Bekhorot

What need then is there for the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’? If it has no bearing on the subject of haramim, make it bear on the subject of tithing [as regards selling]. But why not say: Make it bear on the subject of a firstling? — [It is reasonable to maintain that] the word ge'ulah used in connection with haramim is [to be applied to tithing since the identical word] ge'ulah [is used with reference to tithing] as with the former.1 R. Ashi says: ‘It shall not be redeemed’ mentioned in connection with tithing means that it shall not be sold. Said R. Ashi: Whence can I prove this? [Scripture writes]: Then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.2 Now, when is it that the law of Substitution applies? When [the animal] is alive. Therefore, when may it not be redeemed? When it is alive, thus implying that after having been slaughtered it may be redeemed. But does it not require presentation and valuation?3 Therefore you must deduce from here that the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’ means that it shall not be sold. This would indeed hold good according to him who holds that objects consecrated for the altar are included in the law of presentation and valuation. But according to him who holds that objects consecrated for the altar are not included in the law of presentation and valuation, what can you reply? — We mean this [R. Ashi argues]: Is there any object which cannot be redeemed when alive and can yet be redeemed after being slaughtered! — But why not? [It is natural that] when an object is alive, its holiness being strong, it cannot be redeemed, whereas after its slaughtering, its holiness having been weakened, it may be that it can be redeemed! — But is it not a matter of course? For if when the animal is alive, when it is qualified to effect redemp tion [Scripture says that] it cannot be redeemed, after having been slaughtered, when it has not the strength to effect redemption, how much more so is it the case that it cannot be redeemed? Consequently [we deduce from here that] the text ‘It shall not be redeemed’ means that it shall not be sold. But why does not the Divine Law then write explicitly ‘It shall not be sold’? — If the Divine Law had written ‘It shall not be sold’. I might have thought that it cannot indeed be sold, since he performed a secular action [in exchanging], but it can be redeemed, because its money enters [the coffers of] the Sanctuary, the Divine Law therefore writes ‘It shall not be redeemed’ teaching that it can neither be sold nor redeemed. MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: AN ISRAELITE MUST NOT BE INVITED TO SHARE [A BLEMISHED FIRSTLING] WITH A PRIEST, WHEREAS BETH HILLEL PERMIT THIS. EVEN IN THE CASE OF A HEATHEN. GEMARA. Whose view does the Mishnah represent? — That of R. Akiba. For it has been taught: Only a company all of whom are priests may enter for a share of a firstling. These are the words of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel permit even strangers.4 R. Akiba permits [according to Beth Hillel] even heathens. What is the reason of Beth Shammai? — It is written, And the flesh of them shall be thine, as the wave-breast and as the right shoulder [are thine].5 Just as there6 priests may [eat] but not a lay Israelite,7 so here priests are allowed [to eat] but not an Israelite. and haramim one can infer that tithing must not be sold, for the text ‘It shall not be sold’ in connection with haramim is not necessary, for if haramim are in the possession of the owners then they are holy, and if in the possession of the priest, then they are hullin. We therefore, declares Raba, maintain that the text ‘It shall not be sold’ refers to tithing. holiness, the selling being prohibited because a secular action was performed with the animal.