Bekhorot

but in the case of an object which is not valued when alive,1 the Rabbis did not prohibit;2 and in the case of orphans, the Rabbis let the law remain according to the biblical ruling.3 And R. Samuel son of R. Isaac also held Raba's view.4 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]5 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.6 The following query was put forward: What of selling its flesh in conjunction with the bones?7 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.8 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 place9 and the other that of his.10 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?11 — 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 haramim12 the expression It shall not be redeemed;13 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.14 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’?15 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?16 Rather [argue thus]: [Scripture] should not have stated ‘It shall not be redeemed’17 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!18 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’19 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?20 — [The text That thou shalt cause to pass’ is superfluous.21 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?22 — The ‘redemption’ mentioned in connection with tithing is free for interpretation23 whereas the ‘redemption’ mentioned in connection with a firstling is not free [for interpretation].24 But why do you see fit to say that the text mentioning ‘redemption’ in connection with a firstling is required for its own sake,25 while the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’ in connection with tithing is free [for interpretation]?26 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?27 — We compare the word ge'ulah with the word ge'ulah,28 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].29 But what is the practical difference?30 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,31 to show that the same rule applies to his coming [the second time] as to his entering [after a week]?32 — 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 firstling33 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]34 implying ‘it is [most holy],35 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.36 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.37 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.34 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 case of an adult. blessing referred to here means the permission of selling it just as the blessing denied when alive refers to its selling. Consequently we see that according to the biblical law, a tithing animal may be sold after having been slaughtered and there is only a rabbinic restriction which is not invoked when it belongs to orphans. bones is permissible, as it will be said that the price is for the bones, since these can be of use. with the bones. the flesh, which is forbidden. connotes selling. whereas tithing only applies to every tenth animal of the herd. apart)’ mentioned with reference to a first-born in Ex. XIII, 12. is therefore free for the deduction of an analogy between it and the term used in connection with tithing, as we do not refute an analogy drawn from congruent expressions, since the latter is a tradition. Therefore the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’ is redundant, and we consequently compare it with a similar text in connection with haramim, deducing that tithes must not be sold as well as not redeemed. the other, identical in meaning. analogy between ‘passing’ and ‘passing’. pediyah.