its neck. Here [the word] "arifah’ is used and above [the word] "arifah’ is used; just as above it is forbidden to be used, so here also it is forbidden to be used. Whose opinion does this represent? Shall I say it is according to the opinion of R. Judah? Surely he prohibits it even when alive, Must you not therefore admit that it is the opinion. of R. Simeon? — Said R. Shesheth to him: Safra our fellow-student interpreted it as follows: [The above Baraitha] can still be the opinion of R. Judah, and yet there is need [for stating it]. I might have assumed that since ‘arifah’ stands in the place of redemption, as redemption makes it permissible [to be used], so "arifah’ is permitted. He consequently informs us [that it is not so]. Said R. Nahman: On what evidence do I say this? From what R. Levi taught, The Israelite causes a monetary loss to the priest; therefore he should suffer a monetary loss. Whose opinion does this represent? Shall I say that it is the opinion of R. Judah? Surely his loss is of long standing! [Must we not therefore admit] that it is the opinion of R. Simeon? — If you choose I may say it is the opinion of R. Judah, and, if you choose, I may say that it is the opinion of R. Simeon. If you choose I may say that it is the opinion of R. Judah, and he speaks of the loss entailed in the difference. And if you choose I may say that it is the opinion of R. Simeon, and he speaks of the loss incurred by its death. And so did Resh Lakish say: R. Simeon agrees that the ass after its neck has been broken is forbidden to be used. But R. Johanan, (or as some say, R. Eleazar) says: The difference between the Rabbis and R. Simeon still prevails even in such circumstances. Some report this, R. Nahman's ruling, in connection with the following: If one betrothed a woman with the first-birth of an ass, she is not betrothed. Are we to say that the Mishnah is not according to the opinion of R. Simeon? — R. Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah the son of Abbuha: [The Mishnah refers to a case] where the neck had been broken and therefore agrees with all the authorities concerned. Some there are who Say: Whose opinion does this represent? Neither the opinion of R. Judah nor that of R. Simeon. For if it is the opinion of R. Simeon, let her become betrothed with the whole value of the ass. And if it is the opinion of R. Judah, let her become betrothed with the difference! — Said Rabbah b. Abbuha in the name of Rab: [The Mishnah] can still be the opinion of R. Judah, e.g., where the ass was of the value only of a shekel; and he holds according to the view of R. Jose b. Judah. For it has been taught, [Scripture says]: ‘Thou shalt redeem’ . . . ‘Thou shalt redeem’. [One text] ‘Thou shalt redeem’ intimates immediately, [and the other text] ‘Thou shalt redeem’ intimates with whatever value. But R. Jose b. Judah says: There can be no redemption with less than the value of a shekel. The Master said. ‘[Scripture says]: "Thou shalt redeem, . . Thou shalt redeem". [The one text] "Thou shalt redeem" intimates immediately [and the other text] "Thou shalt redeem" intimates with whatever value’. Is not this obvious? — It is necessary [to state it]. I might have assumed that since an unclean animal is compared with the first-born of a man, just as in the case of a first. born of a man the redemption takes place after a period of thirty days and with the sum of five sela's, so here also the redemption should take place after a period of thirty days and with the sum of five sela's. [Therefore Scripture states]: ‘Thou shalt redeem, viz, immediately, ‘Thou shalt redeem’, viz., with whatever value. ‘R. Jose b. Judah says: There is no redemption with less than the value of one shekel’. But which way do you take it; if R. Jose compares an unclean animal with the first-born of a man, then the sum of five sela's is required for redemptions and if he does not compare [an unclean animal with the first-born of a man], whence does he derive that the redemption is with a shekel? — In fact he does not compare [an unclean animal with the first-born of a man]; [yet] said Rabba: Scripture says: And all thy valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary, intimating that any valuations which you assess shall be no less in value than a shekel. And the Rabbis [who differ with R. Jose], what say they? —
—