Bekhorot

THEIR OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT [FROM THE LAW OF] THE FIRSTLING.1 BUT THE OFFSPRING OF THEIR OFFSPRING ARE LIABLE [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING].2 IF [THE ISRAELITE] PUT THE OFFSPRING IN THE PLACE OF THEIR MOTHERS,3 THEN THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT,4 BUT THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE LIABLE [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING]. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN UNTO TEN GENERATIONS THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT [FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING]. SINCE THEY ARE PLEDGED TO THE HEATHEN.5 IF A EWE GAVE BIRTH TO WHAT LOOKED LIKE A KID, OR A KID WHICH GAVE BIRTH TO WHAT LOOKED LIKE A EWE, IT IS EXEMPT FROM [THE LAW OF] THE FIRSTLING BUT IF IT POSSESSES CERTAIN CLEAR MARKS [RESEMBLING THE MOTHER] IT IS LIABLE [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING]. GEMARA. Does this mean to say that since the owner does not take money, therefore it is still the property of the owner? Against this I quote: One must not receive a flock from an Israelite on ‘iron terms’, because It is usury. This shows that it is in the ownership of the receiver?6 — Said Abaye: This is no difficulty. In the one case [our Mishnah] he [the heathen owner] took the risks of accidents and a fall in value while in the other he [the owner] did not take the risks of accidents and a fall in value. Raba said to him: If he took the risks of accidents and a fall in value, do you call this receiving a flock on ‘iron terms’,7 and, moreover, where is this distinction implied [in the context]? And, moreover, why does the second part [of the passage quoted above] state: ‘One may receive from a heathen a flock on "iron terms"’? Why not draw a distinction in the first part [itself, as follows]: When does this apply? Where he [the owner] did not undertake the risks of accidents and a fall in value, but where he undertook the risks of accidents and a fall in value, it is permitted! — Rather said Raba, In both cases he [the owner] did not take the risks of accidents and a fall in value. But here, in connection with the firstling,8 this is the reason. If the heathen came and wanted money and the Israelite did not give it to him, he would seize the animal, and if he did not find the animal, he would seize its offspring. Therefore the heathen has a share in it,9 and wherever the heathen has a share [in an animal], it is exempt from [the law of] the firstling. (IF THE ISRAELITE PUT THE OFFSPRING IN THE PLACE OF THEIR MOTHERS, THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT:)10 Said R. Huna:11 Their offspring are exempt from the law of the firstling, but the offspring of the offspring are liable to the law of the firstling. Rab Judah. however, said: The offspring of the offspring are also exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable [to the law of the firstling]. We have learnt in a Mishnah: IF THE ISRAELITE PUT THE OFFSPRING IN THE PLACE OF THEIR MOTHERS, THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT.12 The reason for exemption is because he put them in place of their mothers. But if he did not do so, they would not be exempt. Now, is this not an argument against Rab Judah? — Rab Judah can answer: The same applies even if he did not put the offspring [in the place of the mothers];13 but the Mishnah, however, teaches us this, that even if he put [the offspring in the place of their mothers],14 since it is the custom of the heathen to seize the offspring [failing the mother], it is as if he had not put the offspring [in place of their mothers].15 We are therefore informed [that even so] the offspring of the offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable [to the law of the firstling]. We have learnt in the Mishnah: RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN UNTO TEN GENERATIONS THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT, SINCE THEY ARE PLEDGED TO THE HEATHEN.16 Now there is no difficulty on the view of Rab Judah who said that the first Tanna [in the Mishnah] goes up to [two] generations, he cannot have the flock (v. infra). The heathen therefore having an interest in the offspring, the Israelite is legally exempt from the law of the firstling. whereas if the money remained in the possession of the giver, it would not be usury. there may be of a more general connotation meaning simply that with certain later generations the liability begins. V. Sh. Mek. and p. 115. n. 1.] successive generations of offspring.