Parallel
בכורות 2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
MISHNAH. [AN ISRAELITE] WHO BUYS AN EMBRYO OF AN ASS BELONGING TO A HEATHEN OR WHO SELLS ONE TO HIM, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT PERMITTED, OR WHO FORMS A PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM, OR WHO RECEIVES [AN ANIMAL] FROM HIM TO LOOK AFTER OR WHO GIVES [HIS ASS] TO HIM TO LOOK AFTER, IS EXEMPT FROM THE [LAW OF THE] FIRSTLING, FOR IT SAYS: [‘I HALLOWED UNTO ME ALL THE FIRSTBORN] IN ISRAEL’, BUT NOT IN GENTILES GEMARA. What need is there for all these [cases mentioned in the Mishnah? — It is necessary [to state all these cases]. For if it taught only the case of HE WHO BUYS etc., I might have thought the reason was because he brings it [the animal] into the state of holiness but where he sells [to a heathen], since he releases it from holiness, he should be punished. He accordingly states the second case [WHO SELLS etc.] What need is there for the statement OR WHO FORMS A PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM? — It is to exclude the ruling of R. Judah Who said: A partnership with a heathen is subject to the law of the first-born. [The Mishnah] accordingly informs us [that a partnership with a heathen exempts the Israelite from the duty of the first-born]. What need is there for the case OR [AN ISRAELITE] WHO RECEIVES etc.? — It is necessary because [the Mishnah] wishes to teach the next case: OR [AN ISRAELITE] WHO GIVES [HIS ASS] TO HIM TO LOOK AFTER. And what need is there to state [the latter case itself.] OR [AN ISRAELITE] WHO GIVES etc.? — It is necessary. You might be inclined to assume that since the animal itself belongs to the Israelite we should punish him lest one come to confuse this with another animal. [The Mishnah] accordingly informs us that we have no such fear. We have learnt elsewhere: R. Judah permits the selling to a heathen of a maimed [animal] Ben Bathyra permits the selling of a horse. The question was asked: What is R. Judah's ruling on selling an embryo to a heathen? Is the reason of R. Judah for allowing in that case because the animal is maimed and therefore an embryo also being incapable of work is on a par with a maimed [animal]? Or is the reason perhaps because a maimed [animal] is not a frequent occurrence, but a case of an embryo, being a frequent occurrence, is unlike the case of a maimed [animal]? — Come and hear: OR WHO SELLS AN EMBRYO TO HIM ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT PERMITTED; and R. Judah does not contest this! — But, according to your argument [in the cases mentioned in the Mishnah] OR WHO FORMS A PARTNERSHIP OR WHO RECEIVES FROM HIM OR WHO GIVES HIM, where [the Mishnah] does not expressly state that R. Judah differs, is it really the fact that he does not differ? You must admit that he does differ without [the Mishnah] saying so; similarly here also he differs without the Mishnah saying so. Come and hear: R. Judah says: If one received an animal from a heathen to look after and it gave birth [to a firstling] we settle [with the gentile partner] for what it is worth and half of its value is given to the priest. Or if [an Israelite] gives [an animal] to him [a heathen] to look after, although he is not permitted. we punish him by compelling him to redeem the animal even up to ten times its value and he gives its whole value to the priest.
—
Now, does this not refer to the case of an embryo? — No, it refers to the animal. But it does not say ‘damaw’ [‘its value’]? — Read ‘dameha’. But does it not say ‘and he gives its whole value to the Priest’? Now if [the words ‘its value’] refer to the animal, what has the priest to do with it? — [No.] We are dealing here with a case where e.g., [an Israelite] gave him a pregnant animal to fatten; since we punish him for [selling the] animal [to a gentile,] we also punish him for [selling] an embryo. Said R. Ashi, Come and hear: R. Judah permits the selling of a maimed [animal]. because it cannot be cured. But if it could be cured, it would be forbidden. Now, is not an embryo also like [an animal] which can be cured? Deduce, therefore, from this [that it is forbidden to sell an embryo to a heathen according to R. Judah]. Some there are who referred [R. Judah's ruling on an embryo] to our Mishnah: AND WHO SELLS [AN EMBRYO] TO HIM [A HEATHEN] ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT PERMITTED. May we say that the Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Judah? For we have learnt: R. Judah permits the selling of a maimed [animal]! — You can even say [that the Mishnah] agrees with R. Judah. For the case of a maimed [animal] is not a frequent occurrence whereas the case of an embryo is a frequent occurrence. Come and hear: R. Judah Says: if one received an animal from a heathen to look after and it gave birth [to a firstling], we settle [with the gentile partner] for what it is worth and half of its value is given to the priest. Or if [an Israelite] gives [an animal] to him to look after, although he is not permitted to do so, we punish him [by making him, redeem the animal] even up to ten times its value and he gives its whole value to the Priest. Now, does this not refer to the case of an embryo? — No, it refers to the animal. But does it not say ‘damaw’? [‘its value’?] — Read ‘dameha’. But does it not say ‘and he gives its whole value to the Priest’? Now if [the words ‘its value’] refer to the animal, what has the Priest to do with it? — We are dealing here with a case where e.g., an Israelite gave him a pregnant animal to fatten, and since we punish him for [selling] the animal [to a gentile,] we also punish him for [selling] an embryo. Said R. Ashi, Come and hear: R. Judah permits the selling of a maimed [animal] because it cannot be cured. But if it could be cured it would be forbidden. And an embryo is on a par with an animal that can be cured. Deduce therefore from this [that according to R. Judah it is not allowed to sell an embryo to a heathen]. The following query was put forward: If one sold an animal for its [future] offspring [to a gentile,] what is the ruling? You can put this question to R. Judah and you can put this query to the Rabbis. You can put the query to R. Judah thus: are we to say that R. Judah only permits the case of a maimed [animal] because he [the Israelite] will not come to confuse it with another animal and sell it [to a heathen], but in the case of a whole animal, where he may confuse it with another, [he will say that] it is forbidden, or are we to say that perhaps, if in the case of a maimed [animal] where he severs all connection with it, [it is allowed,] how much more so in the case of a whole animal where he has not severed all connection with it? You can put this query to the Rabbis, thus: are we to say that the Rabbis only prohibit in the case of a maimed [animal] because he severs all connection with it, but in the case of a whole animal, where he does not sever his connection from the animal, it is permissible; or are we perhaps to say that if in the case of a maimed [animal], where he will not come to confuse it [with another animal], they forbid [the selling to a heathen,] how much more so in the case of a whole animal, is there the fear [of confusion.] But is the reason of the Rabbis because of what [is stated] here? Has it not been taught: They, [the Rabbis,] said to R. Judah: Is it not possible to couple [an animal with a broken foot] so that it gives birth? Consequently, the reason is on account of the [future] offspring? — This is what the Rabbis said [to R. Judah:] ‘Our reason [why we forbid the selling of a maimed animal] is because he may come to confuse it with another [animal]. But as for you, why do you permit a maimed [animal]? [It is] because it cannot be cured, and therefore it is as if he had sold it to be slaughtered. But do we not couple it and it gives birth? And since we couple it and it gives birth, he will detain it.’ And thereupon he replied to them: ‘When it gives birth, for [in fact] it cannot take a male [for coupling purposes]’. Come and hear: OR AN ISRAELITE WHO GIVES [HIS ASS] TO HIM [A HEATHEN] TO LOOK AFTER. And it does not say ‘although he is not permitted’! — But, according to your argument, when it says: OR WHO FORMS A PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM, since it does not say [it is forbidden,] are we to infer that it is allowed? Has not the father of Samuel said: One must not form a partnership with a heathen lest he [the heathen] will be bound to take an oath to him and he will swear in the name of his idol and the Torah says: [And make no mention of the name of other gods.] neither let it be heard out of thy mouth? You must, therefore, admit that when [the Mishnah] lays down that selling [to a heathen] is forbidden the same ruling applies to a partnership [with a heathen]. Likewise here also when [the Mishnah] lays down that selling [is prohibited] the same ruling applies to kablanuth. Why then does the Mishnah cite [the prohibition] specifically in connection with selling? — Because the main prohibition refers to the selling. Come and hear: R. Judah said: If one receives an animal from a heathen to look after and it gives birth [to a first-born] we settle [with the gentile partner] for what it is worth and half of its value is given to the priest. If again an Israelite gives an animal [to a heathen] to look after, although [he knows that] this is not permitted, we fine him even up to ten times its value and he gives its whole value to the Priest. But the Sages say, so long a gentile has a share in it, it is exempt from the law of the first-born.
—