Bekhorot 3a — the Talmud in English

Does this not refer to the animal

that they said they fine him, and “because he accepted” means that he handed the animal over to him so that he would care for it and acquire half of its offspring; thus, even selling an animal for its offspring is forbidden.

And we reject this:

No,

it is speaking of a case not in which he handed over an animal that was not pregnant so that he would acquire its offspring, but in which he handed over a pregnant animal so that he would acquire half the fetus, and

it is for the fetus

that he sold to a gentile that we fine him.

It is also precise

according to this interpretation, from

what it teaches “

they fine him up to ten times its value”

in the masculine form, indicating the value of the offspring, and not the animal, which is in the feminine form.

Infer from this

according to this interpretation.

Since the beraita of Rabbi Judah was brought, the Gemara adds to explain:

It supports—

the beraita in which we learned, “they fine him up to ten times its value,” because of the sale of a large animal to a gentile—

Rish Lakish! For Rish Lakish said:

One who sells a large animal to a gentile is fined up to ten times its value.

And the Gemara is uncertain: “Ten times its value”

specifically,

and not more,

or not specifically,

and even if the gentile demands a hundred times its value in exchange for it, he must pay?

Come and hear: For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: One who sells his slave to a gentile—

and thereby removes him from the mitzvot—

is fined

for this

up to a hundred times his value.

And since Rish Lakish said “ten times its value,” while Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said “a hundred times his value,” it follows that Rish Lakish said it specifically.

And we answer: In truth, I can say that one who sells an animal is fined up to ten times its value and no more, but

a slave is different,

for they imposed the stricter fine of up to a hundred times his value, because

every single day he removes him—

the master removes his slave, through selling him to a gentile—

from mitzvot.

Some say:

Rish Lakish said:

One who sells a large animal to a gentile is fined up to a hundred times its value.

And we raise an objection to this from what

we learned [for it was taught]:

And one who gives it to him under a partnership arrangement, even though he is not permitted, is fined up to ten times its value,

which indicates: but he is not obligated to pay a hundred times its value!?

And we answer:

A sale severs it from him [A0060]]—it is an absolute transfer, and it is no longer entirely his—and therefore they fined him up to a hundred times its value. But

[it is absolute, and it is no longer entirely his], and therefore they penalized him up to one hundred times its value. But

a partnership arrangement does not sever it from him,

and therefore they fined him only up to ten times its value.

The Gemara is uncertain concerning Rish Lakish’s statement: Did he say

specifically,

“up to a hundred times its value,”

or not specifically,

for Rish Lakish stated an exaggeration, and in truth he is not obligated to pay so much, and he is not obligated to pay more than ten times its value?

Come and hear: For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: One who sells his slave to a gentile is fined up to ten times his value,

and no more. And this is so even though he removes him every single day from the mitzvot; all the more so in the case of an animal, where he is not fined more than ten times its value. Thus, it is necessarily the case that Rish Lakish’s statement, “a hundred times its value,” is not specific.

And we reject this:

A slave is different, for he does not return to him [A0082]]—he does not again become his slave—but rather he loses him, for one who sells his slave to a gentile sets him free, as explained in Mishna Gittin 43b,

and therefore they do not obligate him to redeem him for more than ten times his value, since he also loses the slave. But an animal, which through the redemption returns to the one who redeems it, may be fined even up to a hundred times its value.

The Gemara is astonished at the rejection:

Why is an animal different?

You say that one should be stricter with it

because it returns to him [A0094]]because it returns to the one who redeems it—and yet, for this reason, should we not

[because it returns to the redeemer]. But for this very reason,

fine him only

one

more [A0098]]—we should fine him only by adding one more time the value of the animal that returns to him, and no more? What reason is there to say that because the animal returning to him is worth ten zuz, he must add another nine hundred zuz to its redemption!?

[should we not penalize him by adding only another amount equal to the value of the animal that returns to him], and no more? What reason is there to say that because an animal worth ten zuz returns to him, he must add another nine hundred zuz to its redemption price!?

Rather,

the Gemara rejects in another manner the proof from a slave, for whom one fines only up to ten times his value:

A slave is an uncommon matter [A0102]]—it is not usual for a person to sell his slave to a gentile—

[it is not usual] for a person to sell his slave to a gentile,

and concerning every uncommon matter the Sages did not issue a decree,

and therefore they fined him only up to ten times his value.

We learned in a beraita concerning the words of Rabbi Judah, who obligates in the firstborn status one who gives an animal to a gentile under a partnership arrangement and one who receives it from him:

And the Sages say: As long as the hand of the gentile

is involved, it is exempt from the firstborn status:

Rabbi Johanan said,

to explain their dispute concerning whether a gentile’s partnership exempts from the firstborn status:

And both of them—

Rabbi Judah and the Sages—

expounded one verse:

As it is written: “Sanctify to Me

every firstborn,

the opener of every womb among the Children of Israel”—

For

the Sages hold: “

Firstborn”

alone—and not “every firstborn”—

can indicate even part of a firstborn,

that is, even in a case such as a gentile’s partnership, in which his portion is not sanctified with the firstborn status. But

the Merciful One wrote “

every”

to teach us that it is not sanctified

until there is all of it,

and not part of a firstborn, and to exempt a gentile’s partnership in a firstborn.

And Rabbi Judah holds,

the reverse:

“Firstborn”

alone

indicates an entire firstborn,

and not part of it. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

every”

to teach us

even any amount

of a firstborn, and to obligate one when an Israelite has only a share in the firstborn and is a partner in it with the gentile.

Alternatively,

to explain their dispute in another manner:

Everyone

holds:

“Firstborn”

alone

most

of the firstborn

indicates,

meaning that the majority of the firstborn must belong to an Israelite; and their dispute is what “every firstborn” comes to teach: One master—

the Sages—

holds: “

Every”

comes to fill out,

it indicates that it comes to complete,

so that only the entirety of it will be sanctified.

And one master,

Rabbi Judah,

holds: “

Every”

comes to diminish,

so that even part of it will be sanctified.

The Gemara adds to explain:

And how much shall the gentile’s partnership be,

and shall it be exempt from the firstborn status?

Rav Huna said: Even

if

its ear,

of the firstborn alone, belonged to a gentile, it is exempt from the firstborn status according to the Sages.

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to him: Let him say to him, “Take your ear and go!” [A0175]]—let the Israelite say to the gentile: “Take your ear and go”!—!?

[the Israelite could say to the gentile: Take your ear and go]!?

It was stated:

a dispute among the amoraim concerning the measure of a gentile’s partnership that exempts from the firstborn status; and both hold like Rav Naḥman, that he can say to him, “Take your ear and go”:

Rav Ḥisda said:

The gentile’s partnership does not exempt until the gentile’s portion is

a thing that makes

it an animal carcass

if it were removed, for in such a case he cannot say to him, “Take your portion and go,” since it would be dead.

And Rava said:

Even

a thing that makes it trefa

if it were removed.

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree?

Everyone agrees that the partnership must be in a thing that, if it were removed, the animal would die. Rather, Rav Ḥisda and Rava disagree

concerning a trefa,

whether it

lives:

According to the one who says

even

a thing that makes it trefa, he holds: a trefa does not live.

And according to the one who says

specifically

a thing that makes it an animal carcass,

he holds:

but a trefa does live.

The Sages said before Rav Pappa,

that is, the students explained before Rav Pappa:

This statement of Rav Huna,

which exempts even when he was a partner in the ear, which is a thing that does not make it an animal carcass and not even a trefa,

and Rav Ḥisda and Rava,

who hold that the partnership does not exempt until it is in a thing which, if removed, the animal would not live—

do not disagree,

for:

This

which Rav Huna said, “even its ear,” refers to a partnership that the gentile had

in it [A0238]]—in the firstborn itself.

Whereas

But

this

which Rav Ḥisda and Rava said, that we require a thing whose removal would cause it not to live, refers to a partnership that the gentile had

in its mother,

and not in the firstborn itself. In this, a partnership in its ear is insufficient; rather, it is specifically when the partnership is in a thing whose removal would cause it to die.

Rav Pappa said to them:

It is impossible to explain it so, for:

What is different about “in it”,

which exempts even a partnership in its ear? It is because

we require “

every firstborn”

to belong to an Israelite,

and there is not such a case.

With

its mother as well we require “

All your livestock” [A0258]]—that is, the mother—

not “all your livestock.”

shall be reckoned,

and

when the gentile is a partner in its ear, there is

not

“all your livestock.”

Rather, there is no difference, and Rav Huna, who exempted even in the case of its ear, referred also to its mother; while Rav Ḥisda and Rava, who required a thing whose removal would cause it to die, referred also to the firstborn itself.

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised an objection to Rav Ḥisda and Rava

:

What is different

a firstborn in which Israel does not have all its vitality, because a gentile owns a portion such that, if it were taken, it would not live,

from miscarriages, for although they are not capable of living [they cannot live;] nevertheless

[they cannot live], nevertheless

they become consecrated

with regard to firstborn status,

for

for

the Master said concerning the verse [Exodus 13:12]: "And every

regarding the verse (Exodus 13:12), “And every

firstling that livestock brings forth

that will be yours, the males, for Hashem," namely: a fetus

of offspring [the shin with a segol, and the gimel with a kamatz]

[the shin is vocalized with a segol, and the gimel with a kamatz]

in

the womb of the

in the bowels of livestock.

And likewise, one should obligate Israel's portion with regard to firstborn status, even though in its portion alone the firstborn has no vitality!?

And we answer:

there,

in the case of miscarriages,

since non-sacred matter was not mixed into them [there is no portion of the firstborn that is non-sacred],

[there is no part of the firstborn that is unconsecrated],

we apply to them, in the livestock, "

every firstborn."

But

here—

in the case of a firstborn in which a gentile has a portion—

since non-sacred matter was mixed into them,

for the gentile's portion is not obligated with regard to firstborn status,

we do not apply to them "

every firstborn."

Rabbi Elazar did not enter the beit-midrash; he encountered Rabbi Asi and said to him: What did the Rabbis say in the beit-midrash? [Rabbi Elazar did not come to the beit-midrash, and he met Rabbi Asi—who was in the beit-midrash—and asked him: What did the Sages say in the beit-midrash?]

[Rabbi Elazar did not come to the house of study, and he met Rabbi Asi—who had been in the house of study—and asked him: What did the Sages say in the house of study?]

He said to him

Rabbi Asi to Rabbi Elazar: So they said in the beit-midrash: