Parallel
בכורות 9
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
When they reached the straits, they filled a jug of water from the waters of the straits. When they arrived, they were presented to the Emperor. He observed that they were depressed, [being far from their native land]. He said: ‘these are not the same [people]’. He, therefore, took a piece of the earth of their country and cast it at them. Thereupon, they grew haughty towards the King. He then said to R. Joshua: ‘Whatever you desire, do with them’. He fetched the water which [the Athenians] had taken from the straits and poured it into a ditch. He said to them: ‘Fill this and depart’. They tried to fill it by casting therein the water, one after the other, but it was absorbed. They went on filling until [the joints] of their shoulders became dislocated and they perished.MISHNAH. IF A SHE-ASS THAT HAD NEVER BEFORE GIVEN BIRTH GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, [THE ISRAELITE] GIVES ONE LAMB TO THE PRIEST AS A REDEMPTION. [IF IT GAVE BIRTH TO] A MALE AND A FEMALE, HE SETS ASIDE ONE LAMB [WHICH REMAINS] FOR HIMSELF. IF TWO SHE-ASSES THAT HAD NEVER BEFORE GIVEN BIRTH GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, HE GIVES TWO LAMBS TO THE PRIEST. [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO] A MALE AND A FEMALE OR TWO MALES AND A FEMALE, HE GIVES ONE LAMB TO THE PRIEST. [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO] TWO FEMALES AND A MALE OR TO TWO MALES AND TWO FEMALES THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING. IF ONE SHE-ASS HAD GIVEN BIRTH BEFORE AND ONE HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH BEFORE AND THEY GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, HE GIVES ONE LAMB TO THE PRIEST. [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO] A MALE AND A FEMALE, HE SETS ASIDE ONE LAMB [WHICH REMAINS] FOR HIMSELF, FOR [SCRIPTURE] SAYS: AND THE FIRSTLING OF AN ASS THOU SHALT REDEEM WITH A LAMB. [THE LAMB CAN COME EITHER] FROM THE SHEEP OR THE GOATS MALE OR FEMALE, LARGE OR SMALL, UNBLEMISHED OR BLEMISHED. HE CAN REDEEM WITH THE SAME ONE MANY TIMES. AND THE LAMB] ENTERS THE SHED TO BE TITHED. IF IT DIES, THE PRIEST CAN BENEFIT FROM IT. GEMARA. Who is the authority [of the first passage in the Mishnah]? R. Jeremiah said: It does not follow the opinion of R. Jose, the Galilean. For if it were the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean — did he not say that it is possible to ascertain exactly [that both heads came forth simultaneously]? Said Abaye: You may even assume that [the passage in the Mishnah] represents the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean, and that he makes a difference [in connection with the first-born of a clean animal], for [Scripture] writes: The males shall be the Lord's. But why not infer [the case of the first-born of an unclean animal] from [the case of the firstborn of a clean animal]? — The Divine Law excludes this [by the definite article in the expression], ‘The males’. Some there are who say: Must we say that [the passage in the Mishnah] does not represent the view of R. Jose the Galilean? For if it were the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean, did he not say that it is possible to ascertain exactly [that both heads came forth simultaneously]? — Said Abaye: You may even assume that it is the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean and he makes a difference [in connection with the first-born of a clean animal], for [Scripture] writes: ‘The males shall be the Lord's’. Now we can understand R. Jeremiah stating that [the passage in the Mishnah] does not follow R. Jose the Galilean; that is the reason why the [Mishnah] does not say: ‘And both their heads came forth simultaneously’. But according to Abaye, let it Say: ‘And both heads came forth simultaneously’? Moreover, it has been taught: If his ass had never given birth before, and it gave birth to two males, and the two heads came forth simultaneously, R. Jose the Galilean says that they both belong to the priest, for Scripture Says: ‘The males are the Lord's.’ But is this not written in connection with [an animal] consecrated as such [which is a clean animal]? — Rather say, On account of what [Scripture] Says: ‘The males are the Lord's’. This is a confutation of Abaye. — It is a refutation.
—
And as to the Rabbis, must we say that the Rabbis hold that even if a portion of the womb touches [the firstling] it consecrates? For if it consecrates only when the whole womb touches [a firstling], granted it is impossible to ascertain that both heads came forth simultaneously, nevertheless, there is here an interposition? — Said R. Ashi: Objects of a homogeneous kind are not reckoned as an Interposition [with reference to each other]. IF IT GAVE BIRTH TO A MALE AND FEMALE, HE SETS ASIDE etc. Since it remains for himself what need is there to set it aside? — [In order] to release it from the prohibitions [attaching to the first-birth of an ass]. Consequently, [we infer] that until it is released, it is forbidden to be used. Whose opinion does the Mishnah represent? It is the opinion of R. Judah. For it has been taught: It is forbidden to make any use of the first-birth of an ass. These are the words of R. Judah. But R. Simeon permits this. What is the reason of R. Judah? Said ‘Ulla: ‘Can you find an object which requires redemption and yet is permitted to be used while unredeemed’? But is there not? What of the case of the first-born of a man who requires redemption and yet [even before redemption] one may derive benefit from him? — Rather argue [thus]: Is there an object concerning which the Torah particularly enjoined that redemption must be with a sheep and which was yet permitted to be used [before redemption]? And was [the Torah] indeed so particular? Did not R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph redeem [an ass] with boiled herbs of its equivalent value? — As regards an object of equivalent value, this is not referred to here. What we are speaking of is the redemption [of an object] not with its equivalent value. And ‘Ulla means this: Can you find an object concerning which the Torah was particular to release its prohibition only with a sheep even though not Its equivalent in value and yet it is permitted to benefit therefrom [unredeemed]? — But what of the second tithing which the Torah was particular that the redemption must be with coined money, and yet we have learnt, R. Judah says: If he betrothed a woman [with second tithe] wilfully she is betrothed? — Also with a first-birth of an ass is a woman betrothed, as R. Eleazar [taught]. For R. Eleazar said: A woman knows that the second tithe is not rendered unconsecrated through her, and she, therefore, goes up to Jerusalem and eats it. Similarly, here also, a woman is aware that the first-birth of an ass is prohibited, she redeems it therefore with a lamb, and is betrothed with the difference [between the value of the ass and the sheep]. And as to R. Simeon, what is his reason? — Said ‘Ulla: Can you find an object whose ransom is permitted to be used while [the object itself] is forbidden? But can we not? What of [the fruit of] the Sabbatical year, whose ransom is permitted to be used and yet the fruit itself is forbidden? — Also with [the fruit of] the Sabbatical year is the ransom forbidden, for a Master said: [The prohibitions attaching to the Sabbatical year] take effect on the very last thing [bought]. Or, if you choose, I may say that R. Judah and R. Simeon differ in the interpretation of the following verse. For it has been taught: [Scripture says]: Thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox: but you may do work with a firstling which belongs [both] to you and to a gentile; nor shear the firstling of thy flock: but you may shear what belongs [both] to you and to a gentile. These are the words of R. Judah. But R. Simeon says: ‘Thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox’, implying, but you may work with the first-born of a man; thou shalt not shear the firstling of thy sheep; implying, but you may shear the first-birth of an ass. We understand why, according to R. Simeon's interpretations Scripture needs to write both verses. But, according to R. Judah, what need is there for two verses to exclude a firstling which belongs [both] to you and to a gentile? And furthermore, according to R. Judah, the first-born of a man also should we say is forbidden [to work with before redemption]? Rather therefore, explain that all [the authorities mentioned] hold that the words, ‘thine ox’, have for their object the exclusion of the first-born of a man. The dispute, however, is in the interpretation of the words, ‘thy sheep’, for R. Judah is in agreement with his own dictum elsewhere, where he says: A partnership with a gentile is subject to the law of the first-born, so that there is need of a verse to make it permissible for shearing and working [of a firstling]. R. Simeon, however, holds that a partnership with a gentile is not subject to the law of the first-born. And, therefore, in respect to shearing and working, there is no necessity for a verse to make it permissible. The necessity, however, arises for a verse in respect to the first-birth of an ass. This is quite right on the view of R. Judah, for it is for the reason [stated above] that Scripture writes, ‘thy sheep’, and the words, ‘thine ox’, [Scripture adds merely] on account of the words, ‘thine ass’. But according to R. Simeon, what need is there for the words, ‘thine ox’, and ‘thy sheep’? This is indeed a difficulty. Rabbah said: R. Simeon agrees, however, that after the breaking of its neck, it is forbidden to use it. What is the reason? — He draws a conclusion by analogy between ‘’arifah’ [ the breaking of the neck] here and the "arifah’ [mentioned] in connection with the heifer that had its neck broken. Said Rabbah: On what evidence do I say this? Because it has been taught: The fruit of trees of the first three years, the mixed seeds in a vineyard, an ox that is to be put to death by stoning, or the heifer that has had its neck broken, the birds of the leper, the first-birth of an ass, and [the mixture] of meat and milk [boiled together], all of them receive the uncleanness relating to food. R. Simeon says: All of them do not receive the [levitical] uncleanness relating to food. R. Simeon, however, agrees with regard to the [mixture] of meat and milk, that it receives the uncleanness relating to food, since at one time, it was fit [to receive the uncleanness relating to food], And R. Assi explained in the name of R. Johanan: What is the reason of R. Simeon? Scripture writes: All food therein which may be eaten. [We deduce] that food which you can give gentiles to eat is called food, but food which you are unable to give gentiles to eat is not called food. 26
—