Bekhorot 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

Is it not that

what we learned: “even though he is not permitted to do so” refers to 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 to do so”? It follows that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits selling a fetus to a gentile.

And we reject this: The phrase “even though he is not permitted to do so” that we learned

does not

refer to the fetus. Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he gave a gentile “an animal for half its fetuses,” meaning that the animal was not yet pregnant, and he granted the gentile a right to half of its offspring in return for caring for it, and

with regard to the animal

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

And we raise an objection to this:

But “he is fined up to ten times

the value of

its value”

it teaches

in the masculine form. If so, this implies that the prohibition is on account of the fetus, and therefore he is fined up to ten times its value.

And we reject this:

Read “he gives up to ten times

its

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

But we still raise an objection:

We nevertheless raise another objection:

But “and

he

gives all its value to a priest”

it teaches, and if

as you say the subject is the

animal, what is the priest’s role [What connection is there between a priest and the animal’s value]!?

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

And we reject this: In reality, the beraita is dealing with a case where he handed a pregnant animal over to him, and what we learned—“he is fined up to ten times its value and gives all its value to a priest”—all refers to the offspring. However, his being penalized with regard to the offspring is not because anyone who sells a fetus is penalized. Rather,

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

to redeem it from the gentile,

since, by virtue of the fact that we penalize him with regard to the animal

to redeem it from the gentile,

we penalize him

also

with regard to the fetus

to redeem it.

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear

to resolve the matter from a beraita, that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits selling a fetus to a gentile:

As it was taught:

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

which implies:

if it can be healed, he prohibited it

Rabbi Yehuda;

and a fetus is likewise considered capable of being healed,

since it will eventually grow—

And we conclude:

Conclude from it.

Some teach this—

the preceding give-and-take—as referring

to the Mishna [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 to do so.”

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

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

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

We reject this:

You may even say

that our Mishna is

Rabbi Yehuda’s

opinion. Although Rabbi Yehuda permitted a maimed animal, he concedes that one is not permitted to sell a fetus, because

a maimed animal is not its usual manner,

but

a fetus is its usual manner,

as the Gemara reasoned above.

Come and hear

a proof that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits selling a fetus to a gentile:

As 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 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.

Is it not

that we penalize him

with regard to the fetus?

It follows that even Rabbi Yehuda prohibits selling a fetus.

We reject this:

No,

we penalize him not with regard to the fetus but

with regard to the animal,

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

We raise an objection to this:

But “

its value”

it teaches

in the masculine form.

We reject this:

Read “

its value” in the feminine form.

We nevertheless raise another objection:

But “

he gives all its value to a priest”

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

We reject this:

With what are we dealing here? For example, where he gives him a pregnant animal for fattening; since, by virtue of the fact that we penalize him with regard to the animal, we penalize him with regard to 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 prohibited it

Rabbi Yehuda,

and a fetus is likewise considered capable of being healed—

And we conclude:

Conclude from it,

that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits selling a fetus to a gentile.

They raised a question [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 intended for labor,

what

[is the status—may he sell it] to a gentile? The Gemara explains the question:

It is a question whether Rabbi Yehuda is lenient, and it is a question whether the Rabbis are lenient [This question must be considered both according to Rabbi Yehuda, who permits selling a maimed animal, and according to the Rabbis, who prohibit it]!

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

It is a question whether Rabbi Yehuda is lenient

with regard to a maimed animal that is unfit for labor. Nevertheless, it may be questioned whether, in the case of an animal for its fetuses—even though it is not intended for labor by the gentile—Rabbi Yehuda concedes that it is prohibited, because

Rabbi Yehuda permitted only a maimed animal, which cannot be exchanged for a sound animal,

since it is not the normal state of an animal to be maimed, and it is an unusual matter;

but a sound animal,

even if it is sold only for its fetuses,

can be exchanged for another

sound animal intended for labor. Perhaps

he prohibited it

Rabbi Yehuda.

Or perhaps: Since Rabbi Yehuda permitted a maimed animal, which is completely severed from him [a final sale that separates it from him entirely—and it can be exchanged for a sound animal],

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

all the more so a sound animal—

that is, one sold for its fetuses—

which is not severed from him [which is not a final sale and does not separate it from him], Rabbi Yehuda should permit it.

all the more so

It is a question whether the Rabbis are lenient,

who prohibit selling a maimed animal that is unfit for labor. Nevertheless, it can be suggested that they permit an animal for its fetuses, because

the Rabbis prohibited only a maimed animal that is severed

from him

and can be exchanged for another,

but a sound animal that is not severed from him,

and cannot be exchanged for another,

they permit.

Or perhaps: Since the Rabbis prohibit a maimed animal, which cannot be exchanged for a sound one,

because a maimed animal is not its normal state, nevertheless

the Rabbis prohibit it,

the Rabbis,

all the more so

they prohibit

a sound animal,

even if it is sold for its fetuses,

which can be exchanged for a sound animal intended for labor.

which are fit for labor—

We raise an objection:

And

if

the reason of the Rabbis is for this reason—

because it can be exchanged for another—

is that the case? How can you say: The Rabbis prohibited only a maimed animal that is severed from him and can be exchanged for another!?

“Our reason is that it can be exchanged for a sound animal. But what is your reason for permitting it? Is it because it cannot be healed, so it is considered like one who sold it for slaughter?”

But it was taught: They said to him

the Sages

to Rabbi Yehuda,

who permitted selling a maimed animal to a gentile:

“But they will mate it, and it will give birth.”

Apparently,

the reason of the Rabbis

is because of its offspring

—which are fit for labor—

and that is the reason. If so, resolve from this that according to the Rabbis it is prohibited because of the offspring, whereas Rabbi Yehuda, who is not concerned about the offspring, permits selling an animal for its fetuses!?

a crippled animal does not accept a male.”

And we answer:

This is what they said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Yehuda:

“Our reason is that it can be exchanged for an animal. But what is your reason for permitting it? Because it cannot be healed, it is considered as though he sold it for slaughter.”

That is, there is no reason to be concerned that it may be exchanged for another, because one who sees someone purchasing a maimed animal understands that it was purchased for slaughter, and will not come to permit an animal for labor.

“But they will mate it, and it will give birth; and since they will mate it and it will give birth, he will keep it”

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

And he said [and he replied]

there “even though he is not permitted to do so.”

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 will 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, where we learned:

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

even though he is not permitted to do so,”

as it does with regard to one who sells him a fetus. If so, this implies that it is permitted to give an animal to a gentile on a receiving arrangement; and a receiving arrangement means an animal for half its fetuses, demonstrating that it is permitted to sell it to a gentile.

The Gemara rejects this:

If you insist—

that you are drawing a precise inference from the Mishna’s omission of “even though he is not permitted to do so” in the final clause—“

one who partners with him,”

which we learned in our Mishna,

it does not teach

the phrase “even though he is not permitted to do so” with regard to it. Does

it likewise mean that he is permitted

to partner with him?

But the father of Shmuel said:

to a gentile, “Even though he is not permitted to do so,”

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

he become liable to him

the gentile to the Israelite

for an oath, and he will swear to him

the gentile

in the name of his idolatry,

and you will thereby have caused this to happen.

And the Torah said [Exodus 23:13]: “You shall not mention the name of other gods;

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.

it shall not be heard [from the gentile]

And why did he specifically mention a sale,

through your mouth [by means of your causing it with your mouth]”—

a sale is the primary case, and the fundamental prohibition concerns the sale of an animal.

Rather,

necessarily,

the tanna

taught with regard to a

sale

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

and the same law applies to a partnership

which is likewise not permitted.

If so,

here too—

with regard to a receiving arrangement—

the tanna likewise taught

with regard to a

sale, “even though he is not permitted to do so,”

and

the same law applies to a contract arrangement, which is likewise not permitted. Thus, no proof can be derived from our Mishna that it is permitted to give an animal for its fetuses to a gentile on a receiving arrangement.

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

The Gemara further explains:

And why did he specifically mention a sale

the tanna, to teach us that it is not permitted, because

it is the primary form of sale,

the fundamental prohibition being the sale of an animal.

Come and hear

that it is prohibited to sell an animal for its fetuses, from the aforementioned beraita of Rabbi Yehuda:

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.