Parallel
בכורות 11:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
That [verse] refers to the amount of one's means. Said R. Nahman: The halachah is according to the teachings of the Sages. And how much [must be the value of the lamb]? — Said R. Joseph: Even a puny lamb worth no more than a dank,a. Said Raba: We have learnt this too: [The lamb for redemption can either be] large or small, without a blemish or blemished. Is this not evident? — You might have assumed that to that extent [i.e., that of a puny lamb etc.] it is not an adequate redemptions or indeed [which would be better], a puny lamb is not [an adequate redemption at all]. [R. Joseph consequently] informs us [that it is an adequate redemption]. R. Judah the Prince had a first-birth of an ass. He sent it to R. Tarfon. He asked him, ‘How much am I required to give the Priest’? He replied to him ‘Behold the Rabbis said: The liberal person redeems with a sela’ [four zuz], the stingy person redeems with a shekel [two zuz], an average person redeems with a rigia. Said Raba: The law [requires redemption] with a rigia. And how much is this? Three zuz, less than one and more than the other. Does not this ruling contradict the above? There is no difficulty. [We are dealing] here with the case when one comes to seek advice and the case there is where he redeems of his own accord. R. Isaac reported in the name of Resh Lakish: If one possesses a first-birth of an ass and he has not a lamb with which to redeem it, he redeems it for its equivalent value. According to whose opinion is this? Shall I say it is according to R. Judah? Did he not say that the Torah was particular that the redemption must be with a sheep? You must then say it is according to the view of R. Simeon. R. Ahah stated it thus. Rabina found a difficulty: [In a difference between] R. Judah and R. Simeon, the law is according to R. Judah; moreover, the Tanna [of our Mishnah] states the law anonymously in the sense of R. Judah; and still you declare the halachah is according to R. Simeon? But [rather say] that [R. Isaac's statement] accords even with the opinion of R. Judah. For let not [the redemption of the first-birth of an ass] be more stringent than other consecrated objects. Moreover the Torah did not propose [by the law of redeeming] with a lamb to make it severe for him, but, on the contrary, to make it easier for him. R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph redeemed the first-birth of an ass with boiled herbs of its equivalent value. R. Shizbi reported in the name of R. Huna: If one redeems the ass of his neighbor, it is a valid redemption. The question was raised: Is it a valid redemption as regards the person who redeems it, or does it mean that it is a valid redemption as regards the owner? According to the opinion of R. Simeon, there is no need to inquire, for, since he says that it is permitted to use the first-birth of an ass, it is the owner's money. The question does arise, however, according to the opinion of R. Judah who says that it is forbidden to use it. Does he compare it with a consecrated object concerning which the Divine Law says: And he shall give money and it shall be assured to him? Or, perhaps since the owner possesses the difference [between the value of the ass and a sheep], it is not compared with a consecrated object? — Said R. Nahman: Come and hear: ‘If one stole the first-birth of an ass belonging to his neighbor, he pays double to the owner, for although he does not possess [the rights of ownership] now, he will possess subsequently.’ Now, whose opinion does this represent? Shall I say that it is the opinion of R. Simeon? Why has he no rights of ownership now? Then obviously, it must be the opinion of R. Judah. Now if you were to assume that we compare it with a consecrated object, does not the Divine Law say: And it be stolen out of a man's house, implying, but not from the possession of the sanctuary? And there is nothing more to be said. IF ONE SHE-ASS HAD GIVEN BIRTH BEFORE AND ONE HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH BEFORE etc. Our Rabbis taught. Under what circumstances did the Sages rule that IT ENTERS THE SHED TO BE TITHED? You cannot say that it means where the lamb came into the possession of the priest, [and then it was returned to the Israelite], for we have learnt: An animal purchased, or which is given to him as a gift, is exempted from the law of the tithes of animals. This must refer then to the case of an Israelite who had ten uncertain first births of asses in his house. He sets aside on their behalf ten lambs, [makes them enter the shed], tithes them, and they are his. [This] supports the opinion of R. Nahman. For R. Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah the son of Abbuha: If an Israelite had ten uncertain first-births of asses, he sets aside on their behalf ten lambs, tithes them and they are his. R. Nahman further reported in the name of Rabbah the son of Abbuha: If an Israelite has ten asses, distinctly first-births, in his house, which fell to him [as an inheritance] from his maternal grandfather, a priest, to whom this inheritance had fallen from his maternal grandfather, an Israelite, he sets aside ten lambs, tithes them and they are his. R. Nahman [further] reported in the name of Rabbah the son of Abbuha: If an Israelite who possessed tebel evenly piled up; in his house, which fell to him [as an inheritance] from his maternal grandfathers a priest, to whom it had fallen from his maternal grandfather an Israelite, he tithes it and it is his. And it was necessary [to teach both cases]. For had R. Nahman taught only the first case, [I might have assumed that the reason was] because it was already set aside. But, here, in the second case, since gifts for the priest, which have not yet been taken [by the priest] are not considered as having been given, I might have said it is not so. And if he had only taught the second case, [I might have assumed that the reason why the tithes are his] is because it is possible to tithe tebel as it is, for it lies [in one place], but in the other case, since the lamb comes from another place, we do not say that it is as if it were already set aside, and therefore I might have said that it was not [as stated]. It was therefore necessary [to state both cases]. R. Samuel b. Nathan reported in the name of R. Hanina: If one who buys untithed grain
—