Bekhorot

When they reached the straits,1 they filled a jug of water from the waters of the straits. When they arrived, they were presented to the Emperor. He observed that they were depressed, [being far from their native land]. He said: ‘these are not the same [people]’. He, therefore, took a piece of the earth of their country and cast it at them. Thereupon, they grew haughty2 towards the King. He then said to R. Joshua: ‘Whatever you desire, do with them’. He fetched the water which [the Athenians] had taken from the straits and poured it into a ditch.3 He said to them: ‘Fill this and depart’. They tried to fill it by casting therein the water, one after the other, but it was absorbed. They went on filling until [the joints] of their shoulders became dislocated and they perished.MISHNAH. IF A SHE-ASS THAT HAD NEVER BEFORE GIVEN BIRTH GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, [THE ISRAELITE] GIVES ONE LAMB TO THE PRIEST AS A REDEMPTION.4 [IF IT GAVE BIRTH TO] A MALE AND A FEMALE, HE SETS ASIDE ONE LAMB [WHICH REMAINS] FOR HIMSELF.5 IF TWO SHE-ASSES THAT HAD NEVER BEFORE GIVEN BIRTH GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, HE GIVES TWO LAMBS TO THE PRIEST. [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO] A MALE AND A FEMALE OR TWO MALES AND A FEMALE, HE GIVES ONE LAMB TO THE PRIEST.6 [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO] TWO FEMALES AND A MALE OR TO TWO MALES AND TWO FEMALES THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING.7 IF ONE SHE-ASS HAD GIVEN BIRTH BEFORE AND ONE HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH BEFORE AND THEY GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, HE GIVES ONE LAMB TO THE PRIEST. [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO] A MALE AND A FEMALE, HE SETS ASIDE ONE LAMB [WHICH REMAINS] FOR HIMSELF,8 FOR [SCRIPTURE] SAYS: AND THE FIRSTLING OF AN ASS THOU SHALT REDEEM WITH A LAMB.9 [THE LAMB CAN COME EITHER] FROM THE SHEEP OR THE GOATS MALE OR FEMALE, LARGE OR SMALL, UNBLEMISHED OR BLEMISHED. HE CAN REDEEM WITH THE SAME ONE MANY TIMES.10 AND THE LAMB] ENTERS THE SHED TO BE TITHED.11 IF IT DIES, THE PRIEST CAN BENEFIT FROM IT.12 GEMARA. Who is the authority [of the first passage in the Mishnah]?13 R. Jeremiah said: It does not follow the opinion of R. Jose, the Galilean. For if it were the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean — did he not say that it is possible to ascertain exactly [that both heads came forth simultaneously]?14 Said Abaye: You may even assume that [the passage in the Mishnah] represents the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean, and that he makes a difference [in connection with the first-born of a clean animal], for [Scripture] writes: The males shall be the Lord's.15 But why not infer [the case of the first-born of an unclean animal] from [the case of the firstborn of a clean animal]? — The Divine Law excludes this [by the definite article in the expression], ‘The males’.16 Some there are who say: Must we say that [the passage in the Mishnah]13 does not represent the view of R. Jose the Galilean? For if it were the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean, did he not say that it is possible to ascertain exactly [that both heads came forth simultaneously]? — Said Abaye: You may even assume that it is the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean and he makes a difference [in connection with the first-born of a clean animal], for [Scripture] writes: ‘The males shall be the Lord's’. Now we can understand R. Jeremiah stating that [the passage in the Mishnah] does not follow R. Jose the Galilean; that is the reason why the [Mishnah] does not say: ‘And both their heads came forth simultaneously’.17 But according to Abaye, let it Say: ‘And both heads came forth simultaneously’?18 Moreover, it has been taught: If his ass had never given birth before, and it gave birth to two males, and the two heads came forth simultaneously, R. Jose the Galilean says that they both belong to the priest, for Scripture Says: ‘The males are the Lord's.’ But is this not written in connection with [an animal] consecrated as such [which is a clean animal]? — Rather say, On account of what [Scripture] Says: ‘The males are the Lord's’.19 This is a confutation of Abaye. — It is a refutation. Sea which absorbs all the waters of the world which flow therein. The waters are then brought to the depths from which they are subsequently discharged. Other explanations (by R. Gershom) are that there is a particular spot in the sea that absorbs other waters or that it refers to Miriam's Well. redemption, he releases the animal from the prohibitions which attach to the first-birth of an ass, in case the male was born first. He is not required, however, to give the lamb to the priest, since the claim of the latter is purely that of a debt due to him as laid down in the Scripture, the lamb not possessing any sanctity, and being like the ass which it redeems. Consequently, the priest is in the position of a claimant who must produce the evidence, the evidence here being that the male was born prior to the female. therefore, he sets aside one lamb for redemption, which, however, remains for himself. prior to the males; also, where two females and a male are born, because here too there is a doubt, and the female might have been born before the male. The Israelite, however, must set aside two lambs which remain for himself. as a present, it can exempt another first-birth of an ass. This process can be repeated in connection with many first-births of asses. his animals. possession. Therefore, if the lamb died before it was delivered to the priest, the latter benefits from its skin and carcass. belong to the priest since both heads came forth at the same time. throughout, even if it were possible to make sure that both heads came forth simultaneously, they are not sanctified. in accordance with R. Jose, only in the case of an unclean animal, it is different, because of the restrictive word ‘The males’. Why should not the Mishnah, therefore, state that even if both heads came forth simultaneously, only one lamb is given to the Priest? both heads come forth simultaneously in connection with a clean animal, we apply the same to the first-birth of an ass. In any case we therefore clearly see here that R. Jose's ruling applies even to the first-birth of an ass.