בכורות 31 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Our Rabbis taught: And all of these if they repented must never be received. [These are] the words of R. Meir. R. Judah Says: If they repented only in secrecy, we must not receive them, but if publicly, they may be received. Some there are who say: If what they did was in secrecy, they may be received, but if publicly, they must not be received. But R. Simeon and R. Joshua b. Karha say: Both in the first case as in the other, they may be received because of what is said, Turn, O backsliding children. R. Isaac of Kefar Acco reported in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is in accordance with the view of that pair. Our Rabbis taught: At first [the Sages] said: If a haber became a tax-collector he is expelled from the order. If he withdrew, he is not received [as a haber]. They subsequently declared: If he withdrew, he is regarded like any other person. The scholars required the teaching of R. Huna b. Hiyya. Rabbah and R. Joseph went in to him together with four hundred pairs of scholars. When he learnt that they were coming, he wreathed four hundred stools for them. Eventually they heard that he had become a tax-collector. Thereupon they sent him a message that he should adhere to his office. He went back to his former position, and sent back to them: ‘I have withdrawn’. R. Joseph did not go, but Rabbah went. R. Joseph said: We have learnt: If he withdrew from the office, he must not be received [as a haber]. Rabbah however says: We have learnt: They subsequently decided that if he withdrew, he is regarded like any other person. Our Rabbis taught: A man may examine all firstlings, except his own; he may examine his holy sacrifices and his animal tithes. He also allows himself to be asked with reference to his levitically prepared food. The master said: ‘A man may examine all firstlings except his own’. What are the circumstances? Shall I say that only one person [examines]? But is one person believed? Then we must suppose that three persons [examine]. But are three persons suspected [on his account]? Have we not learnt: If a woman made a declaration of protest or performed halizah before him [a scholar], the latter may marry her because he is of the Beth din? — I may still say it refers to one person and as R. Hisda reported in the name of R. Johanan elsewhere that it was a case of an individual expert, so also here it is the case of an individual expert [who examined the firstling]. ‘He may examine his holy sacrifices’, [the reason being] because if he wished, he could ask for their release [from a scholar]. And as regards ‘his [animal] tithes’, [the reason is] because if he wished, he could cast a blemish in the entire herd [of animals]. ‘He also allows himself to be asked with reference to his levitically prepared food’, [the reason being] because they are fit to eat during the period of his uncleanness. MISHNAH. THE PROFIT ON ALL DEDICATED OBJECTS WHICH BECAME UNFIT [FOR THE ALTAR] GOES TO THE SANCTUARY. THEY ARE SOLD IN A MARKET, SLAUGHTERED IN A MARKET AND WEIGHED BY THE POUND, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A FIRSTLING OR A TITHING ANIMAL, AS THEIR PROFIT GOES TO THE OWNERS. THE PROFIT ON DEDICATED OBJECTS WHICH BECAME UNFIT [FOR THE PURPOSE CONSECRATED] GOES TO THE SANCTUARY. YOU MUST WEIGH ONE PIECE OF MEAT OF THE FIRST-BORN AGAINST ANOTHER PIECE OF ORDINARY MEAT OF ASCERTAINED WEIGHT.^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

^ᵃnote:The reference is to the second clause of the Baraitha in Tosef. Dem'ai. II, concerning one accepting the obligations of a haber except one religious law, a priest who accepts all priestly obligation except one, and similarly a Levite. Tosaf explains that it refers to an earlier clause in the Tosef. with reference to an ‘am ha-arez accepting the obligations of a haber, a heathen who accepts the teachings of the Torah and a priest who accepts the full obligations of the priesthood. Now, if any of these retracted, i.e., returned to their former habits, they are never received again, since they have shown their weakness, whereas R. Judah maintains that if this relapse was in secrecy, they must not be received because they are merely deceiving people and doing it for show, but if their relapse was both privately and publicly, then if they retracted, we accept them again as genuine penitents.
^ᵇnote:I.e., ignoring the rules of levitically prepared food. Tosaf. interprets this as follows: If we recognized from the beginning, prior to their lapse, that they observed the obligations of a haber even privately, then we receive them when they return. But where we saw them keeping those obligations only in public but not privately, they must not be received back by us, as we suspect them merely of deceiving people.
^ᶜnote:Jer. III, 14.
^ᵈnote:[Caphare Accho in Lower Galilee; v. Hildesheimer, Beitrige, p. 81.]
^ᵉnote:R. Simeon and R. Judah b. Karha.
^ᶠnote:Publicans or customs-collectors had the taxes farmed out to them by the crown and as a rule recouped themselves by imposing iniquitous burdens on the people; consequently they were considered robbers in Jewish law.
^ᵍnote:From the office of publican.
^ʰnote:In order to consult him on some point of Jewish law. Lit., ‘the time needed him’. Another explanation is that he fell ill and it was necessary for them to visit him.
^ⁱnote:So Jast.
^ʲnote:Since he was already a publican, let him cling to the position, but as far as they were concerned, they would not visit him.
^ᵏnote:I.e., resigned his office. Read kzt for khz. So Jast. According to cur. edd. this was the continuation of the message, viz., that he should adhere ‘to his (new position) before him’.
^ˡnote:V. supra p. 196, n. 6.
^ᵐnote:Explaining why he did not go.
^ⁿnote:A priest is not allowed to inspect his own firstling and to permit it.
^ᵒnote:Peace-offerings, in which a blemish appears in order to ascertain whether it is a permanent blemish, so as to redeem them as hullin.
^ᵖnote:In which a permanent blemish appeared.
^ᵠnote:If he is versed in such matters, and there is a doubt on some point, he need not go to a scholar to inquire.
^ʳnote:For even to permit firstlings belonging to others we require the decision of three persons.
^ˢnote:Against a marriage contracted during her minority; v. Glos. s.v. Mi'un.
^ᵗnote:V. Glos.
^ᵘnote:For he was not there alone, as a Beth din of three were present. Therefore we do not suspect him of permitting her for the purpose of marrying her.
^ᵛnote:By pleading that the consecration was a mistake, thus finding a way out to free the animal from its sanctity. We therefore do not entertain the suspicion that he would declare the blemish to be a permanent one when it is transitory. This method, however, of releasing the animal from its holiness does not apply to a firstling which is hallowed from birth, and consequently there is room for suspicion here.
^ʷnote:Before tithing his herd, tithing taking effect even on blemished animals, and from the very beginning he could have released them from their holiness in the matter of eating them within the walls of Jerusalem.
^ˣnote:He is consequently not suspected of declaring something which is unclean to be clean, since he can make use even of unclean food. This of course only refers to hullin, but unclean terumah is not suitable for him to eat even when he is levitically unclean, as it requires to be burnt.
^ʸnote:Their profit is obtained by selling at a high price.
^ᶻnote:Where much is bought and at a high price.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit. ‘Litra’, the Roman Libra, a pound, in the manner butchers who sell hullin.
^ᵃᵇnote:In the case of a firstling, the owner is the priest, who sells its flesh to anybody. Since therefore the profit belongs to private people, it was not permitted to sell the meat and treat it lightly like hullin by selling it in the market etc., in order to gain more profit.

²GEMARA. [The Mishnah says that] the profit on all dedicated objects which have become unfit [for the object consecrated] goes to THE SANCTUARY. Now, when is this? Is it after redemption? Then why does it state that their profit belongs to THE SANCTUARY? Is not the profit on them for the owners? If again you maintain that [the Mishnah] refers to the period before redemption, why does it say THEY ARE SLAUGHTERED? Do they not require presentation and valuation? No difficulty arises according to him who says that objects consecrated for the altar are not included in the law of presentation and valuation; but according to him who holds that they are included in the law of presenta tion and valuation, what answer could you give? — You can still say that [the Mishnah] refers to the period after redemption, and what is meant then by the expression THEIR PROFIT BELONGS TO THE SANCTUARY? [It means] from the beginning. For since the Master permits them to be sold in the market, slaughtered in the market and weighed by the pound, the amount of the redemption is increased from the beginning. EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A FIRSTLING OR OF A TITHING ANIMAL, AS THEIR PROFIT BELONGS TO THE OWNERS. This is quite fair in the case of a firstling, which, although it must not be sold in the market, can be sold privately; but are animal tithes allowed to be sold privately? Has it not been taught: In connection with a firstling it is said: [But the firstling of an ox] . . . thou shalt not redeem, [intimating] that it may be sold alive and in connection with animal tithing, it says: It shall not be redeemed, [intimating] that it is forbidden to be sold either alive or ritually cut, whether unblemished or blemished? — This problem presented itself to R. Shesheth in the evening and he solved it the next morning by reference to a Baraitha [mentioned below]. We are dealing here [in the Mishnah] with a tithing animal belonging to orphans, [and by permitting in this case] we resort to the principle of restoring something lost. R. Idi was the attendant of R. Shesheth. He heard [this answer] from him and proceeded to mention it in the College, but did not cite it in his name. R. Shesheth heard of it and was annoyed. He exclaimed: ‘He who has bitten me, a scorpion should bite him’. And what practical difference did this make to R. Shesheth? — As Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: What is the meaning of the scriptural text: I will dwell in Thy Tent in [both] worlds? Is it possible for a man to dwell in two worlds? What David meant is this: ‘Master of the Universe, may they cite a tradition in my name in this world’. For R. Johanan reported in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: When a tradition is cited in a scholar's name in this world, his lips murmur in the grave. And R. Isaac b. Zera also said: What is the meaning of the scriptural text: And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine that glideth smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those that are asleep? It is like a heated mass of grapes. Just as a heated mass of grapes drips as soon as you apply your finger, so do the lips of scholars in the graves murmur when sayings are cited in their name. What is the Baraitha [referred to above]? — As it has been taught: A tithing animal belonging to orphans, we may sell. And as to the flesh of a ritually cut tithing animal he may also sell it in conjunction with its skin, fat, tendons and bones. What does [the Baraitha] mean? Abaye said: It means this: A tithing animal belonging to orphans may be sold. And how is it sold? In conjunction with its skin, fat, tendons and horns. This would therefore imply that in the case of an adult it is forbidden to sell a tithing animal in conjunction with other things. Now why is this different from the case we have learnt [as follows]: If one buys a lulab from another in the sabbatical year, he gives him at the same time the ethrog as a gift because he must not buy it in the sabbatical year. And we raised the point, what if we did not wish to give it to him as a gift? And R. Huna explained: He pays him indirectly the value of the ethrog in conjunction with the lulab? — There [in the Mishnah] the matter is not obvious, but here the matter is obvious. Said Raba: If this be so, then why does the Baraitha above repeat the expression ‘tithing animal’? Rather said Rabba: It means this: A tithing animal belonging to orphans may be sold in the ordinary way, whereas in the case of a tithing animal belonging to an adult, which was ritually cut, he pays for the flesh in conjunction with its skin, fat, tendon and horns. Said Raba: Whence do I prove it? Because it is written, Then both it and that, for which it is changed shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed. Now, when does the law of substitution apply? When the animal is alive. Therefore [by analogy] when is a tithing animal not redeemed? When it is alive, thus implying that after being ritually cut, it may be redeemed, and it is but the Rabbis who have prohibited its selling after having been ritually cut in order to prevent its selling before it was ritually cut. Consequently in the case of an object which is valued when alive, the Rabbis prohibited its selling after having been ritually cut in order to prevent its selling before it was ritually cut;^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ᵃᶜnote:Therefore how is it possible for him to sell it and make it hullin, for a dedicated animal cannot be redeemed except when alive, since it requires to be presented to the priest and valued by him (Lev. XXVII).
^ᵃᵈnote:V. supra 32b.
^ᵃᵉnote:When the owners redeem them originally from the sanctuary, the latter benefits if after redemption the flesh can be sold in the manner of hullin.
^ᵃᶠnote:Num. XVIII, 17.
^ᵃᵍnote:To others, having once come into the possession of the priest.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. XXVII, 33.
^ᵃⁱnote:In a blemished state.
^ᵃʲnote:As he is unable to eat the whole animal, it would become decomposed and be a loss if we forbade its disposal privately. But in the case of an adult, even private selling is prohibited.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e. not cited my name as the author.
^ᵃˡnote:So lit., E.V. ‘for ever’. Ps. LXI, 5.
^ᵃᵐnote:Cant. VII, 10.
^ᵃⁿnote:On which R. Shesheth based his reply.
^ᵃᵒnote:At first it says that we may sell it, apparently in the normal way, and then it proceeds to say that the selling must be in an indirect manner.
^ᵃᵖnote:He sells the skin for a high price, which includes the value of the flesh; the skin, horns etc. being permitted to be sold because they are not eatable things.
^ᵃᵠnote:The palm branch, one of the Four Species taken on Sukkoth.
^ᵃʳnote:The citron, another of the Four Species.
^ᵃˢnote:Other fruit including the lulab, although gathered in the sabbatical year, may be bought because we go by the time when the fruit is formed, which is the sixth year. But in the case of the ethrog, we go by the time when the fruit matures, i.e., in the sabbatical year. and consequently we must not purchase an ethrog from an ‘am ha-arez as the latter might do business in the sabbatical year with the money thus obtained.
^ᵃᵗnote:As the ethrog is only of slight value, so that it is not manifest that be is paying for it in connection with the lulab.
^ᵃᵘnote:Since the price is high, it is clear that the money is not for the skin etc, but for the flesh.
^ᵃᵛnote:Thus implying that the Baraitha deals with two separate cases and does not merely consist of one clause dealing with a single case.
^ᵃʷnote:Lev. XXVII, 33.
^ᵃˣnote:As mentioned above, that ‘it is not sold either alive or slaughtered’.
^ᵃʸnote:I.e., the flesh which is the main part of the animal that is sold when alive.