Bekhorot — Daf 2a

מתני׳ הלוקח עובר חמורו של עובד כוכבים והמוכר לו אע"פ שאינו רשאי המשתתף לו והמקבל הימנו והנותן לו בקבלה פטור מן הבכורה שנאמר בישראל אבל לא באחרים:

גמ׳ כל הני למה לי

צריכי דאי תנא לוקח ה"א משום דקא מייתי לה לקדושה אבל מוכר דקא מפקע לה מקדושה אימא ליקנסיה קמ"ל

והמשתתף לו למה לי לאפוקי מדרבי יהודה דאמר שותפות עובד כוכבים חייבת בבכורה קמשמע לן דפטורה מן הבכורה

והמקבל ל"ל משום דקא בעי למיתני והנותן לו בקבלה

והנותן לו בקבלה למה לי איצטריך סד"א הואיל ועיקר בהמה דישראל היא ליקנסיה דלמא אתי לאיחלופי בבהמה אחריתי קמשמע לן

תנן התם ר' יהודה מתיר בשבורה בן בתירא מתיר בסוס

איבעיא להו עובר מה לי א"ר יהודה טעמא דר' יהודה התם דשרי משום דשבורה עובר נמי שבור הוא או דלמא שבורה לאו היינו אורחיה אבל עובר כיון דהיינו אורחיה לאו שבור הוא

ת"ש והמוכר לו אף על פי שאינו רשאי ולא פליג ר' יהודה

וליטעמיך המשתתף לו והמקבל ממנו והנותן לו בקבלה דלא קתני הכי נמי דלא פליג

אלא פליג ולא קתני ה"נ פליג ולא קתני:

ת"ש ר' יהודה אומר המקבל בהמה מן העובד כוכבים וילדה מעלין אותו בשוויו ונותן חצי דמיו לכהן והנותן לו בקבלה אף על פי שאינו רשאי קונסים אותו עד עשרה בדמיו ונותן כל דמיו לכהן

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.