Bekhorot 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

However,

with regard to an item that is not appraised while alive,

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

the Sages did not decree

that it is forbidden to sell it. Therefore, it is permitted to sell its meat by incorporating the price of its hide into the price, even in the case of a large animal.

But with regard to orphans, the Sages placed the matter under Torah law.

Since, according to the fundamental Torah law, after slaughter it is permitted to sell even the meat, we permit them to sell it even without incorporating its price into the price of another item.

And Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak also held in accordance with this ruling of Rava,

that according to Torah law it is permitted to sell an animal tithe after slaughter, and with regard to orphans the Sages placed the matter under Torah law.

As Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that an animal tithe belonging to orphans may be sold in the 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 item 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 also be benefited from while alive, since they can be sold after redemption.

You must say: This is an animal tithe.

It is forbidden to sell it while alive, but nevertheless after slaughter there is a blessing in it—that is, it is permitted to sell it. This is the blessing that was forbidden with regard to it while alive and permitted after slaughter according to Torah law; however, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden, and with regard to orphans they placed the matter under Torah law.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the law regarding incorporating

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

into the price of its bones?

They disagree about this,

Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi.

One says: He may incorporate its price

into the price of the meat and bones.

And one says: He may not incorporate its price.

And they do not disagree. This

—the opinion that one may not incorporate its price—

is referring to a small animal,

whose bones are not suitable for anything, and it is evident that the money is being paid for the meat and not for the bones.

This

—the opinion that it is permitted to incorporate its price—refers to

a large animal,

whose bones are suitable for making vessels from them.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that

are referring to

a large animal. And they do not disagree; one follows the practice of his place, and the other follows the practice of his place,

for in places where people customarily make vessels from bones, it is permitted to incorporate the price of the meat into the price of the bones.

The substance of the matter: With regard to a firstborn it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed,”

and it may be sold.

With regard to an animal tithe it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed,”

and it may not be sold, neither while alive nor after slaughter, and neither when unblemished nor when blemished.

And we considered this matter:

From where are these words

that “it shall not be redeemed” also mean that it may not be sold, even though the plain meaning is redemption?

And we answer:

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 an animal tithe, and “it shall not be redeemed” is stated with regard to herem.

Just as there,

with regard to herem,

sale is included,

as it too is forbidden, for with regard to herem it is stated: “It shall not be sold and it shall not be redeemed,”

so here,

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

sale is included.

Just as it may not be redeemed, so it may not be sold.

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

This phrase, “it shall not be redeemed,” is

available,

as the verse is available for this derivation and was not needed for its own substance. [And the accepted principle is that a gezeira shava whose wording is available cannot be refuted.]

For if it were not available, one could refute the derivation: What is unique about herem is that it applies to everything,

including consecrated property. If one declares consecrated property herem, he gives the priest the value of the benefit he receives [as explained in Arakhin 28b]; moreover, herem applies to the entire herd. This is not so with an animal tithe, which applies only to unconsecrated animals and only to the tenth animal. Therefore, it is not so stringent that sale should also be forbidden with regard to it.

And we considered this matter:

Indeed, is it available?

Which of the two instances of “it shall not be redeemed” is available for derivation?

And we answer: The phrase concerning herem is available. For

the verse need not say

“and it shall not be redeemed”

“and it shall not be redeemed” with regard to herem, and it could be derived from the animal tithe.

And it could be derived as follows:

Just as an animal tithe

is

sacred and cannot be redeemed, so too herem is sacred and cannot be redeemed.

And if so,

why did the Merciful One write “and it shall not be redeemed”

with regard to herem?

Learn from this that it is available for derivation.

And we challenge this: But

there is room to refute

the derivation, as it is impossible to derive the law of herem from an animal tithe. For

what is unique about an animal tithe is that it is sacred both before and after it,

for if one called the tenth animal the ninth, the ninth the tenth, or the eleventh the tenth, all of them become sacred. This is not so with regard to herem, where such a situation does not apply.

And we answer:

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

And it could be derived as follows:

Just as a firstborn is sacred and cannot be redeemed,

as it is stated with regard to it, “It shall not be redeemed,”

so too herem is sacred and cannot be redeemed.

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

with regard to herem,

then?

Learn from this

that it is available for derivation.

And we challenge this: But

there is room to refute the derivation: What is unique about a firstborn is that its sanctity begins in the womb.

And we answer:

Rather,

the phrase concerning the animal tithe is available for derivation, for

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

by a gezeira shava,

“transfer”

—“transfer” from a firstborn.

With regard to a firstborn it is written: “And you shall transfer every firstborn of the womb”; and with regard to an animal tithe it is written: “Every one that passes under the rod.”

And this is how it is derived:

Just as a firstborn is sacred and cannot be redeemed, so too an animal tithe is sacred and cannot be redeemed.

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

Learn from this

that it is available for derivation.

And we refute this:

But still, with regard to the animal tithe as well, it is not available for derivation, for there is room to refute

the gezeira shava from a firstborn

as we refuted

above: What is unique about a firstborn is that its sanctity begins in the womb.

And we answer: Rather,

“And you shall transfer,”

which is written with regard to a firstborn,

is a superfluous verse,

for it could have written, “Every firstborn of the womb is Mine.” Thus, it is available for a gezeira shava, teaching by the phrase “transfer”—“transfer” that an animal tithe cannot be redeemed; and a gezeira shava whose wording is available cannot be refuted. Therefore, “it shall not be redeemed,” which is written with regard to an animal tithe, is available for derivation.

And we consider this matter:

A firstborn, too, should be derived by “redemption”—“redemption” from herem.

And let us say that its sale is also forbidden, since with regard to a firstborn it is written, “It shall not be redeemed,” which is as though it were written, “It shall not be redeemed or sold.”

And we answer: The phrase “it shall not be redeemed” with regard to an animal tithe is

available,

as we said, and therefore the gezeira shava from herem cannot be refuted. But

with regard to a firstborn, it is not available.

For “it shall not be redeemed” was necessary for its own substance—to teach that it may not be redeemed—and also to teach a law about an animal tithe through a gezeira shava. Therefore, the gezeira shava can be challenged: What is unique about herem is that it applies to everything, unlike a firstborn.

And we challenge this:

Why do you see fit

to say

that “it shall not be redeemed,” with regard to a firstborn,

was necessary

for its own substance,

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

with regard to an animal tithe is available for derivation?

But say

the opposite:

with regard to an animal tithe

it was necessary

for its own substance,

and to teach through the gezeira shava of “transfer” that a firstborn may not be redeemed;

and with regard to a firstborn it is available for derivation,

so we could derive from herem that a firstborn may not be sold, whereas the prohibition against selling an animal tithe cannot be derived from herem, since its wording is not available.

And we answer:

We derive “redemption” from “redemption,”

that is, an animal tithe from herem,

but we do not derive redemption from redemption.

With regard to a firstborn it is written, “It shall not be redeemed,” and not, “It shall not be redeemed” using the corresponding term.

And we challenge this:

What difference does it make

whether the verse uses the expression of redemption or the expression of being redeemed? Since both have the same meaning, one should be able to derive a gezeira shava from one to the other, even though the words are not precisely identical.

For

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

teaches: With regard to the afflictions of houses, it is written

“And the priest shall return,”

and elsewhere in the same passage it is written

“And the priest shall come.”

And we derive one through a gezeira shava from the other because

this “returning” is this “coming,”

as they express the same matter. Thus, one can derive one through a gezeira shava from the other despite the fact that they are two different words; so why should we not derive “redemption” from “being redeemed”?

And we answer:

That principle applies

when we derive a gezeira shava even through words that are not entirely similar,

where there is no word that resembles it,

when it is impossible to establish the gezeira shava between two words that resemble one another.

But where there is

a verse

that resembles it, we derive from the word that resembles it.

One must prefer a gezeira shava between two words that are actually similar to a gezeira shava between two words that are not entirely similar.

And we challenge this:

Let us derive the law of a firstborn through “transfer”—“transfer” from an animal tithe. For an animal tithe is derived through “redemption”—“redemption”

from herem, from which it is forbidden to sell it, and it can then teach with regard to a firstborn that it too is forbidden to sell.

And we answer:

The Merciful One excluded it with regard to herem,

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

“It”—but not a firstborn.

And we refute this:

But say: “It”—but not an animal tithe?

And we answer:

It is more reasonable to include an animal tithe

so that its law is like that of herem, since it is written with regard to it

“redemption,” as with regard to herem.

But with regard to a firstborn, concerning which “redemption” is not written, we exclude it by expounding “it”—but not a firstborn.

Rava said:

From here we learn the prohibition against selling an animal tithe, for

“it shall not be sold”

need not be written with regard to herem.

to be written.

What is the reason? Because

where are they found?

Where are the herem offerings located?

If they are in the owners’ possession

—

they are consecrated property,

and the owners have no authority to sell consecrated property; only the treasurer may do so. Therefore, no verse is needed to prohibit their sale. If they are in the priest’s possession

—

they are unconsecrated property, and the priest may sell them.

As it is taught in a beraita: With regard to herem,

what is their status?

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

Once they have given them to a priest, they are like unconsecrated property in every respect, as it is stated: “Every herem in Israel shall be yours.”

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