Bekhorot 11a — the Talmud in English

And

we explain the reason of

the Sages

who did not learn from there regarding a sheep that it must be worth a sela: for

that

[image: exact page location]

“according to the means at hand”

of the one who makes an evaluation

is written,

and this means that the Torah said: “According to what the hand of the one who vows can attain”—who said, “My valuation is upon me”—“the priest shall value him”; and this teaches that if his hand did not attain the amount of the valuation fixed by the Torah, he gives only according to what his hand can attain. And the Torah added: “And every valuation of yours shall be according to the sacred sela,” to teach that if his hand did not attain even one sela, nevertheless he shall not be valued at less than a sela.

Rabbi Nahman said: The halakha is according to the words of the Sages who redeem with a sheep of any value.

And how much?

Rabbi Yosef said: Even a patruza

[a lean sheep]

worth a danka

[which is worth only a ma'a, which is one-sixth of a dinar].

Rava said: We too have learned this

that they redeem even with a patruza worth a danka, for we learned in our Mishna that they redeem “with a sheep from the sheep,

large and small.”

And we challenge this:

is it not

obvious

that according to the Sages they redeem even with a patruza worth a danka, since they said that they redeem with a sheep of any value?!

And we answer:

It might have entered your mind that in such an extreme case

[a sheep so inexpensive, which is worth only a ma'a] they do not redeem with it

; alternatively,

I might have said:

a patruza

[a lean sheep]

is not

redeemed with.

It teaches us

that according to the Sages they redeem even with a patruza worth a danka.

An incident involving

Rabbi Judah the Nasi

who

had a firstborn donkey; he sent it before Rabbi Tarfon, who said to him,

[Rabbi Judah sent to ask Rabbi Tarfon]:

How much must I give to the priest,

that is, what shall be the value of the sheep with which I must redeem it and give it to the priest?

He said to him,

Rabbi Tarfon said to Rabbi Judah the Nasi:

The Sages have said

that

a generous eye

redeems

with

a sheep worth

a sela, a stingy eye with a shekel

[two dinars, half a sela],

an average one with a ragia

[he goes on to explain it as three dinars].

Rava said: The halakha is

that they redeem

with a ragia.

And we explain:

And how much

is a ragia?

Three zuz,

and therefore it is called a “ragia,” for

it is usual here and usual there,

that is, it is less than a sela and more than a shekel.

We ask:

And we challenge this:

There is a difficulty between one halakha and another halakha, since Rabbi Nahman said that the halakha is according to the words of the Sages, that they redeem with anything, whereas Rava said that they redeem with a ragia?!

And we answer:

There is no difficulty:

Here—

what they said, that the halakha is with a ragia—

is when he comes to consult,

how much the sheep should be worth, and they tell him that it should be worth a ragia.

Here—

that they redeem with anything—

is when he does it on his own,

if he does not ask us and gives on his own even a patruza worth a danka, we do not compel him to redeem with a sheep worth more.

Reish Lakish said:

One who has a firstborn donkey and does not have a sheep with which to redeem it,

he

redeems it according to its value

with whatever he wishes.

And we challenge this:

According to whom

[according to whose approach did Reish Lakish say this]?!

If you say according to Rabbi Judah, he said—

Ulla explained above, on 9b, the reason of Rabbi Judah, who forbids deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey: “You have something that

the Torah was particular about with a sheep

and it is permitted”; thus, according to Rabbi Judah, the Torah was particular specifically about a sheep, and not about its value.

Rather,

the words of Reish Lakish are

according

to the approach of

Rabbi Shimon,

who permits deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey, because in truth, according to his view, the Torah was not particular specifically about a sheep; therefore it cannot be inferred from this that deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey is forbidden.

Rav Aha taught it in this manner,

explaining the words of Reish Lakish as was explained.

But

Ravina found difficulty

with Reish Lakish as Rav Aha explained it, that his words follow Rabbi Shimon, since it is established that wherever

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon

disagree,

the halakha is according to Rabbi Judah—

And

furthermore,

the anonymous tan­ nay set our Mishna

according to

Rabbi

Judah—

for our Mishna required separating a lamb for the redemption of a doubtful firstborn donkey, and this is specifically according to Rabbi Judah, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon he need not separate one, as explained in the sugya above, on 9b—

and you say that the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon!?

Rather, you may even say

that the words of Reish Lakish are according to

Rabbi Judah,

and nevertheless, one redeems according to its value even with something other than a sheep, because

it should not be

a firstborn donkey

more stringent than consecrated property,

which is redeemed according to its value—

And the Torah did not say

to redeem

with a sheep

in order

to make it more stringent for him,

so that he could not redeem it with anything else at all,

but to make it easier for him,

so that he could redeem even with a sheep that is not worth as much as the donkey; but if he wishes to redeem according to its value with something else, he redeems.

Rav Nehemiah, son of Rav Yosef, redeemed it with cooked herbs

[he redeemed his firstborn donkey with cooked herbs]

according to its value.

Rabbi Shizvi said in the name of Rav Huna:

One who redeems his fellow’s firstborn donkey,

even without his knowledge,

his redemption is valid.

They raised a dilemma before them:

If another redeemed his fellow’s firstborn donkey, is

his redemption

[that is, the firstborn donkey that was redeemed]

for the redeemer

itself?

Or perhaps: His redemption is for the owners.

And we explain:

According to Rabbi Shimon, you need not raise the dilemma

[according to Rabbi Shimon there is no room for uncertainty], for

since he said,

Rabbi Shimon: A firstborn donkey is

permitted for benefit,

if so,

it is the property of the owners.

When you raise the dilemma according to Rabbi Judah, who says: It is forbidden for benefit;

the sides of the uncertainty are:

Is it that

he compares it to consecrated property, and the Merciful One

has

said

concerning consecrated property:

“And he shall give the money, and it shall be his,”

and we learn that the consecrated property belongs to the one who redeems it; and so too shall be the law concerning one who redeems his fellow’s firstborn donkey.

Or perhaps: Since the owners acquire

Or perhaps: Since the owners acquire

the firstborn donkey

for this intermediate difference

[for the difference between a donkey and a sheep of any value with which he redeems it], if so

it is not comparable to consecrated property,

and its redemption is valid for the owners. Rabbi Nahman said:

Come and hear

that we do not compare it to consecrated property, from what was taught in a beraita:

One who steals his fellow’s firstborn donkey

he

pays double payment to the owners,

for

even though he does not have

the owners’ permission over it

now,

since it is forbidden for benefit, nevertheless

he will have it afterward

[after its redemption], and therefore it is as though it is his now.

But

whose

is this beraita?

If you say it is Rabbi Shimon,

this cannot be said, for:

Why

did we learn in the beraita

“he does not have it now,”

when it is permitted for benefit?

Rather, it is obvious

that this beraita is

Rabbi Judah, and if so the uncertainty is resolved, for:

And if it enters your mind that we compare the firstborn donkey to consecrated property,

why is he liable for double payment? For

“

And one who steals from the house of a man,

if the thief is found, he shall pay double,”

the Merciful One said

[Exodus 22:7], and we learned:

and not from the house of consecrated property; we should therefore exempt one who steals a firstborn donkey from double payment as well. Rather, certainly we do not compare it to consecrated property, and if so, its redemption is valid for the owners.

And there is nothing further.

And there is nothing more to say.

We learned in the Mishna:

Whether one gave birth first and whether one did not give birth first,

and they gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest; a male and a female, he separates one lamb for himself, as it is said...; it enters the pen to be tithed:

The Sages taught: How did they say, “It enters the pen to be tithed”?

That is, concerning which sheep did they say that it enters the pen to be tithed?

You cannot say that it is one that came

the sheep of redemption

into the possession of a priest,

and concerning it they said that the priest, or an Israelite who took it from him, tithes it,

for we learned: An animal acquired, and one given as a gift, is exempt from the tithe of cattle,

and concerning a priest, it is an acquired animal.

That is, the latter part of the Mishna deals with a case in which a male and a female, or the like, were born, which are among the doubtful cases in which one separates one lamb for himself; and concerning those lambs—if there were ten—it said that the Israelite tithes them and they belong to him.

Rather,

this statement that we learned, “and it enters the pen to be tithed,” deals

with an Israelite who had ten doubtful firstborn donkeys in his house, for whom he separates ten sheep

to remove their prohibition,

and he tithes them

those ten sheep,

and they are his

that is, nine of them are his, because in a case of uncertainty we say that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and even the one he separated for the tithe is eaten by him as an offering of lesser sanctity that is eaten by the owners.

And

this supports Rav Naḥman, for Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: A Jew who had ten doubtful firstborn donkeys sets aside ten sheep for them, and tithes them, and they are his.

And

further

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

A Jew who had ten certain firstborn donkeys in his house, which fell

to him by inheritance

from his maternal grandfather, a priest—

for he did not have to give the redemption sheep to another priest, since he himself was a priest—

and that maternal grandfather, a priest,

did not have the firstborn donkeys born in his possession, so that they would be entirely exempt from the law of the firstborn, but

there fell to him

the firstborn donkeys

from the house of his maternal grandfather, a Jew,

and sanctity had already taken effect upon them in his house; and even the priest who inherits them must remove their sanctity through redemption, except that he does not give them to a priest—

Thus the owner of the firstborn donkeys

sets aside ten sheep for them, and tithes them, and they are his,

because since he inherited them from a priest—and he would take the sheep for himself and did not need to seek another priest—so does his heir act, for it is as though the priest bequeathed the sheep to him.

And

further

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha

a similar law concerning terumot and tithes:

A Jew who had fully smoothed untithed produce

the leveling of the surface of the heap is called smoothing, and it is the completion of the produce’s preparation that makes it liable for tithing

in his house, which fell to him from the house of his maternal grandfather, a priest,

so that he only had to set aside the teruma and take it for himself, since he was a priest,

and that maternal grandfather, a priest, had the

untithed produce

fall to him from the house of his maternal grandfather, a Jew,

tithes

the owner of the untithed produce

and it is his,

just as his maternal grandfather, the priest, would have done.

And it was necessary

for Rav Naḥman to teach us both concerning the redemption of a firstborn donkey and concerning the separation of terumot and tithes that the law of the Jew is like the law of his maternal grandfather, the priest, who separates and does not give:

For had he taught us

Rav Naḥman only in the

first

case, namely, concerning the redemption of a firstborn donkey, where the Jew takes the redemption for himself, I would have said:

because it is already separated and standing,

meaning, the sheep is one species and the donkey is another species, and no action is lacking; therefore, this is like young animals having fallen to him from the priest’s house, the lambs separately and the donkeys separately.

But here,

concerning teruma, we must say:

Unseparated gifts are considered as though they were not separated, and let us say: No;

meaning, concerning produce that still requires separation, I would have said that this is not like the teruma having already been separated in the priest’s house [so that his daughter’s son would acquire it], but rather he must give the teruma to a priest.

And had he taught us

only

here,

concerning teruma,

that it is possible to tithe from it itself, for it is lying here,

it is possible to take teruma from the produce itself that is lying before us,

but there, since a sheep from elsewhere must be brought,

since one must bring a sheep from another place, “

separated and standing”

we do not say—

therefore

it was necessary.