Bekhorot

Now, does not this statement1 deal with the case of the animal? — No. It deals with the case of an embryo.2 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.3 [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]4 even up to ten times its value. [Does Resh Lakish mean] exactly ten times or not?5 — 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.6 — The case of a slave is different, for every day he [his gentile master] prevents him from carrying out religious duties.7 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!8 — By selling he severs all connection with it [the animal.]9 But in the ‘case of kablanuth10 there is no severing of his connection with the animal.11 [Does Resh Lakish mean] exactly [one hundred times] or not?12 — 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!13 — The case of a slave is different, for he does not return14 [to his master after being redeemed].15 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.]?16 — Rather the reason must be because the case of a slave [being sold to a heathen] is a rare occurrence,17 and any case which is of a rare occurrence, the Rabbis did not [in their rulings] guard against.18 ‘But the Sages say: So long a gentile has a share in it etc.’ Said R. Joshua:19 And both20 expounded the same verse: [Sanctify unto me] all the first-born [whatsoever openeth the womb in Israel].21 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.22 Therefore the Divine Law inserts the word ‘all’ implying that the whole [of the first-born must belong to the Israelite].23 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 it24 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 add25 while the other Master26 holds that it is to diminish.27 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’?28 It was stated: R. Hisda said: [The heathen's share in the animal] must be something which renders an animal nebelah.29 Raba said: [The heathen's share in the animal] must be something which renders it trefah.30 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,31 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.32 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.33 The one [R. Huna's] relates to it [the first-born;]34 the other [the rulings of R. Hisda and Raba] relate to the mother.35 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’36 and it is not found here.37 In connection with its mother also,38 we require [the condition specified in the verse]: And of all thy cattle thou shalt sanctify the males,39 which is not found here. But there is in fact no difference.40 Mar, the son of R. Ashi demurred: Why should this41 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],42 [denote the foetus] which dwells in the animal? — There,43 since there is no mixture of an unconsecrated [part of the animal],44 we apply to it the words ‘in the animal’, ‘all the first-born’.45 Here,46 however, since there is a mixture of the unconsecrated part of the animal,47 we do not read concerning it the words ‘all the first-born’.48 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 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. its future offspring, we are not here concerned. Therefore we are unable to solve the above query. 2. that even if the gentile demands a larger price than its worth, the Israelite is compelled to redeem it? 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? 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. 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. own free will to his former master, after the latter had sold him to a heathen. animal the number stated may be taken as precise. to pay eleven times its value. duty of the first-born. 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. 42a. first-born. other, do actually differ. (shegor) that which it casts forth prematurely.