Parallel
בכורות 3:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Now, does not this statement deal with the case of the animal? — No. It deals with the case of an embryo. I can also prove this [from the wording]. For it says: We fine him up to ten times its value; from which you may deduce that it refers to the embryo. [The ruling that we punish him for selling to a gentile] supports the view of Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish said: If one sells large cattle to a heathen, we punish him by forcing him [to redeem the animal] even up to ten times its value. [Does Resh Lakish mean] exactly ten times or not? — Come and hear: For R. Joshua b. Levi said: If one sells a slave to a heathen, we punish him by forcing him [to redeem the slave] even up to a hundred times his value. — The case of a slave is different, for every day he [his gentile master] prevents him from carrying out religious duties. Another version [of this argument] is: Said Resh Lakish: If one sells large cattle to a heathen, we punish him by forcing him to redeem the animal even up to one hundred times its value. But we have learnt in a Mishnah: or if [an Israelite] gives an animal to him [a heathen] to look after, although he is not permitted, we punish him by forcing him [to redeem the animal] even up to ten times its value! — By selling he severs all connection with it [the animal.] But in the ‘case of kablanuth there is no severing of his connection with the animal. [Does Resh Lakish mean] exactly [one hundred times] or not? — Come and hear: For R. Joshua b. Levi said: If one sells his slave to a heathen, we punish him by forcing him [to redeem the slave], even up to ten times his value! — The case of a slave is different, for he does not return [to his master after being redeemed]. Now in the case of an animal, what is the reason [why an Israelite is forced to redeem it even up to one hundred times its value]? Presumably, because it comes back [to its master]. Let us then force him [to pay] once over [the ten etc.]? — Rather the reason must be because the case of a slave [being sold to a heathen] is a rare occurrence, and any case which is of a rare occurrence, the Rabbis did not [in their rulings] guard against. ‘But the Sages say: So long a gentile has a share in it etc.’ Said R. Joshua: And both expounded the same verse: [Sanctify unto me] all the first-born [whatsoever openeth the womb in Israel]. The Rabbis hold that [the word] ‘first-born’ is to be understood as meaning even if a portion [of a first-born] belongs to an Israelite. Therefore the Divine Law inserts the word ‘all’ implying that the whole [of the first-born must belong to the Israelite]. R. Judah on the other hand holds that the word ‘first-born’ [by itself] is to be understood as meaning the whole of the first-born. Therefore the Divine Law inserts ‘all’ to show that even if any portion whatsoever [of the first-born belongs to the Israelite it is subject to the law of the firstling.] Or if you prefer, I may say that all [the authorities] understand that the word ‘first-born’ denotes the larger part [of the animal]. One Master, however, holds that the [purport of the] word ‘all’ is to add while the other Master holds that it is to diminish. And how much must a gentile's share be to exempt [the animal] from the law of the first-born? — Said R. Huna: Even if it is no more than of the [firstling's] ears. R. Nahman demurred. Let him [the Priest] say to him [the gentile] ‘Take your portion of the ear and go’? It was stated: R. Hisda said: [The heathen's share in the animal] must be something which renders an animal nebelah. Raba said: [The heathen's share in the animal] must be something which renders it trefah. What is the point at issue between them? — Whether a trefah can live. He who says that [the gentile's share in the animal] must be something which renders it trefah, would maintain that a trefah cannot live, whereas he who says [the gentile's share] must be something which renders the animal nebelah but a trefah, he would maintain, that it is able to live. The Rabbis said in the presence of R. Papa: The ruling of R. Huna on the one hand and the rulings of R. Hisda and Raba on the other, do not differ. The one [R. Huna's] relates to it [the first-born;] the other [the rulings of R. Hisda and Raba] relate to the mother. Said R. Papa to them [the Rabbis]: Why is there this ruling in connection with the first-born? [Presumably] because we require [the condition of] ‘all of the first-born’ and it is not found here. In connection with its mother also, we require [the condition specified in the verse]: And of all thy cattle thou shalt sanctify the males, which is not found here. But there is in fact no difference. Mar, the son of R. Ashi demurred: Why should this be different from the premature [first births] of animals, which although they are not viable, are sacred? For a Master said: The words, [And every firstling that is a male] which thou hast coming from an animal [shall be the Lord's], [denote the foetus] which dwells in the animal? — There, since there is no mixture of an unconsecrated [part of the animal], we apply to it the words ‘in the animal’, ‘all the first-born’. Here, however, since there is a mixture of the unconsecrated part of the animal, we do not read concerning it the words ‘all the first-born’. R. Eleazar once did not attend the House of Study. He came across R. Assi and asked him ‘What did the Rabbis say in the House of Study’? — He replied
—