Bekhorot 9b — the Talmud in English

And

we challenge

the Sages

who maintain: since it is impossible to be exact, one of the firstborn is holy:

Shall we say that the Sages hold: A part of the womb [

the firstborn’s touching a part of the womb] —

sanctifies [

that is sufficient to sanctify it],

for if

only

the entire womb sanctifies, although it is impossible to be exact

and their two heads did not actually emerge at precisely the same time, nevertheless

there is at least an interposition,

for before the majority of this one’s head emerged, part of the head of the other had already emerged; and why is it holy!?

Rav Ashi said:

The entire womb indeed sanctifies, but

a species with its own species does not constitute an interposition.

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 the priest,

why do I need him to separate it [

what purpose is there in his separating it at all]? Necessarily, he separates it

in order to remove its prohibition from it [

to permit the prohibition against deriving benefit from the firstborn donkey] —

Thus

it is established:

since he does not remove it [

if he does not remove it], the firstborn donkey is

forbidden in benefit;

and if so:

Whose Mishna is it? It is Rabbi Judah’s who holds that a firstborn donkey is forbidden in benefit. For it was taught in a beraita: A firstborn donkey is forbidden in benefit; these are the words of Rabbi Judah, and Rabbi Shimon permits. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Judah’s reason that a firstborn donkey is forbidden in benefit?

Ulla said,

he explained:

And is there

anything that requires

redemption, and is permitted

before he redeems it!?

explained

And we challenge this:

Is it not so!?

Is there not something that requires redemption and is permitted before redemption!?

For a human firstborn requires redemption, and is permitted

in benefit before he redeems it.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

Is there no object that requires redemption but is permitted before redemption?

Rather,

this is Rabbi Judah’s reason:

Is there anything concerning which the Torah was particular that it be redeemed with a lamb and not with another item,

and is permitted

before he redeems it!?

And we ask:

Was it particular

that the Torah required it to be redeemed specifically with a lamb!?

But Rav Nehemiah, son of Rav Yosef, redeemed it

his firstborn donkey

with boiled vegetables [

boiled herbs]

at its value [

according to the value of the firstborn donkey],

which shows that there is no requirement to redeem it specifically with a lamb!?

And we answer:

He did not say at its value; when we say it, we mean not at its value

of the firstborn donkey, that he redeems it with a lamb even if it is not worth as much as the firstborn donkey;

and this is what he said:

Is there

anything concerning which the Torah was particular, in order to remove its prohibition —

not at its value — specifically

with a lamb, and is permitted

in benefit before he redeems it!?

And we still challenge: But second tithe, concerning which the Torah was particular with Tyrian silver [ silver that has a form, and not a token], and

when it is redeemed for less than its value

with a lamb, and is permitted

to benefit from before it has been redeemed?

nevertheless

we learned

in tractate Kiddushin 52b, concerning one who betroths with second tithe:

Rabbi Judah says: If intentionally

— they both knew that it was second tithe —

he betrothed —

nevertheless

It is thus proven that even Rabbi Judah concedes that second tithe is permitted in benefit outside Jerusalem. We do not say: There is something concerning which the Torah was particular as to what it should be redeemed with, and it is permitted; for if not, she would not have been betrothed according to Rabbi Judah, since it would be forbidden in benefit!?

And we answer: If you came to prove the permissibility of deriving benefit from the fact that a woman can be betrothed with it, this is no proof, because

with regard to betrothing a woman, with a firstborn donkey

— which is certainly forbidden in benefit —

she is also betrothed

according to Rabbi Judah.

And the reason that the betrothal takes effect with second tithe and with a firstborn donkey, even though they are forbidden in benefit, is

in accordance with Rabbi

Elazar, for Rabbi Elazar said:

A woman knows that second tithe cannot be desacralized through her

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

and she goes up and eats it in Jerusalem.

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

Here too,

concerning a firstborn donkey, although it is forbidden in benefit, since it is possible to redeem it, she becomes betrothed, for

a woman knows that a firstborn donkey contains a prohibition [

in benefit]

and she redeems it with a lamb, and she becomes betrothed with that which lies between them [

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

Here too,

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

a woman knows that a firstborn donkey contains a prohibition

The Gemara further explains:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that a firstborn donkey is permitted in benefit,

what is his reason? Ulla said: Is there anything whose redemption is permitted, and it is

forbidden!?

And we challenge this: Is it not so!? But Sabbatical produce, whose redemption is permitted, that is, one who sells Sabbatical produce—the money does not have the law of Sabbatical produce, requiring it to be consumed at the time of removal— and it — the Sabbatical produce itself — is forbidden,

what is his reason?

Ulla said:

Is there indeed

anything whose redemption payment is permitted, while it is

forbidden?

that is, it must be consumed at the time of removal!?

Is that so?

But the produce of the Sabbatical year has a permitted redemption payment,

meaning that when Sabbatical-year produce is sold, the money does not retain the law of Sabbatical-year produce and does not have to be destroyed at the time of removal

while it

And we answer:

Sabbatical produce too—its redemption is forbidden, for the Master said: The last one is seized by the sanctity of Sabbatical produce, and the fruit itself is forbidden [

it remains in its prohibition]. That is, if one took meat with Sabbatical produce, both this and that must be consumed at the time of removal; if he took wine with meat, the meat leaves and the wine enters; if he took oil with wine, the wine leaves and the oil enters; while the Sabbatical produce itself remains subject to its law of being consumed at the time of removal —

It is thus explained that the money of Sabbatical produce is indeed seized by the law of Sabbatical produce; only if he sold it and took something else in exchange do the first items leave and the latter items enter. And if you wish, say: Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon disagree concerning this verse: For it was taught: 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 in which you have a partnership 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 —

These are the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Thus the verse is expounded: “

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

but you may work with a human firstborn,

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

You shall not shear the firstborn of your flock”

your

flock,

to teach:

But you may shear a firstborn donkey,

teaching that it is permitted in benefit —

“You shall not shear the firstborn

of your flock,”

teaching:

But you may shear a firstborn donkey,

teaching that it is permitted to benefit from.

And this is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, which permits deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey; but according to Rabbi Yehuda, who expounds the verse for another matter, the firstborn donkey remains in its prohibition.

And we challenge this:

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

it is understandable that two exclusions were needed: one to exclude a human firstborn from the prohibition of deriving benefit, and one to exclude a firstborn donkey from the prohibition of deriving benefit.

But according to Rabbi Yehuda: why do I need two verses to exclude [the firstborn that is] yours and [the firstborn that belongs to] others [A0006]for what purpose are there two verses to exclude a firstborn jointly owned with a gentile, which does not attain sanctity?

Why are two written statements needed to exclude an animal jointly owned with a gentile from the sanctity of the firstborn?

And furthermore

there is a difficulty:

according to Rabbi Yehuda—

who does not expound the verses to exclude the prohibition of 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 the law of a firstborn donkey—whether it is prohibited from deriving benefit:

Everyone—

both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon—“You shall not work with the firstborn of

your ox”

comes to exclude a human firstborn [A0020]it comes to exclude a human firstborn from the prohibition of deriving benefit—

from the prohibition against deriving benefit.

When they disagree

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon

is concerning the exposition of “You shall not shear the firstborn of

your sheep,

your sheep”:

For Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning [A0027]according to his method,

that is, his established position,

as he says: joint ownership with a gentile is liable for the firstborn offering, and when the verse was needed

of “your sheep,”

it was to permit it [A0031]to permit it

to be used

for shearing and labor

since it does not possess sanctity. That is to say, only according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the law of firstborn applies to an animal jointly owned with a gentile, is it relevant to explain that the Torah came to exclude it from sanctity and permit it for shearing and labor—

But

if

Rabbi Shimon held that joint ownership with a gentile is exempt from the firstborn offering, and

if so,

a verse was not needed concerning shearing and labor

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

when the verse was needed was for a firstborn donkey

to permit deriving benefit from it.

And we challenge this:

Granted according to Rabbi Yehuda—

for “your sheep” comes to exclude joint ownership with a gentile—

this is why it is written “

your sheep”

and it did not write “sheep,” since the verse came to exclude what is not entirely yours. And if you say: “Then why is ‘your ox’—which comes to exclude a human firstborn from the prohibition of deriving benefit—needed, when it could have said ‘ox’?” one can say:

and “

your ox”—

is it not analogous to “

your sheep”?

But according to Rabbi Shimon

for the verses did not come at all to exclude joint ownership with a gentile, “

your ox”

and “

your sheep”

why do I need them!?

For the verse could have said “ox” and “sheep”!?

And we conclude: indeed,

it is difficult

for Rabbi Shimon, because of the wording of the verse.

Rabba said: And Rabbi Shimon concedes—

who permits deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey before its breaking of the neck—

that after its breaking of the neck it is prohibited

from deriving benefit.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because he

derives by verbal analogy: breaking of the neck [“

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

breaking of the neck [“

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

from a beheaded heifer

which is prohibited from deriving benefit.

Rabba said: From where do I say this [A0076]from where do I know that this is so?

From where do I know that this is so?

For it was taught:

Prohibitions from which benefit may not be derived:

orlah, the produce of a vineyard containing mixed species, a stoned ox, a beheaded heifer, the birds of a leper, a firstborn donkey, and meat cooked with milk—all of them transmit food impurity [A0080]they receive impurity from a creeping creature and render other foods impure.

: they can contract impurity from a creeping creature and can transmit impurity to other foods.

Rabbi Shimon says:

None of them transmits food impurity.

And Rabbi Shimon concedes concerning meat cooked with milk that it

it

does transmit food impurity

even if it was prohibited from deriving benefit,

since it had a time when it was fit [A0088]a time when it was permitted, before the meat was cooked with the milk—

when it was permitted, before the meat was cooked with the milk—

And Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

Because

it is written in the passage concerning food impurity [Leviticus 11]: “And any earthenware vessel into which one of them [the creeping creatures] falls, whatever is inside it

shall become impure.

From all the food that may be eaten [A0105]that shall be in the earthenware vessel, upon which water comes [and prepares it to receive impurity], shall become impure.” And we learn from the expression “that may be eaten”:

that is in the earthenware vessel, upon which water has come [and thereby prepared it to contract impurity], shall become impure.” And we learn from the expression “that is eaten”:

food that you can feed to others [A0107]to gentiles, for since it is not prohibited from deriving benefit, it is

such as gentiles, because it is not forbidden for benefit, is

called food

and receives food impurity; but food

that you cannot feed to others—

because it is prohibited from deriving benefit—

is not called food.

It is thus explained that a firstborn donkey is prohibited from deriving benefit even according to Rabbi Shimon, and necessarily a firstborn donkey is prohibited from deriving benefit after the breaking of the neck.