Bekhorot 10b — the Talmud in English

Rather, it is the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis concerning a firstborn donkey that they slaughtered but did not break its neck. And since an Israelite slaughtered it, its slaughter renders it considered food [as explained in the Mishna in Chullin 117b], and this is the reasoning of the Rabbis—

And Rabbi Shimon, too, would not have deemed it pure from food impurity through a complete slaughter by an Israelite; rather,

here,

in the beraita in which the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disputed concerning a firstborn donkey, whether it imparts food impurity,

what are we dealing with:

with

a case where they slaughtered it

an Israelite slaughtered the firstborn donkey in order

to study through it

the laws of slaughter, and it is not a complete slaughter,

and

Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disputed

in the dispute of Nimos and Rabbi Elazar

as will be explained. And Rabbi Shimon holds that this is not a complete slaughter sufficient to render it food; therefore, he does not concede concerning a firstborn donkey that it imparts food impurity, whereas according to the Rabbis, even this slaughter considers the firstborn donkey food, and it imparts food impurity.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yose said: Nimos, the brother of Joshua HaGarsi, told me that one who slaughters a raven in order to study through it,

behold,

its blood

that fell upon seeds

renders them susceptible

to receive impurity, in accordance with the law of slaughter blood, which renders susceptible.

Rabbi Elazar says: Slaughter blood always renders susceptible.

And this is difficult:

Rabbi Elazar is the first tanna!?

Rather, its prohibition and its consideration [as food] are the point of their disagreement,

that is to say, their dispute is indeed not concerning the law of susceptibility, but concerning the law of the slaughtered raven, whether it is food capable of receiving impurity. And they disputed concerning slaughter that is only for studying and not for the sake of eating, whether it is effective in rendering it considered food:

The first tanna holds: Its blood renders others susceptible

if it fell upon other seeds,

but as for itself

it does not render itself susceptible, because since they slaughtered it only in order to study through it,

it requires intention

for eating in order that it become impure.

And Rabbi Elazar came to say: Slaughter blood always renders susceptible, even as to itself

the raven itself;

it also does not require intention.

It follows that these tannaim disputed concerning slaughter performed in order to study through it, whether it is sufficient for it to receive food impurity, or whether explicit intention for eating is required; and in this dispute Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disputed concerning a firstborn donkey.

And we raise an objection to this:

From where

is it established that Rabbi Elazar’s reason for considering it food with regard to its own impurity is that slaughter is effective even when it is for studying? But

perhaps the reason of Rabbi Elazar there is that a raven is different, since it has

some of

the signs of purity

of birds, and therefore its law in this matter is like that of the carcass of a pure bird, which does not require intention.

The Gemara adds to explain:

And from where do we know that signs of purity are significant

that because it possesses signs of purity, although it is not pure, its law is like that of a pure creature with regard to food impurity?

And we explain:

For

this

is taught concerning that

earlier beraita, with regard to the hyrax and the pig [and it was brought in the Gemara on page a]:

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason

that these impart food impurity even though they are impure?

Since there are

in it

in them

some

signs of purity.

And if you would say

to reject this:

if

the reason of Rabbi Elazar

is because of signs of purity,

then

why specifically “

one who slaughters a raven

in order to study”

that it receives food impurity? But

even

if he slaughtered it

to engage in activity—

which is a lesser slaughter than slaughter for studying—

also

the raven receives food impurity, since it receives impurity on account of its signs of purity!?

And we answer:

Yes, indeed,

according to Rabbi Elazar the raven receives food impurity even when he slaughtered it to engage in activity,

but

nevertheless,

because of Nimos

the beraita stated the case of slaughtering it for studying, to teach us that according to his view even slaughter for studying, which is better than merely engaging in activity, is not effective in rendering it food capable of receiving food impurity.

Here the Gemara returns to the main point of Rava’s statement, that Rabbi Shimon concedes after the breaking of the neck that it is prohibited:

Abaye challenged him

from what we learned:

If he did not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck with a cleaver

a long knife,

from behind it, and buries it, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, the words of Rabbi Judah; and Rabbi Shimon permits.

It is explicitly stated that Rabbi Shimon permits deriving benefit from it even after the breaking of its neck, and this is unlike Rava!?

And we answer:

Say

that the beraita says:

While it is alive, it is prohibited

for the firstborn donkey

to derive benefit from it, and Rabbi Shimon permits;

but after the breaking of its neck, Rabbi Shimon also concedes that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.

And we raise an objection to this:

But since the latter clause is while it is alive, the first clause is not while it is alive,

is it? For

the latter clause teaches:

He may not kill it

the firstborn donkey

with a reed, nor with a sickle, nor with an axe, nor with a saw

a saw,

and he may not bring it into a room and lock the door before it so that it will die

of hunger; rather, he breaks its neck with a cleaver from behind it—

And it is prohibited

for the firstborn donkey

with regard to shearing and labor, the words of Rabbi Judah; and Rabbi Shimon permits

shearing and labor, which are benefit while it is alive.

It is thus explained that the latter clause deals with benefit from the firstborn donkey while it is alive; and if so, it follows that the first clause deals with benefit from the firstborn donkey after the breaking of its neck, and nevertheless Rabbi Shimon permits it. This is therefore unlike Rava!?

And we answer: Not as you analyzed it; rather,

the first clause and the latter clause

of the beraita deal with benefit from the firstborn donkey

while it is alive,

but they disputed concerning two matters of benefit while it is alive:

In the first clause

they disputed

concerning benefit from its value,

for if he rented it to others, its rental payment is prohibited.

But

the latter clause concerns benefit from its body,

as we learned: “And it is prohibited with regard to shearing and labor.”

And it is necessary

to inform us of their dispute both concerning benefit from its body and concerning benefit from its value, because

if it taught benefit from its value

alone, I would say:

in that matter alone

he

is what Rabbi Shimon permits, but concerning benefit from its body, I would say that he concedes to Rabbi Judah

that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it; therefore, it taught in the latter clause that Rabbi Shimon permits even shearing and labor, which are benefit while it is alive.

And if it taught

their dispute

concerning benefit from its body

alone, I would say:

in that matter he

is what

Rabbi Judah prohibits, but concerning benefit from its value, I would say that he concedes to Rabbi Shimon

that they are permitted—

and therefore

it is necessary

to state their dispute both concerning benefit from its body and concerning benefit from its value.

And likewise—

like Rava—

Rav Naḥman said that

Rabba bar Avuha said: Rabbi Shimon concedes that after the breaking of the neck it is prohibited

to derive benefit from it.

And Rav Naḥman said

in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

From where do I say this

that I learned this?

For it was taught:

It is written concerning the firstborn donkey: “And if you do not redeem it,

you shall break its neck”;

it is stated here

concerning the firstborn donkey, the expression

breaking of the neck, and it is stated there

concerning the calf whose neck is broken, the expression

breaking of the neck [“And they shall break the neck of the calf there in the valley”].

“And they shall decapitate the calf there in the valley.”

Just as there

concerning the calf whose neck is broken, it is

prohibited

to derive benefit from it after the breaking of its neck,

so here

concerning the firstborn donkey it is

prohibited

to derive benefit from it after the breaking of its neck; and behold:

Whose

is this beraita?

If you say it is Rabbi Judah,

this cannot be said, for: even

while it is alive, it is certainly prohibited,

whereas the beraita prohibits it only after the breaking of its neck

; rather, is it not

necessarily

Rabbi Shimon;

we have learned that after the breaking of its neck even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.

Rav Sheshet said

to Rav Naḥman:

Your colleague, Safra

your colleague, Rav Safra

translated it

explained that beraita in another manner, and you cannot hear from it that Rabbi Shimon concedes that after the breaking of its neck it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. And this is how he explained it:

It is always Rabbi Judah

and concerning your difficulty—that even while it is alive it is prohibited—do not raise it. The beraita comes to teach that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it even after the breaking of its neck,

and it was necessary

to inform us of this, because

it might enter your mind

to say that although it had already become prohibited to derive benefit from it, nevertheless:

Since the breaking of its neck stands in place of redemption, just as redemption permits

the firstborn donkey for benefit,

the firstborn donkey to benefit from,

so breaking the neck permits

it for benefit—

it teaches us

the beraita that breaking the neck does not remove the prohibition of benefit from the firstborn donkey. And if so, you cannot learn from here that Rabbi Shimon, who permits it while it is alive, prohibits it after the breaking of its neck.

Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say this

that Rabbi Shimon concedes that after the breaking of its neck the firstborn donkey is prohibited to derive benefit from,

from what was taught in the school of Levi

concerning the reason that the Torah said to break the neck of a firstborn donkey that he did not redeem with a sheep:

He caused the money of the priest to be lost

by not redeeming it;

therefore, his money shall be lost

for he shall break its neck and it shall become prohibited to derive benefit from.

And behold:

Whose

is this beraita?

If you say it is Rabbi Judah,

this cannot be said, for:

it is already ruined and standing

the firstborn donkey is already ruined even before he breaks its neck, since it became prohibited for benefit while alive—

Rather, is it not

necessarily

Rabbi Shimon;

it is thus clear that Rabbi Shimon concedes that after the breaking of its neck it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

If you wish, say it is Rabbi Judah

and certainly you cannot prove that Rabbi Shimon concedes that after the breaking of its neck it is prohibited to derive benefit from,

and if you wish, say it is Rabbi Shimon

but nevertheless you cannot prove that Rabbi Shimon concedes that after the breaking of its neck it is prohibited.

And the Gemara explains:

If you wish, say it is Rabbi Shimon

but the loss is not that it became prohibited to derive benefit from, for in truth the carcass is permitted for benefit; rather, the monetary loss is

through the depreciation of death,

for he diminished the value of the firstborn donkey through breaking its neck: previously it was a donkey, and now it is a carcass.

And if you wish, say it is Rabbi Judah,

and concerning your difficulty—what did this one lose, for behold, while it was alive it was already prohibited to derive benefit from—say to you:

the loss of the difference between them,

that is to say, its owner lost through breaking its neck the difference between the value of a donkey and the value of a sheep of any amount. For before breaking its neck he could have redeemed it with a sheep of any amount, and the difference would have remained for him; but now that he broke its neck, he lost everything.

And likewise Resh Lakish said—

like Rava and like Rav Naḥman in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

Rabbi Shimon concedes that after the breaking of its neck it is prohibited

to derive benefit from it.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan, and if you wish say Rabbi Elazar, said: It is still—

even after the breaking of its neck—

a dispute,

for according to Rabbi Judah it is prohibited to derive benefit from, whereas Rabbi Shimon permits deriving benefit from it even after the breaking of its neck.

There are those who teach this statement of Rav Naḥman

that some taught the words of Rav Naḥman in the name of Rabba bar Avuha—that a firstborn donkey after the breaking of its neck is prohibited to derive benefit from even according to Rabbi Shimon—not as an independent statement but

with regard to this,

in relation to the Mishna in Kiddushin 56b, where we learned:

One who betroths with a firstborn donkey

which is prohibited to derive benefit from

is not betrothed;

and the members of the academy said:

Let us say that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

for according to Rabbi Shimon the firstborn donkey is permitted for benefit, and why is she not betrothed, and concerning this

said

explained

Rav Naḥman, who said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha,

that this Mishna is when he betrothed her with a firstborn donkey

after the breaking of its neck, and it is the view of everyone,

for even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited to derive benefit from.

There are those who say:

this Mishna implies [that the consecration takes place] before the breaking of the neck, and if so, it is more difficult:

whose

Mishna is this?

Not Rabbi Yehuda and not Rabbi Shimon,

for:

If it is Rabbi Shimon,

who permits deriving benefit from the firstborn of a donkey,

the woman should be consecrated

with

the whole

donkey, for it is permitted for benefit.

If it is Rabbi Yehuda,

who is the one who indeed forbids deriving benefit from the firstborn of a donkey, the difficulty is: in any event,

she should be consecrated with that which is between them [the difference between the value of a donkey and the value of a lamb],

for she can redeem it with any lamb whatsoever, and the difference in value belongs to her.

Rabba bar Avuha said in the name of Rav,

to resolve the Mishna concerning betrothal,

it is always Rabbi Yehuda

who is its author, and as for what is difficult for you—that in any event she should be consecrated with the difference in value between a donkey and a lamb—it is not difficult,

and

that Mishna is dealing with

a case in which it is worth

the firstborn of a donkey

only one shekel, and he holds

that the tanna of the Mishna concerning betrothal

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that the lamb, too, must be worth at least one shekel; and if so, the woman gains nothing at all through the redemption.

For it was taught:

It is written in the section of the firstborn of a donkey: “

You shall redeem,” “

you shall redeem,”

twice, and in order to teach: “

You shall redeem”

immediately,

even within thirty days of the birth of the firstborn of the donkey; “

you shall redeem,”

even with a lamb that is worth

anything whatsoever.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: Redemption is not less than one shekel,

and the lamb must be worth at least one shekel; and according to his view, if he consecrates with a firstborn of a donkey that is worth only one shekel, she has no gain through the redemption.

The Master said: “

You shall redeem, you shall redeem,”

you shall redeem immediately; you shall redeem,

even with a lamb

of any value whatsoever:

And we raise a difficulty: Is it not

obvious

that he redeems immediately, and also that there is no minimum measure for the lamb, for the Torah said, “And the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” and anything that is called by the name “lamb” is fit for redemption?!

And we answer:

It was necessary

to make known to us that he redeems even before thirty days, and also to make known to us that there is no minimum measure for the lamb, because

it might enter your mind to say:

Since

the firstborn of a donkey

was juxtaposed to the firstborn of man,

as the verse says, “Only you shall redeem, you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem,”

just as

with the firstborn of man—

after thirty

days is when he is redeemed, for it is said concerning him, “And those who are redeemed, from one month you shall redeem,”

and with five

selaim is when he is redeemed—

this one—

the firstborn of a donkey—

also,

is redeemed only

after thirty, and with five

selaim is when he is redeemed; but if the lamb was worth less than five selaim, one may not redeem with it—

it teaches us: “

You shall redeem”

even

immediately; “

you shall redeem,”

even with a lamb

of any value whatsoever.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Redemption is not less than one shekel:

And we raise a difficulty against him:

Whichever way you look at it, if he juxtaposes

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda the firstborn of a donkey

to the firstborn of man,

if so,

five

selaim

should be required,

that the lamb of redemption be worth—

And if he does not juxtapose

Rabbi Yosei the firstborn of a donkey to the firstborn of man, if so,

from where does he derive one shekel [

from where did he learn the measure of one shekel for the lamb]?!

And we answer:

Always,

even Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda

does not juxtapose

and therefore he does not require five selaim; nevertheless, he requires one shekel, as

Rava said:

The verse says [Leviticus 27:25]: “

«

And all your valuations shall be in the shekel of the Sanctuary,”

to teach us:

All valuations that you value shall not be less than one shekel,

and included in this is the lamb of redemption of the firstborn of a donkey.