Bekhorot 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

And

we challenge

the Sages

who maintain that, since it is impossible for the two births to occur simultaneously, one of the firstborns is consecrated:

Let us say that the Sages hold: A part of the womb [

the contact of the firstborn with part of the womb ]—

consecrates [

that is sufficient to consecrate it ],

for if

only

the entire womb consecrates, granted that it is impossible for the two births to occur simultaneously

and their two heads did not emerge exactly at the same time; nevertheless,

there is at least an obstruction,

since before the majority of this one’s head emerged, part of the other’s head had already emerged. Why, then, is it consecrated!?

Rav Ashi said:

In fact, the entire womb consecrates, but

one species does not obstruct another of the same species.

We learned in the Mishna:

For a male and a female, he separates one lamb

for himself:

And we explain:

And since it is for himself

and he does not give it to a koen,

why must he separate it [

for what purpose does he separate it at all]? Necessarily, he separates it

in order to remove its prohibition from him [

to permit him to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey ]—

apparently,

it is therefore necessary to conclude:

since he does not remove [

if he does not remove it, the firstborn donkey ]

it is prohibited to derive benefit from it;

and if so:

Whose Mishna is this? It is Rabbi Yehuda’s

who holds that it is prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey.

As it was taught in a beraita: It is prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon permits it.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

who holds that it is prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey?

He said,

explained

Ulla:

Is it conceivable that

there is something that requires

redemption, yet is permitted

before it is redeemed!?

And we challenge this:

Is that so—

is there not something that requires redemption yet is permitted before redemption?

But a firstborn human son requires redemption, yet is permitted

to derive benefit from before he is redeemed.

Rather,

this is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning: Is it conceivable that

there is something concerning which the Torah was particular

that it be redeemed

with a lamb

and not with something else,

yet is permitted

before it is redeemed!?

And we ask:

Was the Torah particular

that it be redeemed specifically with a lamb!?

But Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, redeemed it

his firstborn donkey

with boiled greens [

boiled herbs ]

at its value [

according to the value of the firstborn donkey ]. This demonstrates that there is no requirement to redeem it specifically with a lamb!?

And we answer:

He did not say this with regard to its value; what we are saying is when it is not at its value

of the firstborn donkey—namely, that one redeems it with a lamb even when it is not worth as much as the firstborn donkey

; and this is what he said:

Is it conceivable that

there is something concerning which the Torah was particular, in order to remove its prohibition—

when it is not at its value—specifically

with a lamb, yet is permitted

to derive benefit from before it is redeemed!?

We nevertheless ask:

But second tithe

is something

concerning which the Torah was particular that it be redeemed with Tyrian silver [

silver coins bearing an image, and not an unminted token ],

and

nevertheless,

we learned

in tractate Kiddushin 52b, with regard to betrothing a woman with second-tithe produce:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If done intentionally

—that both of them knew that it was second tithe—

he betroths—

according to Rabbi Judah.

This proves that even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that second tithe is permitted to derive benefit from outside Jerusalem. We do not say, “Is it conceivable that there is something concerning which the Torah was particular as to what it may be redeemed with, yet is permitted?” For if not, the woman would not be betrothed according to Rabbi Yehuda, since it would be prohibited to derive benefit from it!?

And we answer: If you seek to prove that it is permitted to derive benefit from the fact that a woman can be betrothed with it, this is no proof, for

with regard to betrothing a woman, with a firstborn donkey

—which is certainly prohibited to derive benefit from—

she is also betrothed

according to Rabbi Yehuda.

The reason that the betrothal takes effect with second tithe and with a firstborn donkey, even though they are prohibited to derive benefit from, is

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi

Elazar! For Rabbi Elazar said:

A woman knows that second tithe cannot be desacralized through her

and remains in its sanctity, so that eating it outside Jerusalem is prohibited,

and she goes up and eats it in Jerusalem.

the difference between the values of the donkey and the lamb].

Here too,

with regard to a firstborn donkey, although it is prohibited to derive benefit from, since it can be redeemed, she is betrothed, because

a woman knows that a firstborn donkey contains a prohibition [

against deriving benefit ]

and she redeems it with a lamb, and she is betrothed with the difference between them [

the difference in value between the donkey and the lamb ].

The Gemara adds an explanation:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that it is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey,

what is his reason?

Ulla said:

Is it conceivable that

there is something whose redemption is permitted, yet it is

prohibited!?

And we challenge this:

Is that so!?

But Sabbatical-year produce, whose redemption is permitted,

that is, when one sells Sabbatical-year produce, the money does not retain the status of Sabbatical-year money requiring elimination at the time of elimination,

yet it

—the Sabbatical-year produce itself—

is prohibited,

that is, it must be eliminated at the time of elimination!?

And we answer:

Sabbatical-year produce too has a prohibited redemption object, as the Master said: The last object is captured by the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, and the fruit itself remains prohibited [

it remains subject to its prohibition ]. That is, if one took meat in exchange for Sabbatical-year produce, both this and that must be eliminated at the time of elimination; if he took wine in exchange for the meat, the meat leaves and the wine enters; if he took oil in exchange for the wine, the wine leaves and the oil enters, while the Sabbatical-year produce itself remains subject to its law, requiring elimination at the time of elimination.

It is therefore evident that the money received for Sabbatical-year produce does in fact acquire the status of Sabbatical-year produce; only when one sells it and takes something else in exchange for it does the original object leave and the latter object enter.

And if you wish, say instead: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to this verse:

As it was taught in a beraita:

It is written [Deuteronomy 15]: “

You shall not work with the firstborn of your ox,”

to teach:

But you may work with your own and with that of others [

with a firstborn animal in which you share ownership with a gentile ], and it is written: “

And you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock,”

to teach:

But you may shear

a firstborn that is

yours and that of others—

teaching that he is not forbidden in benefit. And it is written: “

This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says:

This is how the verse is expounded: “

You shall not work with the firstborn of your ox,”

but you may work with a human firstborn,

to teach that it is not prohibited to derive benefit from it. And it is written: “

You shall not shear the firstborn of

your flock,”

to teach:

But you may shear a firstborn donkey,

to teach that it is permitted to derive benefit from it.

This is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, which permits deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey; but according to Rabbi Yehuda, who interprets the verse for another matter, a firstborn donkey remains prohibited.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon, this is why two verses are written:

It is understandable that two exclusions were necessary: one to exclude a human firstborn from the prohibition against deriving benefit, and the other to exclude a firstborn donkey from the prohibition against deriving benefit.

But according to Rabbi Yehuda: Why do I need two verses to exclude that which is yours and that which belongs to others? [

Why are two verses necessary to exclude a firstborn animal owned in partnership with a gentile, which does not have sanctity?]

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

According to Rabbi Yehuda—

who does not interpret the verses as excluding a prohibition against deriving benefit—

let us also say that a human firstborn is prohibited:

A human firstborn, too, should be prohibited from deriving benefit, since the verse did not exclude it.

Rather,

the Gemara explains the basis of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon concerning whether a firstborn donkey is prohibited from benefit:

Everyone—

both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon—agrees that the phrase, “You shall not work with the firstborn of your

ox,”

comes to exclude a human firstborn [

it comes to exclude a human firstborn from the prohibition against deriving benefit].

When they disagree

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon

is concerning the interpretation of “You shall not shear the firstborn of your

flock,

your sheep”:

Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning [

according to his own position],

as he says: Ownership in partnership with a gentile is subject to the law of the firstborn. And when the verse

“your sheep”

was needed to permit it [

to permit it]

for shearing and labor,

it means that it does not possess sanctity. That is, only according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the law of the firstborn takes effect upon an animal owned in partnership with a gentile, is it possible to interpret the verse as coming to exclude it from sanctity and permit it for shearing and labor.

But

if

Rabbi Shimon holds that ownership in partnership with a gentile is exempt from the law of the firstborn, and

therefore

a verse was not needed with regard to shearing and labor

to exclude it, since it is not subject to the law of the firstborn at all,

the verse was needed with regard to a firstborn donkey

to permit deriving benefit from it.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda—

who says that “your sheep” comes to exclude an animal owned in partnership with a gentile—

this is why it is written “

your sheep”:

rather than “sheep,” since the verse comes to exclude that which is not entirely yours. And if you ask: Why does the verse say “your ox”—which comes to exclude a human firstborn from the prohibition against deriving benefit—when it could have said simply “ox”? One may answer:

And “

your ox”—

is that not analogous to “

your sheep”?

But according to Rabbi Shimon,

who does not hold that the verses came to exclude an animal owned in partnership with a gentile, “

your ox”

and “

your sheep”—

why do I need them?

The verse could have said “ox” and “sheep”!

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult

for Rabbi Shimon with regard to the wording of the verse.

Rabba said: And Rabbi Shimon concedes—

who permits deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey before it is killed by breaking its neck—

that after it is killed by breaking its neck, it is prohibited

from benefit.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because he derives the meaning of

breaking the neck [“

And if you will not redeem it, you shall break its neck”],

breaking the neck [“

And they shall break the neck of the heifer there in the valley,” Deuteronomy 21:4]

from the heifer whose neck is broken,

which is prohibited from benefit.

Rabba said: From where do I say this [

How do I know that this is so]?

As it is taught:

The following are items prohibited from benefit:

Orla, produce of a vineyard planted with diverse species, a stoned ox, a heifer whose neck is broken, the birds of a leper, a firstborn donkey, and meat cooked with milk; all of them impart the ritual impurity of food [

they contract impurity from a creeping creature and render other foods impure].

Rabbi Shimon says:

None of them imparts the ritual impurity of food.

And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to meat cooked with milk that it

it

does impart the ritual impurity of food,

even if it were prohibited from benefit,

since it had a period of eligibility [

a time during which it was permitted], before the meat was cooked with the milk—

And Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion?

It is because

it is written in the passage concerning the ritual impurity of food [Leviticus 11]: “Any earthenware vessel into which any of them [the creeping creatures] falls, whatever is inside it shall become impure.

From any food that is eaten [

that is in the earthenware vessel] upon which water comes [and renders it fit to contract impurity], it shall become impure.” And we learn from the wording “that is eaten”:

Food that you can feed to others [

to gentiles],

for it is not prohibited from benefit, is

called food

and contracts the ritual impurity of food. But food

that you cannot feed to others—

because it is prohibited from benefit—

is not called food.

It is thus established that a firstborn donkey is prohibited from benefit even according to Rabbi Shimon, and necessarily a firstborn donkey is prohibited from benefit after its neck has been broken.