Bekhorot 32a — the Talmud in English

But

a matter that is not assessed while alive,

which is not included in the calculation of the price of the ox while alive, such as the hide and the sinews,

the Rabbis did not decree

that it is forbidden to sell it. Therefore, it is permitted to sell its meat by including the price of its hide within the price, even when it is an adult.

And in the case of orphans, the Rabbis established it according to Torah law.

For according to the fundamental Torah law, after slaughter it is permitted to sell even the meat; therefore, we permit them to sell it even without including the price within another item.

And Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak, too, held this way of Rava,

that after slaughter it is permitted by Torah law to sell animal tithe, and in the case of orphans they established it according to Torah law.

For Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: From where is it derived that the animal tithe of orphans is sold in its usual manner? As it is stated: “But according to every desire of your soul you may slaughter and eat meat, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that He has given you.”

And this verse is speaking of disqualified consecrated animals.

What is the matter that has no blessing while alive,

from which it is impossible to derive benefit while alive

but only after slaughter?

As it is written: “You may slaughter and eat,” for all disqualified consecrated animals may be benefited from even while alive, since it is possible to sell them after redemption.

You must say: This is animal tithe.

For it is forbidden to sell it while alive, and nevertheless after slaughter there is a blessing in it—that is, it is permitted to sell it—for this is the blessing whose use was forbidden in it while alive and permitted after slaughter by Torah law; rather, the Rabbis decreed against it, and in the case of orphans they established it according to Torah law.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the law as to including

the price of the meat of the animal tithe of an adult

within the bones?

They disagree about it,

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi.

One said: He includes its price

within the meat, in the price of the bones.

And one said: He does not include its price.

And they do not disagree. This

that they say that one does not include the price

is regarding a small animal,

whose bones are fit for nothing. And it is evident that the money is for the meat and not for the bones.

This

that it is permitted to include the price is

regarding a large animal,

whose bones are fit to make vessels from them.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that

are speaking

of a large animal. And they do not disagree; this one according to his place, and that one according to his place,

for in places where they are accustomed to make vessels from the bones, it is permitted to include the price of the meat within the price of the bones.

With regard to the matter itself: In the case of a firstborn it is stated: “You shall not redeem it”—

and it is sold.

In the case of animal tithe it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed”—

and it is not sold, neither alive nor slaughtered, and neither unblemished nor blemished.

And we considered this:

From where are these words

that “it shall not be redeemed” also means sale [although its meaning is redemption]?

And we answered:

Rav Ḥinnana said that Rav said. And likewise, when Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “It shall not be redeemed” is stated with regard to animal tithe, and “it shall not be redeemed” is stated with regard to dedications.

Just as there,

with regard to dedications,

sale is included with it,

which is also forbidden, for with regard to dedications it is stated: “It shall not be sold and it shall not be redeemed.”

So too here,

with regard to animal tithe, concerning which it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed,”

sale is included with it.

For just as it is not redeemed, so it is not sold.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

This “it shall not be redeemed” is

for the purpose,

for the verse is free for this exposition and was not needed for its own matter. [And it is established for us that every gzera shava that is free cannot be refuted].

For if it were not for the fact that it is for the purpose, there would be room to refute: What is so about dedications? They take effect upon everything,

even upon consecrated property. For if one dedicated consecrated property, he gives the priest the monetary value of the benefit [as explained in Arakhin 28b], and further, a dedication takes effect upon the entire herd. This is not so with animal tithe, which takes effect only upon non-consecrated animals and only upon the tenth; therefore, it is not so stringent that sale should also be forbidden in it.

And we considered this:

Indeed, is it for the purpose?

Which of the two occurrences of “it shall not be redeemed” is free?

And we answered: That one concerning dedications is free. For

the verse need not say

“

And it shall not be redeemed” with regard to dedications, and it could be derived from animal tithe.

And let us derive it in this manner:

Just as animal tithe

is

sacred and is not redeemed, so too dedications are sacred and are not redeemed.

And if so,

why do I need “and it shall not be redeemed,” which the Merciful One wrote

with regard to dedications?

Conclude from it that it is free.

And we objected: But

there is room to refute

that it is impossible to derive dedications from animal tithe. For

what is so about animal tithe? It is sacred before it and after it,

for if he called the tenth a ninth, and the ninth a tenth, and the eleventh a tenth, all of them become sacred. This is not so with dedications, where such a situation does not apply.

And we answered:

Rather, the verse need not say “it shall not be redeemed” with regard to dedications, and it could be derived from a firstborn.

And let us derive it in this manner:

Just as a firstborn is sacred and is not redeemed,

as it is stated with regard to it: “You shall not redeem it,”

so too dedications are sacred and are not redeemed.

Why do I need “it shall not be redeemed,” which the Merciful One wrote

with regard to dedications,

then?

Conclude from it

that it is free.

And we objected: But

there is room to refute: What is so about a firstborn? Its sanctity is from the womb.

And we answered:

Rather,

that passage concerning animal tithe is free, for

the verse need not say “it shall not be redeemed” with regard to animal tithe, and it could be derived

by a gzera shava,

“passing”—

“passing” from a firstborn.

With regard to a firstborn it is written: “And you shall pass over every first issue of the womb.” And with regard to animal tithe it is written: “Everything that passes under the staff.”

And this is how we derive it:

Just as a firstborn is sacred and is not redeemed, so too animal tithe is sacred and is not redeemed.

Why do I need “it shall not be redeemed,” which the Merciful One wrote with regard to animal tithe?

Conclude from it

that it is free.

And we refuted:

And still, with regard to animal tithe as well, it is not for the purpose. For there is room to refute

the gzera shava from a firstborn

as we refuted

above: What is so about a firstborn? Its sanctity is from the womb.

And we answered: Rather,

“And you shall pass over,”

which is written with regard to a firstborn,

is a superfluous verse,

for it could have written, “Every first issue of the womb is Mine”; and it is free for a gzera shava, to teach “passing”—“passing” with regard to animal tithe that it is not redeemed, and a free gzera shava cannot be refuted. Therefore, “it shall not be redeemed,” which is written with regard to animal tithe, is free.

And we considered this:

A firstborn, too, let us derive “redemption”—“redemption” from dedications.

And let us say that sale is also forbidden in the case of a firstborn, for with regard to a firstborn it is written: “You shall not redeem it,” and it is as though “it shall not be redeemed” were written.

And we answered: “It shall not be redeemed”

with regard to animal tithe is for the purpose,

as we said, and therefore the gzera shava from dedications cannot be refuted. But

with regard to a firstborn it is not for the purpose.

For “you shall not redeem it” was needed to teach that it is not redeemed, and also to teach about animal tithe by means of a gzera shava. Therefore, the gzera shava can be challenged: What is so about dedications? They take effect upon everything, unlike a firstborn.

And we objected:

And what have you seen

that you say

that “you shall not redeem it” with regard to a firstborn

was necessary

for its own matter,

and to teach about animal tithe, and therefore “it shall not be redeemed”

with regard to animal tithe is free?

But say

the opposite:

with regard to animal tithe

it was necessary

for its own matter,

and to teach by the gzera shava of “passing” with regard to a firstborn that it is not redeemed, and

with regard to a firstborn it is free,

and we could derive from dedications that a firstborn is not sold, whereas animal tithe cannot be derived from dedications to prohibit its sale, since it is not free?

And we answered:

We derive “redemption” from “redemption,”

that is, animal tithe from dedications,

but we do not derive redemption from redemption.

And with regard to a firstborn it is written: “You shall not redeem it,” and not “it shall not be redeemed.”

And we objected:

What difference does it make

whether the language of redemption or the language of ransoming is written, since the meaning of both is the same? Therefore, one should derive a gzera shava from one to the other even though the words are not literally identical.

For

the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written concerning the afflictions of houses

“And the priest shall return,”

and elsewhere in that same passage it is written

“And the priest shall come.”

And we expound one by means of a gzera shava from the other, because

this “returning” is this “coming,”

for both are one matter, and one may derive one by means of a gzera shava from the other despite the fact that two different words are involved; so why should one not derive ransoming from redemption?

And we answered:

These words

that we derive a gzera shava even with words that are not completely similar apply

where there is nothing that resembles it,

where there is no possibility of deriving the gzera shava between two words that resemble one another.

But where there is

a verse

that resembles it, we derive from what resembles it.

For one must prefer the gzera shava that is between two words that are literally similar over a gzera shava between two words that are not completely similar.

And we objected:

Let us derive with regard to a firstborn “passing”—“passing” from animal tithe. For animal tithe derived “redemption”—“redemption”

from dedications, which are forbidden to sell, and let it return and teach with regard to a firstborn that it too is forbidden to sell.

And we answered:

The Merciful One excluded this with regard to dedications,

as it is written: “Every dedication is holy of holies to the Lord.” And we expound:

“It”—but not a firstborn.

And we refuted:

But say: “It”—but not animal tithe?

And we answered:

It is reasonable that animal tithe

is included so that its law will be like that of dedications, since it is written with regard to it

“redemption,” like it,

like dedications. Whereas with regard to a firstborn “redemption” is not written, so we exclude it by means of “it”—but not a firstborn.

Rava said:

From here we learn the prohibition of sale with regard to animal tithe, for

“it shall not be sold”

with regard to dedications is not needed

to be written.

What is the reason? Because

where are they found?

Where are the dedications located?

If they are with the owners—

they are consecrated property,

and the owners have no authority to sell consecrated property; only the treasurer does. Therefore, a verse is not needed to prohibit it.

If they are with the priest—

they are non-consecrated property,

and the priest may sell them.

As it was taught: Dedications,

what is their law?

As long as they are in the house of the owners, they are like consecrated property in every respect, as it is stated: “Every dedication is holy of holies to the Lord.”

If they gave them to the priest, they are like non-consecrated property in every respect, as it is stated: “Every dedication in Israel shall be yours.”

For in the priest’s possession they are like all his property.