Bekhorot 32b — the Talmud in English

"not ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

redeemed," the Torah wrote

concerning consecrated property

why do I need it?

If it is not needed for consecrated property,

for it is not needed.

Apply it to the tithe

which is not sold.

And we raise an objection:

Say that you should apply it to the firstborn?

And we answer: It is reasonable that

the tithe

is what we assign it to, for

“redemption” is like it.

Rav Ashi said: “The ‘it shall not be redeemed’ of the tithe means: it is not sold.”

That is, this too is its meaning.

Rav Ashi said: “From where do I say this?”

For it is written

concerning the tithe,

“And it and its substitute shall be

holy; it shall not be redeemed.”

And we expound: Redemption, analogous to substitution.

When does it effect substitution—

during life.

Likewise,

when

the Torah said that it

is not redeemed—

during life.

And it implies:

but after slaughter, it is redeemed.

And if the verse is speaking of redemption, it is difficult:

it requires standing and valuation,

and how could one redeem it after slaughter? Rather, learn from it: This

“it shall not be redeemed” means: it is not sold.

Therefore, during life, when its sanctity is more stringent, it is forbidden to sell it, for by doing so one performs an ordinary act with it. But after slaughter, when its sanctity has been weakened [for it is speaking of an animal with a blemish, which is slaughtered outside and eaten by non-priests], it is permitted to sell it.

And we raise an objection:

This works well according to the one who says that sacrificial animals of the altar were included in standing and valuation.

But according to the one who says that sacrificial animals of the altar were not included in standing and valuation,

but only sacrificial property for Temple maintenance,

what is there to say?

For it is possible to establish the verse as referring to redemption!?

And Rav Ashi answers:

We are saying this:

necessarily, the verse is not speaking of redemption, because

is there anything that during life cannot be redeemed, but after slaughter can be redeemed?

Rather, learn from it:

This

“it shall not be redeemed”—

it is not sold.

And we raise an objection:

Why not!?

For it is quite possible to say that redemption is not effective during life, but is effective after slaughter.

What is the reason?

During life, since its sanctity is powerful, it cannot be redeemed.

But

after slaughter, since its sanctity has been weakened, it can be redeemed.

And if so, it is possible to say that “it shall not be redeemed” is an expression of redemption and not an expression of sale.

And we answer:

Is this not all the more so,

that, on the contrary, because its sanctity is lighter after slaughter, it is fitting that redemption should not be effective for it!?

And if during life, when its sanctity is powerful

and it can

receive its redemption money,

nevertheless

it cannot be redeemed; after slaughter, when its sanctity is not powerful

enough

to receive its redemption money, is it not all the more fitting that it cannot be redeemed?

Rather, learn from it: “it shall not be redeemed”—

it is not sold!

And we raise an objection:

And let the Torah write, “it shall not be sold,”

and for what reason did it write “it shall not be redeemed”?

And we answer:

If the Torah had written “it shall not be sold,” I would have said: it is sale that may not be carried out,

since

he performs

with it

ordinary acts. But it can be redeemed.

For there is no degradation in this,

since, after all, its money enters the sacred treasury. Therefore the Torah wrote, “it shall not be redeemed,”

to tell you:

it may neither be sold nor redeemed.

And both are included in “it shall not be redeemed” [and nevertheless, that which we infer—that after slaughter it is redeemed—is stated only with regard to sale, and not with regard to redemption; and this is the proof that “it shall not be redeemed” also means sale].

Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: An Israelite may not join with the priest concerning the firstborn.

If the priest invited the Israelite to eat with him from the meat of the firstborn, which he slaughtered after a blemish had befallen it, he may not eat with him.

And Beit Hillel permit,

for an Israelite to eat with the priest from the meat of the firstborn.

And even

to invite

a gentile

to eat with him is permitted.

Gemara:

This

Mishna

which permits a gentile’s eating of the firstborn, according to Beit Hillel—

who is it?—

It is Rabbi Akiva,

who holds this view according to Beit Hillel.

For it was taught in a beraita: Concerning a firstborn, one may not join with others over it

to eat it together,

, אלא a group consisting entirely of priests—

the words of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel permit even

the eating of

non-priests.

Rabbi Akiva permits

according to the view of Beit Hillel

even

the eating of

a gentile.

And we inquire:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai?

And we answer:

For it is written

concerning the firstborn,

“And their meat shall be yours

like the breast of the waving and like the right thigh; it shall be yours.”

Just as there,

with regard to the breast and thigh of a peace-offering,

priests, yes,

but

an Israelite, no; so here too—

priests, yes,

but

an Israelite, no.