בכורות 3 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Now, 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ

^ᵃnote:The ruling that we punish the Israelite to redeem it from the gentile refers to the animal. Consequently we see that if one sold an animal to a gentile for its future offspring, we punish him according to both the ruling of R. Judah and the Rabbis, for the opponents of R. Judah only differ from him in connection with the first-born.
^ᵇnote:We punish him for making over the embryo in a pregnant animal to a gentile. But with the case of an animal sold for its future offspring, we are not here concerned. Therefore we are unable to solve the above query.
^ᶜnote:Since it says uhns (‘its value’) with the masculine ending and also speaks of giving it to the Priest, v. supra p. 4, n. 2.
^ᵈnote:From the possession of the heathen.
^ᵉnote:Must the Israelite actually pay even ten times its value in order to redeem the animal or does the ruling only mean that even if the gentile demands a larger price than its worth, the Israelite is compelled to redeem it?
^ᶠnote:Now, since it says here a hundred times the value of the object sold and in reference to an animal it states ten times, we can infer that ,the numbers are meant to be taken literally, for if it were otherwise, why does it not say in both instances either a hundred times or ten times?
^ᵍnote:And in the case of a heathen slave he would be preventing him from living up to the obligations resting on the Noahide. We therefore force the Israelite to pay even one hundred times the value of the slave. But in the case of an animal, we are not so strict and the ten times mentioned may be taken as an exaggeration.
^ʰnote:Thus the Mishnah is contrary to the ruling of Resh Lakish.
^ⁱnote:We therefore force him to pay even one hundred times its value to the gentile.
^ʲnote:The case in the Mishnah just cited where a heathen undertakes to attend to an Israelite's animal.
^ᵏnote:Since the animal still belongs to the Israelite.
^ˡnote:Or is the one hundred times mentioned a mere hyperbole?
^ᵐnote:And since in connection with a slave it says ten times and in reference to an animal one hundred times, we may infer that the numbers mentioned are not to be taken literally, for otherwise in the case of a slave where lie is prevented from observing his religious obligations, the penalty should be much more severe than in the case of an animal.
^ⁿnote:According to Rashi he is automatically set free. Y. Git. 43b. R. Gershom says that the slave hates to return of his own free will to his former master, after the latter had sold him to a heathen.
^ᵒnote:And therefore we do not force him to pay more than ten times the value of the object sold, but in the case of an animal the number stated may be taken as precise.
^ᵖnote:Since the animal returns to its former owner it cannot be counted as part of the fine i.e. the Israelite should be forced to pay eleven times its value.
^ᵠnote:And therefore we do not force the Israelite to pay more than ten times the value of the object sold.
^ʳnote:But in the case of selling an animal which is a frequent occurrence, the Rabbis were more stringent.
^ˢnote:Var. lec.: R. Johanan.
^ᵗnote:The Sages and R. Judah.
^ᵘnote:Ex. XIII, 2.
^ᵛnote:In order to be subject to the law of the first-born.
^ʷnote:Meaning literally ‘all’.
^ˣnote:The animal.
^ʸnote:So that the entire animal must, be in the Israelite's possession.
^ᶻnote:R. Judah.
^ᵃᵃnote:Meaning ‘any’, so that if the Israelite has a share in the first-born, however small, he is required to carry out the duty of the first-born.
^ᵃᵇnote:For a first-born, even with a blemish, although unfit for sacrifice on the altar, is given to the Priest.
^ᵃᶜnote:An animal that has died a natural death or was killed not in accordance with the Jewish ritual law, is called nebelah. If the gentile therefore had for his share an essential part of the animal the absence of which would make it impossible to perform ritual slaughter, e.g., its gullet or windpipe, since such a vital part of the animal was in his hand, it was as if the whole animal belonged to him and was therefore exempted from the law of the first-born.
^ᵃᵈnote:An animal afflicted with an organic disease or disability as e.g., the removal of a certain portion of the knee. v. Hul. 42a.
^ᵃᵉnote:And since the animal cannot live, it is as if it belonged completely to the gentile.
^ᵃᶠnote:The gentile consequently does not posses a vital part of the animal.
^ᵃᵍnote:R. Hisda and Raba however do differ.
^ᵃʰnote:Even if the gentile has the share of an ear in it, the law of the first-born does not apply.
^ᵃⁱnote:And they differ as to whether the blemish must be of a nature which renders it nebelah or trefah.
^ᵃʲnote:In the possession of the Israelite so as to be subject to the duty of the first-born.
^ᵃᵏnote:Where the ear belongs to the gentile.
^ᵃˡnote:Where the gentile has an element in the animal which makes it either trefah or nebelah.
^ᵃᵐnote:Ex. XXXIV, 19, i.e. if the animal belongs entirely to you, then you are commanded to observe the law of the first-born.
^ᵃⁿnote:Between the mother and its first-born, and consequently R. Huna on the one hand and R. Hisda and Raba on the other, do actually differ.
^ᵃᵒnote:The case of a heathen having a share in an animal which renders it either trefah or nebelah.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ex. XIII, 12 rda (sheger) coming from the word rda (shegor), the root being rd to dwell, sojourn. Or rda (shegor) that which it casts forth prematurely.
^ᵃᵠnote:In the case of premature first births.
^ᵃʳnote:Shared by a heathen.
^ᵃˢnote:Whatever is in the animal has the holiness of a firstling.
^ᵃᵗnote:In the case of the mother.
^ᵃᵘnote:Shared by a heathen.
^ᵃᵛnote:Which phrase denotes that any part shared by an Israelite makes it subject to the law of the first-born.

²Thus did R. Johanan say: Even if [the heathen's share in the firstling was only something constituting] a slight blemish, And as to what we have learnt: ‘A ewe which gave birth to a species of a goat or a goat which gave birth to a species of a ewe, is exempt from the duty of the firstling’. But if [the offspring] possessed some features [similar to the mother] it is subject to the [law of the firstling]. [Thereon R. Johanan commented that this means that] it is [like a firstling with] a permanent blemish, on account of which it is slaughtered. We well understand R. Johanan laying down a ruling with reference to a slight blemish, for this informs us that [the law] is according to R. Huna and excludes the rulings of R. Hisda and Raba. But his ruling regarding a permanent blemish — what new thing does he teach us therewith? Is it to inform us that since it [the animal] is abnormal this is regarded as a blemish? [Surely] we have [already] learnt [this ruling in a Mishnah]: Or if the firstling's mouth is like a pig, it is a blemish! And should you argue that [in the Mishnah just cited] the firstling has changed into a species [of animal] in which the sanctity of the firstling does not exist but here the firstling has changed into a species [of animal] in which the sanctity of the firstling does exist, this too we have learnt: If one of its eyes is large and one is small [it is a blemish]. And a Tanna taught that ‘large’ means large like a calf's and ‘small’, small like that of a goose. Now, we may giant your argument as far as [the case of a firstling] with a small eye like a goose is concerned, this being a species in which the sanctity [of the firstling] does not exist. But in the case of a large eye like a calf's — this is a species in which the sanctity of the firstling does exist. Must you not therefore admit that [the reason is] that we say since [the animal] is abnormal, it is regarded as a blemish? — No. The reason is because it is a sarua’. This really also stands to reason. For we have learnt: The above mentioned blemishes, whether permanent or transitory, make also human beings unfit for the Priesthood. To these must be added in the case of blemishes of human beings, two large eyes or two small eyes. [Because] with reference only to human beings it is written: Whatsoever man of the seed of Aaron requiring ‘man’ among the seed of Aaron to be with normal [human features]. But the case of an animal, two large or two small eyes is not also regarded as a blemish. Now in the case of an animal with one large or one small eye what is the reason [why it is a blemish]? If because of the abnormality, then the same should apply to an animal with two large eyes or two small eyes? Then must you not admit that the reason [in the former case] is because of sarua’? — No. I can indeed still say that [the reason why an animal with one large and one small eye is blemished] is because of the abnormality. And as for your question that the [same ruling] should apply to the case of an animal with two large and two small eyes, [the answer is that] there [in the latter instance] if [the change is] because of the animal's extra obesity, the two eyes need to be large, and if because of its unusual leanness, then both [eyes] have to be lean [small]. There was a woman proselyte to whom the Achii gave an animal to fatten. She came before Raba. He said to her: There is no authority that pays any attention to the ruling of R. Judah who said: The partnership of a heathen [in an animal] is subject to the law of the firstling. R. Mari b. Rahel possessed a herd of animals. He used to transfer [to a heathen] possession of the ears [of the firstlings while still in the womb]. He [nevertheless] forbade the shearing and the working of the animals and gave them to the Priests. The herd of R. Mari b. Rahel died. Now, since he forbade the shearing and the working of the animals and gave them to the Priests, why did he give [a heathen] possession of the ears [of the firstlings?] — [It was] lest he should be led to commit an offence. If so, why did the herd of R. Mari die? — Because he deprived them of their holiness. But has not Rab Judah said: One is permitted to make a blemish in a firstling before it comes into the world? — There, [in the latter case] he deprives the animal of the holiness of being sacrificed on the altar but he does not deprive it of the holiness [of belonging to] the Priests. But in the former case, he even deprives it of the holiness [of belonging to] the Priests. Or, if you prefer, I may say that R. Mari b. Rahel knew how to make a valid transfer to a heathen. But we are afraid that another man may see this and go and do [likewise], thinking that R. Mari did nothing significant [when transferring to a heathen]. And thus he will be lead to commit an offence. MISHNAH. PRIESTS AND LEVITES ARE EXEMPT A FORTIORI: IF THEY EXEMPTED THE FIRST-BORN BELONGING TO THE ISRAELITES IN THE WILDERNESS, IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT THEY SHOULD EXEMPT THEIR OWN.^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ

^ᵃʷnote:Like the ear of the animal which is not a vital part, in which case the Israelite is exempt from the duty of the firstling.
^ᵃˣnote:V. infra 16b.
^ᵃʸnote:For Scripture says: Or the firstling of a goat. Num. XVIII, 17. Both the firstling and the mother must belong to the same species and class i.e. a goat.
^ᵃᶻnote:The ruling that it is subject to the law of the firstling.
^ᵇᵃnote:I.e., outside the Temple. And eaten like any other firstling which possesses a blemish. It is, however, not suitable for sacrifice on the altar. This was R. Johanan's novel ruling emanating also from the House of Study, i.e., that a change in the animal renders it blemished.
^ᵇᵇnote:That a change in the animal renders it blemished.
^ᵇᶜnote:Infra 402.
^ᵇᵈnote:That of a pig.
^ᵇᵉnote:And therefore this would be the novelty in the ruling of R. Johanan, that even in such an instance it is regarded as a blemish.
^ᵇᶠnote:Infra 40b.
^ᵇᵍnote:Birds being exempt from the law of the firstling.
^ᵇʰnote:There is need therefore for R. Johanan to inform us that even in this case it is a blemish since there is a change in the animal.
^ᵇⁱnote:And even so it is regarded as blemished.
^ᵇʲnote:What new thing consequently does R. Johanan tell us in his ruling that a change renders it blemished, since this may be inferred from the Mishnah?
^ᵇᵏnote:An animal whose one limb is larger than the other is called a sarua’. Therefore were it not stated in the House of Study that a change in the offspring e.g., where its wool resembles that of a goat, renders it blemished, I should not have been in a position to infer this from the Mishnah, as sarua’ is a permanent blemish explicitly mentioned in the Scripture.
^ᵇˡnote:Infra 43a.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lev. XXII, 4.
^ᵇⁿnote:V. infra p. 289, n. 8.
^ᵇᵒnote:And it is not because of the change that an animal with one long and one short eye is regarded as blemished and therefore there is need for R. Johanan to inform us that elsewhere a change in the animal constitutes a blemish.
^ᵇᵖnote:So that two large or small eyes constitute no change. Now since we can after all deduce from the Mishnah that a change renders the animal blemished, one can still raise the question, what is there novel in R. Johanan's ruling? (R. Gershom).
^ᵇᵠnote:Certain heathens.
^ᵇʳnote:To enquire whether the duty of the firstling applies.
^ᵇˢnote:To be exempt from the law of the firstling.
^ᵇᵗnote:As if they were actually firstlings and holy.
^ᵇᵘnote:For in this manner he carried out the prohibitions in connection with the firstling.
^ᵇᵛnote:In case he should shear and work the animal. And therefore he rendered himself exempt by transferring a part of the embryo to a heathen.
^ᵇʷnote:Since his motives were good.
^ᵇˣnote:By transferring a share of them to heathens.
^ᵇʸnote:As the sanctity of a firstling only begins after its birth.
^ᵇᶻnote:Like a firstling with a blemish whose shearing is forbidden and work with which is prohibited, still possessing a certain degree of holiness.
^ᶜᵃnote:Although he actually observes all the prohibitions with reference to a blemished firstling, it is really rendered, owing to the share of the heathens, an unconsecrated animal.
^ᶜᵇnote:To accept money from a heathen which is the valid method whereby a selling transaction is concluded with a gentile.
^ᶜᶜnote:Lit., ‘did a mere word’.
^ᶜᵈnote:By means of words only the transference was effected and no money was paid i.e., he simply informed the heathen that he had given him possession.
^ᶜᵉnote:Presumably from the first-born of an ass.
^ᶜᶠnote:This at present understood as meaning that since the Levites themselves exempted the asses of the Israelites in the wilderness, how much more should they exempt their own asses.