Bekhorot — Daf 10b

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון ששחטו להתלמד בו ובפלוגתא דנימוס ור' אליעזר

דתניא אמר ר' יוסי סח לי נימוס אחיו של ר' יהושע הגרסי שהשוחט את העורב להתלמד בו דמו מכשיר ר' אליעזר אומר דם שחיטה לעולם מכשיר

רבי אליעזר היינו תנא קמא אלא לאו איסורו חישובו איכא בינייהו

תנא קמא סבר דמו מכשיר לעלמא אבל לגופיה בעי מחשבה

ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר דם שחיטה לעולם מכשיר ואפי' לגופיה נמי לא בעי מחשבה

ממאי דילמא טעמא דר' אליעזר התם דשאני עורב הואיל ויש בו סימני טהרה

ומנלן דסימני טהרה מילתא היא דקתני עלה דההיא א"ר שמעון מה טעם הואיל ויש בו סימני טהרה

וכי תימא אי משום סימני טהרה מאי איריא להתלמד אפי' להתעסק נמי אין הכי נמי ומשום נימוס

איתיביה לא רצה לפדותו עורפו בקופיץ מאחוריו וקוברו ואסור בהנאה דברי רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון מתיר

אימא ומחיים אסור בהנאה ור"ש מתיר

והא מדסיפא מחיים הוי רישא לאו מחיים

דקתני סיפא לא ימיתנו לא בקנה ולא במגל ולא בקרדום ולא במגירה ולא יכניסנו לחדר וינעול דלת לפניו בשביל שימות ואסור בגיזה ועבודה דברי רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון מתיר

רישא וסיפא מחיים רישא בהנאת דמיו סיפא בהנאת גופו

וצריכא דאי תנא הנאת דמיו בההוא קא שרי רבי שמעון אבל בהנאת גופו אימא מודה ליה לרבי יהודה ואי תנא בהנאת גופו בההיא קאסר רבי יהודה אבל בהנאת דמיו אימא מודה לרבי שמעון צריכא

וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מודה רבי שמעון לאחר עריפה שהוא אסור

ואמר רב נחמן מנא אמינא לה דתניא (שמות יג, יג) וערפתו נאמר כאן עריפה ונאמר להלן עריפה מה להלן אסור אף כאן אסור

מני אילימא רבי יהודה מחיים מיסר אסור אלא לאו רבי שמעון היא

א"ל רב ששת ספרא חבריך תרגומה לעולם רבי יהודה ואיצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא עריפה במקום פדייה עומדת מה פדייה מתרת אף עריפה מתרת קמ"ל

אמר רב נחמן מנא אמינא לה מדתני לוי הוא הפסיד ממונו של כהן לפיכך יופסד ממונו

מני אילימא רבי יהודה הא מיפסד וקאי אלא לאו רבי שמעון היא

איבעית אימא רבי יהודה ואיבעית אימא רבי שמעון

איבעית אימא רבי יהודה אפסידא דביני ביני

ואיבעית אימא רבי שמעון לפחת מיתה

וכן אמר ריש לקיש מודה רבי שמעון לאחר עריפה שהוא אסור ורבי יוחנן ואי תימא רבי אלעזר אמר עדיין היא מחלוקת

איכא דמתני לה להא דרב נחמן אהא המקדש בפטר חמור אינה מקודשת לימא מתני' דלא כרבי שמעון אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לאחר עריפה ודברי הכל

איכא דאמרי הא מני לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי שמעון אי רבי שמעון תיקדש בכוליה אי רבי יהודה תיקדש בהך דביני ביני

אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב לעולם רבי יהודה וכגון שאינו שוה אלא שקל וסבר לה כרבי יוסי בר יהודה דתניא (שמות יג יג) תפדה (שמות לד כ) תפדה [תפדה] מיד תפדה כל שהוא רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר אין פדייה פחותה משקל

אמר מר תפדה תפדה [תפדה] מיד תפדה כל שהוא פשיטא

איצטריך סד"א הואיל ואיתקש לבכור אדם מה בכור אדם אחר שלשים וחמש האי נמי אחר שלשים וחמש

קמ"ל תפדה מיד תפדה כל שהוא

רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר אין פדייה פחותה משקל ממה נפשך אי מקיש לבכור אדם חמש ליבעי ואי לא מקיש שקל מנא ליה

לעולם לא מקיש אמר רבא אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, כה) וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקדש כל ערכין שאתה מעריך לא יהו פחותין משקל

ורבנן ההוא

But here we are dealing with a case where e.g., he ritually killed [the ass] to practice therewith [to kill ritually],1 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].2 [R. Eleazar] says: The blood of shechitah3 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 prohibition4 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].5 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,6 is because the case of a raven is different, since it has marks of cleanness.7 And how do we know that marks of cleanness are of importance? — Because it says in connection with the Baraitha above,8 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].9 Abaye10 raised the following objection.11 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]?12 — 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,13 and the second part refers to the benefit derived from its body.14 [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.15 Here [the word] "arifah’16 is used and above17 [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?18 — 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?19 From what R. Levi taught, The Israelite causes a monetary loss to the priest;20 therefore he should suffer a monetary loss.21 Whose opinion does this represent? Shall I say that it is the opinion of R. Judah? Surely his loss is of long standing!22 [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.23 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.24 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.25 Some report this, R. Nahman's ruling,26 in connection with the following: If one betrothed a woman with the first-birth of an ass, she is not betrothed.27 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.28 And if it is the opinion of R. Judah, let her become betrothed with the difference!29 — 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;30 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’.31 [One text] ‘Thou shalt redeem’ intimates immediately,32 [and the other text] ‘Thou shalt redeem’ intimates with whatever value.33 But R. Jose b. Judah says: There can be no redemption with less than the value of a shekel.34 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?35 — It is necessary [to state it]. I might have assumed that since an unclean animal is compared with the first-born of a man,36 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,37 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,38 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? — therefrom; its blood would render itself and other food fit to receive levitical uncleanness. schechitah, in the sense that it was not being killed for eating purposes but merely in order to practice. be considered as food. R. Simeon, therefore, holds as regards the first-birth of an ass which was ritually killed, according to the view of Nimos that it does not receive the uncleanness of food, and the Rabbis agree with the opinion of R. Eleazar that the ritual killing, in itself, causes it to be regarded as food, without the express intention of regarding it as such. practice. levitical uncleanness. But in the case of the first-birth of an ass, which does not possess any marks of cleanness, unless he intended to use it as food, the Rabbis would not hold that it receives the uncleanness pertaining to food, and R. Simeon would maintain that even if he had thought of it as food, it receives no uncleanness, owing to the fact that it is forbidden to be used after its neck has been broken. nevertheless the raven itself does not receive the uncleanness relating to food. But as regards R. Eleazar, it is true that even if the raven was killed unintentionally, (the intention having been to cut some other object), the blood renders other food fit to receive uncleanness, and the raven itself also receives uncleanness. Consequently, you cannot explain the difference between the Rabbis and R. Simeon on the basis of the difference of Nimos and R. Eleazar. Therefore, the difference of the former disputants refers to the case where the ass's neck was broken, and the reason why R. Simeon maintains that it is not clean is because, as Rabbah explains, it is forbidden to be used. for any purpose. dead. redeemed, now he loses everything. independent ruling but with reference to the following Mishnah. denar. the ass in order that a woman may be betrothed thereby. lamb must be of some specific value. XVIII, 15.