Bekhorot 31b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“All disqualified consecrated offerings—their benefit is for the Temple treasury.”

And we raise an objection to it:

When

is it speaking?

If you say after their redemption,

then

is their benefit for the Temple treasury?

But

their benefit belongs to the owners!

To the one who redeemed the offering from the Temple treasury, for the animal is his and he profits by selling it at a high price.

Rather,

the Mishna is speaking

before its redemption,

when the money of the sale belongs to the Temple treasury.

But it is still difficult concerning that which it teaches,

“they are slaughtered

in a butcher’s shop.” And if, at the time of slaughter, they have still not been redeemed, then he can no longer sell them and redeem them,

for this one requires “standing and valuation”!

For an animal of the Temple treasury can be redeemed only while alive, as it is written: “And he shall present the animal before the priest, and the priest shall value it”; but after death they cannot be redeemed. And what benefit is there in their being slaughtered in a butcher’s shop, since they will remain in their consecrated status?

This works well according to the one who says: consecrated objects of the altar,

which were consecrated for the altar and in which a blemish occurred,

were not included in “standing and valuation

” [for this law was stated only concerning consecrated objects for Temple maintenance], and they may be redeemed even after slaughter; we can establish the Mishna as referring to their being slaughtered before their redemption and redeemed after slaughter.

But according to the one who says that consecrated objects of the altar were included in “standing and valuation,” what is there to say?

How does he establish the Mishna?

And we answer:

Rather, in fact

the Mishna is speaking

after redemption.

And what does “their benefit is for the Temple treasury”

mean? Were they not already redeemed, and are they not in the possession of the owners?

From the outset!

When the owners redeem them initially, then their benefit is for the Temple treasury.

For since the Master permitted them, since they are sold in a butcher’s shop, and slaughtered in a butcher’s shop, and weighed by the litra,

and through this he will receive more money when he sells it, therefore

he redeems it for more from the outset.

That is, when he comes to redeem the animal from the Temple treasury, he adds to its redemption price because it is worth more to him. And the meaning of “their benefit is for the Temple treasury” is that by our being lenient with him after the redemption, when he comes to sell them, there will be a benefit to the Temple treasury at the time of the redemption.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Except the firstborn and the animal tithe, for their benefit is for the owners.”

And we raise an objection to it:

Granted, a firstborn

with a blemish,

it is in a butcher’s shop that it is not sold; but at home it is sold.

But the animal tithe,

is it only in a butcher’s shop that it is not sold, but

at home it is sold?

But it was taught in a beraita: Concerning a firstborn it is stated, “But the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat,”

“However, the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat,”

“you shall not redeem,”

“they are holy.” And the verse is speaking about the owners, that he cannot redeem it. And it follows that it is specifically redemption that is forbidden, but

it may be sold alive,

for once it comes into the possession of the priest, the priest may sell it to others [and it remains in its consecrated status].

Whereas

with the animal tithe

of livestock

it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed.”

And we derive from this verse [below, 32a]:

“And it may not be sold: neither alive nor slaughtered, neither unblemished nor blemished.”

If so, since an animal tithe may not be sold even at home, what is the meaning of the tanna of the Mishna saying that it is not sold in a butcher’s shop, implying that at home it is sold?

And we say:

“This matter was difficult to Rav Sheshet in the evening,

at night.

And he resolved it in the morning,

and he answered it early in the morning,

from a beraita.

[And below it explains which beraita.]

And this is how he explained it:

Here,

in the Mishna,

we are dealing with the animal tithe of orphans. And because of the restoration of a lost object

belonging to orphans, who cannot eat all of it,

they addressed it,

to permit its sale at home. [Below it explains that the prohibition is only rabbinic, and in the case of orphans they placed it according to Torah law.]

Rav Idi,

who was

his attendant,

serving him,

of Rav Sheshet—he had heard it from him

—this resolution for establishing the Mishna as dealing with the animal tithe of orphans.

as a resolution of the Mishna, which is speaking about the animal tithe of orphans.

Rav Idi went

and

stated it in the study hall, but did not state it in his name,

the name of Rav Sheshet.

Rav Sheshet heard and was angry

that he had not stated it in his name.

He said: “One who stings, let a scorpion sting him.”

One who is stinging and biting me by not stating it in my name—let him be stung by a scorpion. That is, let him be under a ban.

And we raise an objection to it:

And what difference does it make to Rav Sheshet

that the matters should be said in his name?

And we answer:

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: What is the meaning of that which is written, “May I dwell in Your tent for worlds”—

and is it possible

for a person

to dwell in two worlds,

since “worlds” implies two worlds?

Rather,

thus

David said: “Master of the world! May they say a teaching in my name in this world.”

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Any Torah scholar whose teaching is said in his name in this world, his lips move

in the grave

in the grave.

And it is a benefit for him, for it is as though he is alive; and if so, he dwells in two worlds.

And Rabbi Yitzhak bar Zeira said—and some say Rabbi Shimon bar Nezira: What is the verse?

As it is written:

“And your palate is like the good wine, going to my beloved in uprightness, moving the lips of the sleeping.”

The Sages were compared to a winepress of grapes:

Just as a winepress of grapes,

a vessel that gathers the grapes into it for seven or eight days so that they are pressed and ripen,

once a person touches it,

it is

moving,

stirring.

So too Torah scholars: once a person says a teaching in their name, their lips move in the grave!

And therefore Rav Sheshet was angry with Rav Idi because he had not stated his teaching in his name.

And we raise an objection to it:

What is the beraita?

For we said above that Rav Sheshet resolved it from a beraita.

And we answer:

For it was taught in a beraita: The animal tithe of orphans may be sold. And an animal tithe that they slaughtered, he conceals its price in its hide, in its fat, in its sinews, and in its horns.

And we raise an objection to it:

What is it saying?

And we answer:

Abaye said: This is what it is saying: The animal tithe of orphans may be sold. And how may it be sold? He conceals

the price of the meat

in its hide, in its fat, in its sinews, and in its horns.

For those items are permitted to be sold, and he sells them at a high price, at the value of the entire animal, while he gives him the meat as a gift.

And we infer:

By implication,

the animal tithe

of

an

adult person,

to be sold

by concealing, is not

permitted.

And we challenge this:

What is different from that which we learned: One who purchases a lulav from his fellow during the Sabbatical year

—for it does not have the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, since the tree’s blossoming occurred in the sixth year—

gives him

the seller

an etrog as a gift, because he is not permitted to purchase it during the Sabbatical year.

For the etrog has the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, since its law differs from that of all other trees in that its status follows the time of picking, which was during the Sabbatical year. And it is speaking about selling to an unlearned person, from whom it is forbidden to purchase Sabbatical-year produce, because the money acquires the sanctity of the Sabbatical year and he is not careful to preserve it in sanctity.

And we raise an objection: If his fellow did not wish

to

give him

the etrog

as a gift, what

does he do?

And Rav Huna said: He conceals the price of the etrog in the lulav.

For he pays him for the lulav the value of the etrog, and he receives the etrog as a gift.

What is different there, where it is permitted to sell by concealing, whereas here, concerning the animal tithe, they said that only in the case of orphans is it permitted, but in the case of an adult it is not?

And we answer:

There,

with the Sabbatical year,

it is not evident

that he included the etrog in the price of the lulav, since the price of the etrog is small.

But

here,

with the animal tithe, where he conceals the meat in the price of the hide,

it is evident

that he sold the meat, since the price of the hide is small.

Rava said: If so,

that the first clause and the latter clause are dealing with one matter, it is difficult: why did the tanna write in both the first clause and the latter clause

“animal tithe” two times—

why do I need this!?

Rather, Rava said: This is what it is saying: The animal tithe of orphans may be sold in its ordinary manner.

And there is no need to conceal the price of its meat in its hide.

And the animal tithe of an adult, which they slaughtered, he conceals it in its hide, in its fat, in its sinews, and in its horns.

And without concealment it is forbidden.

Rava said: From where do I say this,

that in the case of an adult it is permitted by concealment, and in the case of orphans it is permitted without concealment?

For it is written

concerning the animal tithe:

“And it and its substitute shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.”

And we expound: “Redemption” analogous to “substitution.”

When

did the Torah say that it

makes a substitution,

so that the animal which he declared would be the substitute for the tithe acquires sanctity? That is specifically

while alive,

the tithe

,

for the law of substitution applies only while alive.

And the same law applies:

When

did the Torah say that an animal tithe

is not redeemed?

Specifically

while alive. But after slaughter it is redeemed,

and it is permitted to sell it.

And only

the Rabbis

are the ones who

decreed

that it is forbidden to sell an animal tithe even

after slaughter, as a preventive measure against

coming to sell it

before slaughter.

Therefore, specifically

an item appraised while alive,

which is sold while alive—that is, the meat, for when the animal is sold while alive it is appraised according to the value of the meat, which is the principal part of the animal’s importance—

the Rabbis decreed after slaughter as a preventive measure against before slaughter.