Bekhorot

And as to the Rabbis,1 must we say that the Rabbis hold that even if a portion of the womb touches [the firstling] it consecrates? For if it consecrates only when the whole womb touches [a firstling], granted it is impossible to ascertain that both heads came forth simultaneously, nevertheless, there is here an interposition?2 — Said R. Ashi: Objects of a homogeneous kind are not reckoned as an Interposition [with reference to each other].3 IF IT GAVE BIRTH TO A MALE AND FEMALE, HE SETS ASIDE etc. Since it remains for himself what need is there to set it aside? — [In order] to release it from the prohibitions [attaching to the first-birth of an ass].4 Consequently, [we infer] that until it is released, it is forbidden to be used. Whose opinion does the Mishnah represent? It is the opinion of R. Judah. For it has been taught:5 It is forbidden to make any use of the first-birth of an ass. These are the words of R. Judah. But R. Simeon permits this. What is the reason of R. Judah? Said ‘Ulla: ‘Can you find an object which requires redemption and yet is permitted to be used while unredeemed’? But is there not? What of the case of the first-born of a man who requires redemption and yet [even before redemption] one may derive benefit from him? — Rather argue [thus]: Is there an object concerning which the Torah particularly enjoined that redemption must be with a sheep and which was yet permitted to be used [before redemption]? And was [the Torah] indeed so particular? Did not R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph redeem [an ass] with boiled herbs of its equivalent value? — As regards an object of equivalent value, this is not referred to here.6 What we are speaking of is the redemption [of an object] not with its equivalent value. And ‘Ulla means this: Can you find an object concerning which the Torah was particular to release its prohibition only with a sheep even though not Its equivalent in value and yet it is permitted to benefit therefrom [unredeemed]? — But what of the second tithing which the Torah was particular that the redemption must be with coined money, and yet we have learnt, R. Judah says: If he betrothed a woman [with second tithe] wilfully she is betrothed?7 — Also with a first-birth of an ass is a woman betrothed, as R. Eleazar [taught]. For R. Eleazar said: A woman knows that the second tithe is not rendered unconsecrated through her,8 and she, therefore, goes up to Jerusalem and eats it. Similarly, here also, a woman is aware that the first-birth of an ass is prohibited, she redeems it therefore with a lamb, and is betrothed with the difference [between the value of the ass and the sheep].9 And as to R. Simeon, what is his reason? — Said ‘Ulla: Can you find an object whose ransom10 is permitted to be used while [the object itself] is forbidden? But can we not? What of [the fruit of] the Sabbatical year, whose ransom is permitted to be used and yet the fruit itself is forbidden?11 — Also with [the fruit of] the Sabbatical year is the ransom forbidden, for a Master said: [The prohibitions attaching to the Sabbatical year] take effect on the very last thing [bought].12 Or, if you choose, I may say that R. Judah and R. Simeon differ in the interpretation of the following verse. For it has been taught: [Scripture says]: Thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox:13 but you may do work with a firstling which belongs [both] to you and to a gentile;14 nor shear the firstling of thy flock:13 but you may shear what belongs [both] to you and to a gentile. These are the words of R. Judah. But R. Simeon says: ‘Thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox’, implying, but you may work with the first-born of a man; thou shalt not shear the firstling of thy sheep; implying, but you may shear the first-birth of an ass. We understand why, according to R. Simeon's interpretations Scripture needs to write both verses. But, according to R. Judah, what need is there for two verses to exclude a firstling which belongs [both] to you and to a gentile? And furthermore, according to R. Judah, the first-born of a man also should we say is forbidden [to work with before redemption]? Rather therefore, explain that all [the authorities mentioned] hold that the words, ‘thine ox’, have for their object the exclusion of the first-born of a man. The dispute, however, is in the interpretation of the words, ‘thy sheep’, for R. Judah is in agreement with his own dictum elsewhere, where he says: A partnership with a gentile is subject to the law of the first-born, so that there is need of a verse to make it permissible for shearing and working [of a firstling]. R. Simeon, however, holds that a partnership with a gentile is not subject to the law of the first-born. And, therefore, in respect to shearing and working, there is no necessity for a verse to make it permissible. The necessity, however, arises for a verse in respect to the first-birth of an ass. This is quite right on the view of R. Judah, for it is for the reason [stated above] that Scripture writes, ‘thy sheep’, and the words, ‘thine ox’, [Scripture adds merely] on account of the words, ‘thine ass’. But according to R. Simeon, what need is there for the words, ‘thine ox’, and ‘thy sheep’?15 This is indeed a difficulty. Rabbah said: R. Simeon agrees, however, that after the breaking of its neck,16 it is forbidden to use it. What is the reason? — He draws a conclusion by analogy between ‘’arifah’ [ the breaking of the neck] here and the "arifah’ [mentioned] in connection with the heifer that had its neck broken.17 Said Rabbah: On what evidence do I say this? Because it has been taught: The fruit of trees of the first three years, the mixed seeds in a vineyard, an ox that is to be put to death by stoning,18 or the heifer that has had its neck broken,19 the birds of the leper,20 the first-birth of an ass,21 and [the mixture] of meat and milk [boiled together],22 all of them receive the uncleanness relating to food.23 R. Simeon says: All of them do not receive the [levitical] uncleanness relating to food. R. Simeon, however, agrees with regard to the [mixture] of meat and milk, that it receives the uncleanness relating to food, since at one time, it was fit [to receive the uncleanness relating to food],24 And R. Assi explained in the name of R. Johanan: What is the reason of R. Simeon? Scripture writes: All food therein which may be eaten.25 [We deduce] that food which you can give gentiles to eat is called food, but food which you are unable to give gentiles to eat is not called food. 26 according to R. Jose and therefore it is the opinion of the majority of the Rabbis. Or the reference may be to the Rabbis who differ with R. Jose in the case of a clean animal that gave birth to two males, the Rabbis holding that one lamb must be given to the priest and one remains for himself. other and was sacred, it did not have the whole womb to consecrate it, owing to the other male, which was coming out at the same time. There was, consequently, an interposition between the first male and the womb. redemption. Hence we conclude that according to R. Judah, it is permitted to use it. Judah's views from the case of second tithe. be removed from the house when the beasts in the field have consumed the fruit there. pertaining to the Sabbatical year. If he then bought wine for the flesh, then the flesh may be used but not the wine. And if again he bought oil for the wine, the last thing purchased is forbidden to be used as well as the fruit itself of the Sabbatical year. give a half of its value to the priest, nevertheless working with the animal and the shearing thereof are permitted. Since the verse, however, does not exclude the first-birth of an ass, we do not permit its use prior to its redemption and it is on a par with a firstling of a clean animal. expounded the verse in the manner he does. be broken with a hatchet. broken as an atonement, and here also for failing to redeem the ass with the lamb, the neck of the ass was broken. As in the former case, it is forbidden to be used, so here also by analogy, it is forbidden to be used. uncleanness of nebelah (a carcass). Therefore, if a dead reptile came in contact with it, it received the uncleanness relating to food, so that if it touched other food, it causes levitical uncleanness. The ritual slaughtering, however, helped at least to make it fit to receive the uncleanness of food. Another interpretation is that even if the ass had its neck broken and it was, therefore, nebelah, we can still apply here the principle of the uncleanness of food, if e.g., there was less of the carcass in size than an olive which, although it did not become unclean as nebelah, may yet be supplemented with other food to the required size of an egg to make it receive the uncleanness of food. other food, the latter becomes unclean.