Parallel
בכורות 32
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but in the case of an object which is not valued when alive, the Rabbis did not prohibit; and in the case of orphans, the Rabbis let the law remain according to the biblical ruling. And R. Samuel son of R. Isaac also held Raba's view. For R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said: Whence is it proved that we may sell a tithing animal belonging to orphans in the ordinary way? Because it is said, Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy gates after all the desire of thy soul [according to the blessing of the Lord thy God] Now which [dedicated] object has no blessing [from the dedication] when alive but only after being slaughtered? You must say that this is a tithing animal. The following query was put forward: What of selling its flesh in conjunction with the bones? R. Hiyya and R. Simeon son of Rabbi differ [in this matter]. One says. he may sell indirectly, and the other says he must not sell indirectly: And they do not [really] differ. The teacher [who forbids] refers to the bones of small cattle, and the other refers to bones of large cattle. Or, if you prefer. I can say: In the one case as well as in the other it refers to large cattle, and yet there is no difference of opinion. One follows the custom of his place and the other that of his. The [above] text states: In connection with a firstling Scripture says: ‘Thou shalt not redeem’, implying that it may be sold when alive, and in connection with tithing, it is said in the Scriptures: ‘It shall not be redeemed’, intimating that it is forbidden to be sold either alive or ritually cut, whether unblemished or blemished. Whence is this proved? — R. Hanina reported in the name of Rab and likewise when R. Dimi came he reported in the name of R. Johanan: It is said in connection with tithing the expression ‘It shall not be redeemed’, and we read in the Scriptures in connection with haramim the expression It shall not be redeemed; just as the latter includes [the prohibition of] selling so the former includes selling. Said R. Nahman the son of Isaac to R. Huna son of Joshua: [The text ‘It shall not be redeemed’] is free [for interpretation], for if it were not free [for interpretation], it may be objected [against this analogy] that the case of haramim is different because they take effect upon everything. Is it not so? It is indeed open for interpretation. [For if Scripture] should not have stated ‘It shall not be redeemed’ in connection with haramim, one could have inferred this from the case of a tithing animal: just as a tithing animal is holy and is not redeemed, so haramim are holy and are not redeemed. What need therefore is there for [the words] ‘It shall not be redeemed’? Deduce from here consequently that it is free for interpretation. But it may be objected [to this analogy] that the case of a tithing animal is different because the animals which preceded and followed [the tenth in the counting] are all holy? Rather [argue thus]: [Scripture] should not have stated ‘It shall not be redeemed’ in connection with haramim, and one could have inferred this from the case of the firstling; as a firstling is holy and is not redeemed, so haramim are holy and cannot be redeemed. What need then is there for [Scripture] to write ‘It shall not be redeemed’? This shows that it is free for interpretation. But it may still be objected that the case of a firstling is different because it is hallowed from birth! Rather [argue thus: Scripture] should not have used the expression ‘It shall not be redeemed’ in connection with a tithing animal, and one could have inferred this from the analogy between ‘passing’ here and passing mentioned in con nection with a firstling; as a firstling is holy and is not redeemed, so a tithing animal is holy and is not redeemed. What need then is there for [Scripture] to write ‘It shall not be redeemed’ in connection with a tithing animal? It is therefore free [for interpretation]. But still [the expression] in connection with a tithing animal is not free, since we can refute the analogy as we did above? — [The text That thou shalt cause to pass’ is superfluous. But why not also make a comparison between the text ‘Thou shalt not redeem’ used in connection with a firstling and the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’ used in connection with haramim? — The ‘redemption’ mentioned in connection with tithing is free for interpretation whereas the ‘redemption’ mentioned in connection with a firstling is not free [for interpretation]. But why do you see fit to say that the text mentioning ‘redemption’ in connection with a firstling is required for its own sake, while the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’ in connection with tithing is free [for interpretation]? Why not say that the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’ in connection with tithing is required for its own sake, while the text ‘Thou shalt not redeem’ referring to a firstling is free for interpretation? — We compare the word ge'ulah with the word ge'ulah, whereas we do not compare the word pediyah [used in connection with a first-born], with the word ge'ulah [mentioned in connection with haramim]. But what is the practical difference? Did not a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael teach: [Scripture says]: And the Priest shall come again and [later it says]: Then the Priest shall come, to show that the same rule applies to his coming [the second time] as to his entering [after a week]? — This is the case only where no identical words are to be found [with which to compare], but where identical words are to be found, we rather make the comparison with identical words. But why not infer the case of a firstling from that of a tithing animal [by means of the analogy] between ‘passing’ and ‘passing’, for, as regards the [forbidding of the sale] of a tithing animal, we have already compared the word ge'ulah with the word ge'ulah mentioned in connection with haramim? — Scripture excludes this in connection with haramim, [saying]: It is [most holy] implying ‘it is [most holy], but not a firstling’. But why not say that the text implies ‘it is [most holy] but not tithing?’ — It is reasonable to maintain that the word ge'ulah is used [in connection with tithing] and the word ge'ulah is used [with reference to haramim] in order that the former may be compared with the latter. Raba said: [The text] ‘It shall not be redeemed’ in connection with haramim is superfluous. For, where were [these haramim]? If in the possession of the owners, then they are holy. If in the possession of the priest, then they are hullin [and may be sold]. For it has been taught: So long as haramim are in the possession of the owners, they are considered as holy in all respects, for it is said: Every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. If however he gave them to the priest, they are considered as hullin in all respects, as it is said: Everything devoted in Israel shall be thine. 38
—
What need then is there for the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’? If it has no bearing on the subject of haramim, make it bear on the subject of tithing [as regards selling]. But why not say: Make it bear on the subject of a firstling? — [It is reasonable to maintain that] the word ge'ulah used in connection with haramim is [to be applied to tithing since the identical word] ge'ulah [is used with reference to tithing] as with the former. R. Ashi says: ‘It shall not be redeemed’ mentioned in connection with tithing means that it shall not be sold. Said R. Ashi: Whence can I prove this? [Scripture writes]: Then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed. Now, when is it that the law of Substitution applies? When [the animal] is alive. Therefore, when may it not be redeemed? When it is alive, thus implying that after having been slaughtered it may be redeemed. But does it not require presentation and valuation? Therefore you must deduce from here that the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’ means that it shall not be sold. This would indeed hold good according to him who holds that objects consecrated for the altar are included in the law of presentation and valuation. But according to him who holds that objects consecrated for the altar are not included in the law of presentation and valuation, what can you reply? — We mean this [R. Ashi argues]: Is there any object which cannot be redeemed when alive and can yet be redeemed after being slaughtered! — But why not? [It is natural that] when an object is alive, its holiness being strong, it cannot be redeemed, whereas after its slaughtering, its holiness having been weakened, it may be that it can be redeemed! — But is it not a matter of course? For if when the animal is alive, when it is qualified to effect redemp tion [Scripture says that] it cannot be redeemed, after having been slaughtered, when it has not the strength to effect redemption, how much more so is it the case that it cannot be redeemed? Consequently [we deduce from here that] the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’ means that it shall not be sold. But why does not the Divine Law then write explicitly ‘It shall not be sold’? — If the Divine Law had written ‘It shall not be sold’. I might have thought that it cannot indeed be sold, since he performed a secular action [in exchanging], but it can be redeemed, because its money enters [the coffers of] the Sanctuary, the Divine Law therefore writes ‘It shall not be redeemed’ teaching that it can neither be sold nor redeemed. MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: AN ISRAELITE MUST NOT BE INVITED TO SHARE [A BLEMISHED FIRSTLING] WITH A PRIEST, WHEREAS BETH HILLEL PERMIT THIS. EVEN IN THE CASE OF A HEATHEN. GEMARA. Whose view does the Mishnah represent? — That of R. Akiba. For it has been taught: Only a company all of whom are priests may enter for a share of a firstling. These are the words of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel permit even strangers. R. Akiba permits [according to Beth Hillel] even heathens. What is the reason of Beth Shammai? — It is written, And the flesh of them shall be thine, as the wave-breast and as the right shoulder [are thine]. Just as there priests may [eat] but not a lay Israelite, so here priests are allowed [to eat] but not an Israelite.
—