Bekhorot 2b — the Talmud in English

What, is it not that

what we learned: “even though he is not permitted”—it is speaking of a case where he gave a pregnant animal to a gentile, and

with regard to the fetus

we learned: “even though he is not permitted”? It follows that Rabbi Yehuda forbids selling a fetus to a gentile.

And we reject this: That which we learned, “even though he is not permitted,”

does not

refer to the fetus. Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a case where he gave a gentile “an animal for half its fetuses”—that is, it was not yet pregnant, and he granted the gentile rights to the animal, so that he would have a right to half of its offspring as payment for tending to it; and

with regard to the animal

we learned: “even though he is not permitted”!

And we raise an objection against it:

But “they fine him up to ten times

the value of

its value”

it teaches

in the masculine form; and if so, it implies that the prohibition is because of the fetus, and therefore they fine him up to ten times its value.

And we reject this:

Teach: “he gives up to ten times

its

value,” because the prohibition was because of the animal.

And we still raise an objection:

But

it says, “and

he

gives all its value to a priest,”

it teaches, and if

as you say, that the matter under discussion concerns the

animal, what is the priest’s role [A0051]][what connection does a priest have with the value of the animal]?!

[what connection is there between a kohen and the animal’s value]?!

And we reject this: In fact, the beraita is dealing with a case where he handed him a pregnant animal, and what we learned, “they fine him up to ten times its value and he gives all its value to a priest,” all refers to the offspring. However, the reason they fine him concerning the offspring is not that everyone who sells a fetus is fined, but rather

with what are we dealing here? For example, where he gives him a pregnant animal for fattening [A0057]] [he gave him an animal to fatten it and to acquire half of the fattening],

to redeem it from the gentile,

since we fine him concerning the animal

to redeem it from the gentile,

we fine him

also

concerning the fetus

to redeem it.

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear

to resolve from a beraita that Rabbi Yehuda forbids selling a fetus to a gentile:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda permits [selling] a maimed animal, because it cannot be healed,

which implies:

if it can be healed, he forbids it

Rabbi Yehuda;

and a fetus too is considered like one that can be healed,

for in the end it will grow—

And we conclude:

Infer from it.

And there are those who teach it—

the foregoing give-and-take

with regard to the Mishna [A0085]] [concerning our Mishna], in which we learned: “

This implies that it is prohibited to sell a fetus to a gentile. If so,

and one who sells him

the fetus of his donkey

even though he is not permitted,”

which implies that it is forbidden to sell a fetus to a gentile; and if so,

shall we say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, for we learned: Rabbi Yehuda permits a maimed animal?

And just as Rabbi Yehuda permits a maimed animal, so he permits a fetus?

And we reject this:

Even if you say

that our Mishna is

Rabbi Yehuda’s

opinion, for although Rabbi Yehuda permitted a maimed animal, he agrees that one is not permitted to sell a fetus, because

a maimed animal is not its customary manner,

but

a fetus is its customary manner,

as the Gemara reasoned above.

Come and hear

to prove this, that Rabbi Yehuda forbids selling a fetus to a gentile:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda says: One who receives an animal from a gentile and it gives birth is assessed at its value, and he gives half its value to a priest; and one who gives it to him under a receiving arrangement, even though

he is not permitted, they fine him up to ten times its value, and he gives all its value to a priest.

What, is it not

that we fine him

concerning the fetus? It follows that it is forbidden to sell a fetus even according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And we reject this:

No,

not

concerning the fetus do we fine him, but

concerning the animal,

and this is a case where he sold an animal for its fetuses!

And we raise an objection against it:

But “

its value”

it teaches

in the masculine form.

And we reject this:

Teach “

its value” in the feminine form.

And we still raise an objection:

But “

he gives all its value to a priest”

it teaches, and if it concerns an animal, what is the priest’s role?!

And we reject this:

With what are we dealing here? For example, where he gives him a pregnant animal for fattening; since we fine him concerning the animal, we fine him concerning the fetus.

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear:

Rabbi Yehuda permits a maimed animal because it cannot be healed,

which implies:

if it can be healed, he forbids it

Rabbi Yehuda;

and a fetus too is considered like one that can be healed—

And we conclude:

Infer from it,

that Rabbi Yehuda forbids selling a fetus to a gentile.

They raised a question [A0139]] [the members of the academy were uncertain]:

The question applies to Rabbi Yehuda,

If he sold

to a gentile

an animal for its fetuses,

which is not designated for labor,

what

[is the law—is it forbidden] to sell it to a gentile? And the Gemara explains the uncertainty:

It is a question whether [the law applies] to Rabbi Yehuda, and it is a question whether [the law applies] to the Rabbis [A0148]] [this uncertainty must be considered both with regard to Rabbi Yehuda, who permits selling a maimed animal, and with regard to the Rabbis, who forbid it]!

Or perhaps: Since Rabbi Yehuda permitted even a crippled animal that is completely severed from him

It is a question whether [the law applies] to Rabbi Yehuda,

who permits a maimed animal that is unfit for labor; nevertheless, one may be uncertain whether, concerning an animal for its fetuses—even though it is not designated for labor for the gentile—Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is forbidden, because

Rabbi Yehuda permitted only a maimed animal, which is not subject to being confused with [an animal sold]

for it is not the usual way for an animal to be maimed, and it is an unusual matter;

but an intact animal,

even if only for its fetuses,

is subject to being confused with [an animal sold]

as an intact animal for labor; perhaps

he forbade it

Rabbi Yehuda.

Or perhaps: Since, even though a maimed animal is completely severed from him [A0161]] [it is an absolute sale and completely separates it from him—and it is subject to being confused with an intact animal, Rabbi Yehuda permitted it],

Or perhaps: Since the Rabbis prohibit even a crippled animal, which cannot be exchanged

all the more so an intact animal—

that is, when he sold it for its fetuses—

which is not severed from him [A0165]] [which is not an absolute sale and does not separate it from him], Rabbi Yehuda should permit it.

all the more so

It is a question whether [the law applies] to the Rabbis,

who forbid selling a maimed animal that is unfit for labor; nevertheless, it may be said that they permit an animal for its fetuses, because

the Rabbis forbade only a maimed animal that is severed

from him

and is subject to being confused with another case,

but an intact animal that is not severed from him,

and is not subject to being confused with another case,

they permit.

Or perhaps: Since, even though a maimed animal is not subject to being confused

with an intact animal, since a maimed animal is not the customary manner, nevertheless

the Rabbis forbid it,

the Rabbis,

all the more so

will they forbid

an intact animal,

even for its fetuses,

which is subject to being confused

with an intact animal for labor.

And we raise an objection:

And

if

the reason of the Rabbis is therefore—

because it is subject to being confused with another case—

is that what you say: The Rabbis forbade only a maimed animal that is severed from him and is subject to being confused with another case?!

But it was taught: They said to him,

the Sages

to

Rabbi Yehuda,

who permitted selling a maimed animal to a gentile:

“Will they not mate it, and will it not give birth?”

It follows

that the reason of the Rabbis

is because of its offspring—

which are fit for labor—

is that; and if so, resolve from this that according to the Rabbis it is forbidden because of the offspring, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda, who is not concerned about the offspring, it is permitted to sell an animal for its fetuses?!

And we answer:

This is what they said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Yehuda:

Our reason is because it is subject to being confused with an animal, but what is your reason for permitting it? Because it cannot be healed, [and therefore] it is considered as one sold for slaughter;

that is, there is no reason to be concerned about confusion with another case, because one who sees the buyer of a maimed animal understands that it was purchased for slaughter, and will not come to permit an animal for labor;

“Will they not mate it, and will it not give birth? And since they mate it and it gives birth, he keeps it”

the gentile in his house, and one who sees the animal standing in the gentile’s house will think that it is permitted to sell an animal even for a purpose other than slaughter.

And he said [A0213]] [and he replied]

it does not teach

to them

Rabbi Yehuda to the Sages:

“When it gives birth”

the maimed animal, then we will be concerned about this; but in truth it does not give birth, because

a maimed animal does not accept a male.

Come and hear

that it is permitted to sell an animal for its fetuses, from our Mishna, in which we learned:

“And one who gives it to him under a receiving arrangement,” and it does not teach “

even though he is not permitted,”

as it does concerning one who sells him a fetus; and if so, it implies that it is permitted to give it to a gentile under a receiving arrangement, yet a receiving arrangement is an animal for half its fetuses, and it is explained that it is permitted to sell it to a gentile.

The Gemara rejects this: And

if you would follow your reasoning—

that you are being precise about the Mishna’s omission in the latter clause of “even though he is not permitted”—“

one who joins in partnership with him,”

which we learned in our Mishna

does not teach

concerning it “even though he is not permitted”; and is it

likewise permitted

to join in partnership with him,

but the father of Shmuel said:

it likewise mean that he is permitted

in the case of a

It is forbidden for a person to enter into a partnership with a gentile, lest

he become obligated to him,

the gentile to the Israelite,

an oath, and he swears to him

the gentile

by the name of his idolatry,

and you are found to have caused this,

and the Torah said [A0244]] [Exodus 23:13]: “And the name of other gods you shall not mention,”

in the case of a

“it shall not be heard” [A0246]] [by the gentile]

and the same law applies to a caretaking arrangement, which is also not permitted. Therefore, our Mishna cannot prove that it is permitted to give an animal to a gentile as a caretaker for its fetuses.

“from your mouth” [A0248]] [through the causation of your mouth]—

And why did he specifically mention a sale,

Rather,

necessarily:

the tan[nay]

concerning

a sale

to a gentile, “even though he is not permitted,”

and the same law applies to partnership

which is not permitted.

And if so,

here too—

concerning a receiving arrangement—

the tan[nay

concerning

a sale “even though he is not permitted,”

and the same law applies to a contracting arrangement

which is not permitted; and you cannot resolve from our Mishna that it is permitted to give a gentile an animal for its fetuses under a receiving arrangement.

The Gemara adds an explanation:

And what is different about a sale, that the tan[nay] mentioned

it, to inform us that he is not permitted? Because

it is the primary sale,

the primary prohibition being the sale of an animal.

Come and hear that it is forbidden to sell an animal for its fetuses, from the beraita of Rabbi Yehuda mentioned above: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who receives an animal from a gentile and it gives birth is assessed at its value, and he gives half its value to a priest; and one who gives it

it is the primary form of sale,

the fundamental prohibition being the sale of an animal.

under a receiving arrangement, even though he is not permitted, they fine him up to ten times its value, and he gives all its value to a priest.

And the Sages say: As long as the hand of a gentile is in the middle, it is exempt from the firstborn status.

Rabbi Yehuda says: One who receives an animal from a gentile and it gives birth is assessed at its value, and he gives half its value to a priest; and one who gives

it

to him on a receiving arrangement, even though he is not permitted to do so, is fined up to ten times its value, and gives all its value to a priest.

And the Sages say: As long as a gentile’s hand is in the matter, it is exempt from the status of firstborn.