Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 18, 2019 | 讬状讙 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 2

One must redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb and give the lamb to a priest. In which cases (due to some connection with a non Jew) is one exempt from this requirement? How is this issue connected to the prohibition to sell large animals to a non Jew?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讛诇讜拽讞 注讜讘专 讞诪讜专讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讜讛诪讜讻专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 讛诪砖转转祝 诇讜 讜讛诪拽讘诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讗讞专讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who purchases the fetus of a donkey that belongs to a gentile, and one who sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile although he is not permitted to sell a large animal to a gentile, and one who enters into a partnership with a gentile in ownership of a donkey or its fetus, and one who receives a donkey from a gentile in order to care for it in exchange for partnership in its offspring, and one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership, in all of these cases the donkeys are exempt from the obligations of firstborn status, i.e., they do not have firstborn status and are not redeemed, as it is stated: 鈥淚 sanctified to Me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and animal鈥 (Numbers 3:13), indicating that the mitzva is incumbent upon the Jewish people, but not upon others. If the firstborn belongs even partially to a gentile, it does not have firstborn status.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these examples in the mishna to demonstrate the principle that a firstborn donkey must belong exclusively to a Jew for the obligations of firstborn status to apply?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 诇讜拽讞 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讗讘诇 诪讜讻专 讚拽讗 诪驻拽注 诇讛 诪拽讚讜砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬拽谞住讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: All of these examples are necessary. As, had the tanna taught that a donkey is exempt from the obligations of firstborn status only in the case where a Jew purchases a fetus from a gentile, I would say that this is because the Jew brings it to a state of sanctity in that it will not be worked on Shabbat. But in the case where a Jew sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile, where he abrogates its state of sanctity, I would say that the Sages should penalize him [likneseih] for his actions by rendering the fetus subject to the obligations of firstborn status. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is exempt from these obligations.

讜讛诪砖转转祝 诇讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛

And why do I need the mishna to state the case of one who enters into a partnership with a gentile? The case is necessary to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: An animal owned in partnership with a gentile is obligated, i.e., subject to accounting its offspring a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn.

讜讛诪拽讘诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛

And why do I need the mishna to state that the fetus does not have firstborn status in the case of one who receives a donkey from a gentile in exchange for partnership in its offspring? This halakha is already included in the previous one. The Gemara answers: It is because the tanna wants to teach in the parallel case of: And one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership, that its offspring does not have firstborn status.

讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讬拽专 讘讛诪讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 诇讬拽谞住讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞专讬转讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

And why do I need the case of one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership to be stated? It was necessary, because it might enter your mind to say that since the primary animal belongs to the Jew, the Sages should penalize him by treating the offspring as a firstborn and requiring it to be redeemed, lest this case be confused with another case of an animal that the Jew puts in the care of a gentile where the gentile does not own rights to the offspring, and the offspring is counted a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that he is not penalized.

转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住

搂 The Gemara cites a discussion where the mishna is used as a proof: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Avoda Zara 14b) with regard to the prohibition against selling large livestock to a gentile due to concern that it will be worked on Shabbat: Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale of a damaged animal permitted because it is incapable of performing labor, and ben Beteira deems the sale of a horse for riding permitted, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜讘专 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讚砖专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讘讜专讛 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讘讜专讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 注讜讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诇讗讜 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a fetus, what would Rabbi Yehuda say to me about selling it to a gentile? Is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda deems selling the animal permitted there because it is damaged and it cannot work, and a fetus is also damaged in the sense that it cannot work? Or, perhaps it is permitted to sell a damaged animal because that is not its natural state; it is defective and is therefore not included in the prohibition against selling large livestock. But with regard to a fetus, since that is its natural state, and it will become capable of working after growing up, perhaps it is not considered damaged, as it is not defective.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讛诪讜讻专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the mishna: And one who sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile, his donkey is exempt from the obligations of firstborn status, although the owner is not permitted to do so. And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree and claim that he may sell it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is prohibited to sell the fetus of one鈥檚 animal to a gentile.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛诪砖转转祝 诇讜 讜讛诪拽讘诇 诪诪谞讜 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙

The Gemara rejects the resolution: And according to your reasoning, concerning the other cases in the mishna, namely, one who enters into a partnership with a gentile, and one who receives a donkey from a gentile in exchange for partnership in its offspring, and one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership, with regard to which the mishna does not teach that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, so too does this indicate that he does not disagree with the ruling in the mishna in these cases? That is impossible, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that an animal subject to a partnership between a Jew and gentile is subject to accounting its offspring a firstborn, as is evident from a baraita that will soon be cited.

讗诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rather, clearly Rabbi Yehuda does disagree, but the mishna does not teach his opinion. Here too, with regard to selling the fetus, he disagrees, but the mishna does not teach his opinion.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讬诇讚讛 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜讜讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 拽讜谞住讬诐 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that in the case of one who receives an animal from a gentile in order to care for it and receives some of the offspring in exchange for his work, and it gave birth to a firstborn, they assess its value, and the Jew gives half of its value to the priest to redeem his portion, which is sanctified by the firstborn status. And in the case of one who gives the gentile an animal in receivership even though he is not permitted to do so, the Sages penalize him by requiring that he purchase the gentile鈥檚 portion of the animal for up to ten times its value, and he gives all of its value to the priest.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗注讜讘专 诇讗 讗讘讛诪讛

What, is it not referring to the fetus when the baraita states that he is not permitted to sell it? The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to the animal itself that he may not sell to the gentile, and that is why he is penalized.

讜讛讗 讚诪讬讜 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讚诪讬讛 讜讛讗 谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讻讛谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 诪注讘专转讗 诇驻讟讜诪讛 讚诪讬讙讜 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讘讛诪讛 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗注讜讘专

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: The Sages penalize him up to ten times its value [damav], in masculine form, indicating that it is referring to the fetus and not the mother? The Gemara responds: Teach the following wording in the baraita: The Sages penalize him up to ten times its value [dameha], in feminine form. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 it teach: He gives all of its value to the priest? And if it is referring to the animal and not the firstborn, what is the relevance of the priest? The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the Jew gave the gentile a pregnant animal to fatten it in order to divide the profits as well as the offspring. Since we penalize him for selling the animal in a prohibited manner, we penalize him with regard to the fetus as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讛讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讗住专 讜讛讗 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 讻讬讻讜诇 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讚诪讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi says: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale to a gentile of a damaged animal permitted, because it is incapable of being cured. This statement indicates that if it is capable of being cured, Rabbi Yehuda deems its sale prohibited. And a fetus is also similar to one who is able to be cured, as it ultimately will be capable of working. Learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale of a fetus to a gentile prohibited.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛

And there are those who teach this discussion as referring to the statement in the mishna: With regard to one who sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile, although he is not permitted to sell a large animal to a gentile, it is exempt from the obligations of firstborn status. The discussion then proceeded as follows: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Avoda Zara 14b): Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale of a damaged animal permitted because it is incapable of performing labor. The halakha is presumably the same with regard to a fetus, which is also not capable of performing labor.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讘讜专讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 注讜讘专 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛

The Gemara responds: You may even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is permitted to sell a damaged animal because that is not its natural state; it is defective and is therefore not included in the prohibition against selling large livestock. But with regard to a fetus, since it is in its natural state, and will become capable of working after growing up, perhaps it is not considered damaged, as it is not defective.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讬诇讚讛 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗注讜讘专 诇讗 讗讘讛诪讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that in the case of one who receives an animal from a gentile to care for and receives a portion of the offspring in exchange for his work, and it gave birth to a firstborn, they assess its value, and the Jew gives half of its value to the priest to redeem his portion, which is sanctified by the firstborn status. And in the case of one who gives the gentile an animal in receivership even though he is not permitted to do so, the Sages penalize him by requiring that he purchase the gentile鈥檚 portion of the animal for up to ten times its value, and he gives all of its value to the priest. What, is it not referring to the fetus when the baraita states that he is not permitted to sell it? The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to the animal itself that he may not sell to the gentile, and that is why he is penalized.

讜讛讗 讚诪讬讜 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讚诪讬讛 讜讛讗 谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讻讛谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讘讛诪讛 诪注讘专转讗 诇驻讟讜诪讛 讚诪讬讙讜 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讘讛诪讛 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗注讜讘专

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: The Sages penalize him up to ten times its value [damav], in masculine form, indicating that it is referring to the fetus and not the mother? The Gemara responds: Teach the following wording in the baraita: The Sages penalize him up to ten times its value [dameha], in feminine form. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 it teach: He gives all of its value to the priest? And if it is referring to the animal and not the firstborn, what is the relevance of the priest? The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the Jew gave the gentile a pregnant animal to fatten it in order to divide the profits as well as the offspring. Since we penalize him for selling the animal in a prohibited manner, we penalize him with regard to the fetus as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讛讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讗住讜专 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讻讜诇 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讚诪讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi says: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale to a gentile of a damaged animal permitted, because it is incapable of being cured. This statement indicates that if it is capable of being cured, Rabbi Yehuda deems its sale prohibited. And this fetus is also similar to one who is able to be cured, as it ultimately will be capable of working. Learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale of a fetus to a gentile prohibited.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讻专 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages concerning the prohibition against selling large livestock to a gentile: In the case of a Jew who sold an animal to a gentile only with regard to rights to its fetuses, but retained ownership of the animal itself, what is the halakha concerning the permissibility of the sale? The Gemara clarifies: Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits the sale of a damaged animal, and let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute that ruling.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 砖专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜专讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讗讘诇 砖诇诪讛 讚讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讗住专

The Gemara elaborates: Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as follows: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda permits only the sale of a damaged animal, as people will not come to confuse this animal with a healthy animal, which is prohibited for sale to a gentile, as they are visibly different. But in the case of one who sells an unblemished animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses, which people may come to confuse with the case of selling the animal entirely and consider that sale permitted as well, Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale prohibited.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讜诪讛 砖讘讜专讛 讚驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇诪讛 讚诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛

Or perhaps Rabbi Yehuda would claim that in the case of a damaged animal, which is separated from him in its entirety in the sale, the sale is permitted, and all the more so with regard to the sale of an unblemished animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses, where the animal is not entirely separated from him, as he did not sell the actual animal, the sale is permitted.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗住专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜专讛 讚驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 砖诇诪讛 讚诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖专讜

Likewise, the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis: Perhaps the Rabbis deemed the sale prohibited only in a case of a damaged animal, as the animal is separated from him. But in the case of an unblemished animal that is sold only with regard to the fetuses, where it is not separated from him, and there is no concern that people will mistakenly sell the entire animal to a gentile, they deem the sale permitted.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讜诪讛 砖讘讜专讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讗住专讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇诪讛 讚讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬

Or perhaps the Rabbis would claim that in the case of a damaged animal, which people will not come to confuse with the case of an unblemished animal, the Rabbis deem the sale prohibited, and all the more so they would prohibit selling an unblemished animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses, which people may come to confuse with the case of selling an unblemished animal in its entirety.

讜讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讗诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 注讜讘专讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And is the reason of the opinion of the Rabbis due to that concern that people may confuse the sale of a damaged animal with the sale of an unblemished animal in its entirety? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But why do you hold that is it permitted to sell a damaged animal? Don鈥檛 they breed it with another animal, and it gives birth to offspring, which will then be owned by a gentile? Apparently, the reason the Rabbis prohibit the sale is due to the animal鈥檚 fetuses. If so, they should prohibit selling large livestock to a gentile with regard to the fetuses as well.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 讗转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讬转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讻诪讗谉 讚讝讘谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: This is not truly the Rabbis鈥 opinion. Rather, this is what they were saying to Rabbi Yehuda: Our reason for prohibiting the sale of a damaged animal is because people might come to confuse this case with the sale of an unblemished animal. But you, what is the reason that you permit selling a damaged animal? It is because the animal is incapable of being cured, and you therefore consider it similar to one who sold an animal explicitly for slaughter, which is permitted.

讜讛诇讗 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 诪砖讛讗 诇讛

But actually it is not similar to that case, as don鈥檛 they breed a damaged animal with another animal, and it gives birth? And since they breed it and it gives birth, the gentile will delay its slaughter. Others may then mistakenly believe that selling large livestock for purposes other than slaughter is permitted.

讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讻砖转诇讚 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇转 讝讻专

And Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis in response: When a damaged animal actually gives birth, I will concern myself with this possibility. Practically, this concern may be disregarded, as such an animal cannot breed with a male. In any event, no proof may be brought from this baraita concerning the opinion of the Rabbis concerning selling an animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna, where it states: And in the case of one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership, meaning that he divides the offspring with him in exchange for caring for the animal, the donkey is exempt from the obligations of firstborn status. This case is identical to that of selling an animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses, and the mishna does not teach: Although he is not permitted to do so. Apparently such a sale is permitted.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛诪砖转转祝 诇讜 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚专砖讗讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬注砖讛 砖讜转驻讜转 注诐 讛讙讜讬 砖诪讗 讬转讞讬讬讘 诇讜 砖讘讜注讛 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讘砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讗 讬砖诪注 注诇 驻讬讱

The Gemara responds: But according to your reasoning, with regard to that which the mishna states: One who enters into a partnership with a gentile, where it also does not teach: Although he is not permitted to do so, so too, should it be derived that it is permitted to enter into such a partnership? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel鈥檚 father say: It is prohibited for a person to enter into a partnership with a gentile lest their joint ventures lead them to quarrel and his gentile partner will be obligated to take an oath to him and he will take an oath in the name of his object of idol worship; and the Torah states: 鈥淣either let it be heard out of your mouth鈥 (Exodus 23:13), which includes causing a gentile to take an oath in the name of an idol.

讗诇讗 转谞讗 诪讻讬专讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇砖讜转驻讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 转谞讗 诪讻讬专讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇拽讘诇谞讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻讬专讛 讚谞拽讟 讚注讬拽专 诪讻讬专讛 讛讬讗

Rather, the tanna taught that a sale to a gentile is not permitted, and the same is true for the case of a partnership. So too, the tanna taught that a sale to a gentile is prohibited, and the same is true for a case of receivership. The Gemara asks: And what is different about the case of selling that the tanna cited the prohibition specifically in that case? The Gemara answers that the primary prohibition is that of selling the animal to a gentile.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讬诇讚讛 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜讜讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 讜讛谞讜转谉 讘拽讘诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma of whether selling an animal to a gentile with regard to the rights to its fetuses is permitted from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that in the case of one who receives an animal from a gentile to care for and receives a portion of the offspring in exchange for his work, and it gave birth to a firstborn, they assess its value, and the Jew gives half of its value to the priest to redeem his portion, which is considered to have the sanctity of a firstborn. And in the case of one who gives the gentile an animal in receivership even though he is not permitted to do so, the Sages penalize him by requiring that he purchase the gentile鈥檚 portion of the animal for up to ten times its value, and he gives all of its value to the priest.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讚 讛讙讜讬 讘讗诪爪注 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛

And the Rabbis say: As long as the ownership of the gentile is involved, in that he possesses at least partial ownership of the mother or the fetus, the animal is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 2

诪转谞讬壮 讛诇讜拽讞 注讜讘专 讞诪讜专讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讜讛诪讜讻专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 讛诪砖转转祝 诇讜 讜讛诪拽讘诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讗讞专讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who purchases the fetus of a donkey that belongs to a gentile, and one who sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile although he is not permitted to sell a large animal to a gentile, and one who enters into a partnership with a gentile in ownership of a donkey or its fetus, and one who receives a donkey from a gentile in order to care for it in exchange for partnership in its offspring, and one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership, in all of these cases the donkeys are exempt from the obligations of firstborn status, i.e., they do not have firstborn status and are not redeemed, as it is stated: 鈥淚 sanctified to Me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and animal鈥 (Numbers 3:13), indicating that the mitzva is incumbent upon the Jewish people, but not upon others. If the firstborn belongs even partially to a gentile, it does not have firstborn status.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these examples in the mishna to demonstrate the principle that a firstborn donkey must belong exclusively to a Jew for the obligations of firstborn status to apply?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 诇讜拽讞 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讗讘诇 诪讜讻专 讚拽讗 诪驻拽注 诇讛 诪拽讚讜砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬拽谞住讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: All of these examples are necessary. As, had the tanna taught that a donkey is exempt from the obligations of firstborn status only in the case where a Jew purchases a fetus from a gentile, I would say that this is because the Jew brings it to a state of sanctity in that it will not be worked on Shabbat. But in the case where a Jew sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile, where he abrogates its state of sanctity, I would say that the Sages should penalize him [likneseih] for his actions by rendering the fetus subject to the obligations of firstborn status. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is exempt from these obligations.

讜讛诪砖转转祝 诇讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛

And why do I need the mishna to state the case of one who enters into a partnership with a gentile? The case is necessary to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: An animal owned in partnership with a gentile is obligated, i.e., subject to accounting its offspring a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn.

讜讛诪拽讘诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛

And why do I need the mishna to state that the fetus does not have firstborn status in the case of one who receives a donkey from a gentile in exchange for partnership in its offspring? This halakha is already included in the previous one. The Gemara answers: It is because the tanna wants to teach in the parallel case of: And one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership, that its offspring does not have firstborn status.

讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讬拽专 讘讛诪讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 诇讬拽谞住讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞专讬转讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

And why do I need the case of one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership to be stated? It was necessary, because it might enter your mind to say that since the primary animal belongs to the Jew, the Sages should penalize him by treating the offspring as a firstborn and requiring it to be redeemed, lest this case be confused with another case of an animal that the Jew puts in the care of a gentile where the gentile does not own rights to the offspring, and the offspring is counted a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that he is not penalized.

转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住

搂 The Gemara cites a discussion where the mishna is used as a proof: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Avoda Zara 14b) with regard to the prohibition against selling large livestock to a gentile due to concern that it will be worked on Shabbat: Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale of a damaged animal permitted because it is incapable of performing labor, and ben Beteira deems the sale of a horse for riding permitted, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜讘专 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讚砖专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讘讜专讛 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讘讜专讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 注讜讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诇讗讜 砖讘讜专 讛讜讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a fetus, what would Rabbi Yehuda say to me about selling it to a gentile? Is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda deems selling the animal permitted there because it is damaged and it cannot work, and a fetus is also damaged in the sense that it cannot work? Or, perhaps it is permitted to sell a damaged animal because that is not its natural state; it is defective and is therefore not included in the prohibition against selling large livestock. But with regard to a fetus, since that is its natural state, and it will become capable of working after growing up, perhaps it is not considered damaged, as it is not defective.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讛诪讜讻专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the mishna: And one who sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile, his donkey is exempt from the obligations of firstborn status, although the owner is not permitted to do so. And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree and claim that he may sell it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is prohibited to sell the fetus of one鈥檚 animal to a gentile.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛诪砖转转祝 诇讜 讜讛诪拽讘诇 诪诪谞讜 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙

The Gemara rejects the resolution: And according to your reasoning, concerning the other cases in the mishna, namely, one who enters into a partnership with a gentile, and one who receives a donkey from a gentile in exchange for partnership in its offspring, and one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership, with regard to which the mishna does not teach that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, so too does this indicate that he does not disagree with the ruling in the mishna in these cases? That is impossible, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that an animal subject to a partnership between a Jew and gentile is subject to accounting its offspring a firstborn, as is evident from a baraita that will soon be cited.

讗诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rather, clearly Rabbi Yehuda does disagree, but the mishna does not teach his opinion. Here too, with regard to selling the fetus, he disagrees, but the mishna does not teach his opinion.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讬诇讚讛 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜讜讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 拽讜谞住讬诐 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that in the case of one who receives an animal from a gentile in order to care for it and receives some of the offspring in exchange for his work, and it gave birth to a firstborn, they assess its value, and the Jew gives half of its value to the priest to redeem his portion, which is sanctified by the firstborn status. And in the case of one who gives the gentile an animal in receivership even though he is not permitted to do so, the Sages penalize him by requiring that he purchase the gentile鈥檚 portion of the animal for up to ten times its value, and he gives all of its value to the priest.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗注讜讘专 诇讗 讗讘讛诪讛

What, is it not referring to the fetus when the baraita states that he is not permitted to sell it? The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to the animal itself that he may not sell to the gentile, and that is why he is penalized.

讜讛讗 讚诪讬讜 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讚诪讬讛 讜讛讗 谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讻讛谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 诪注讘专转讗 诇驻讟讜诪讛 讚诪讬讙讜 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讘讛诪讛 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗注讜讘专

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: The Sages penalize him up to ten times its value [damav], in masculine form, indicating that it is referring to the fetus and not the mother? The Gemara responds: Teach the following wording in the baraita: The Sages penalize him up to ten times its value [dameha], in feminine form. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 it teach: He gives all of its value to the priest? And if it is referring to the animal and not the firstborn, what is the relevance of the priest? The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the Jew gave the gentile a pregnant animal to fatten it in order to divide the profits as well as the offspring. Since we penalize him for selling the animal in a prohibited manner, we penalize him with regard to the fetus as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讛讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讗住专 讜讛讗 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 讻讬讻讜诇 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讚诪讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi says: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale to a gentile of a damaged animal permitted, because it is incapable of being cured. This statement indicates that if it is capable of being cured, Rabbi Yehuda deems its sale prohibited. And a fetus is also similar to one who is able to be cured, as it ultimately will be capable of working. Learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale of a fetus to a gentile prohibited.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛

And there are those who teach this discussion as referring to the statement in the mishna: With regard to one who sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile, although he is not permitted to sell a large animal to a gentile, it is exempt from the obligations of firstborn status. The discussion then proceeded as follows: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Avoda Zara 14b): Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale of a damaged animal permitted because it is incapable of performing labor. The halakha is presumably the same with regard to a fetus, which is also not capable of performing labor.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讘讜专讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 注讜讘专 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛

The Gemara responds: You may even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is permitted to sell a damaged animal because that is not its natural state; it is defective and is therefore not included in the prohibition against selling large livestock. But with regard to a fetus, since it is in its natural state, and will become capable of working after growing up, perhaps it is not considered damaged, as it is not defective.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讬诇讚讛 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗注讜讘专 诇讗 讗讘讛诪讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that in the case of one who receives an animal from a gentile to care for and receives a portion of the offspring in exchange for his work, and it gave birth to a firstborn, they assess its value, and the Jew gives half of its value to the priest to redeem his portion, which is sanctified by the firstborn status. And in the case of one who gives the gentile an animal in receivership even though he is not permitted to do so, the Sages penalize him by requiring that he purchase the gentile鈥檚 portion of the animal for up to ten times its value, and he gives all of its value to the priest. What, is it not referring to the fetus when the baraita states that he is not permitted to sell it? The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to the animal itself that he may not sell to the gentile, and that is why he is penalized.

讜讛讗 讚诪讬讜 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讚诪讬讛 讜讛讗 谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讻讛谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讘讛诪讛 诪注讘专转讗 诇驻讟讜诪讛 讚诪讬讙讜 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讘讛诪讛 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗注讜讘专

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: The Sages penalize him up to ten times its value [damav], in masculine form, indicating that it is referring to the fetus and not the mother? The Gemara responds: Teach the following wording in the baraita: The Sages penalize him up to ten times its value [dameha], in feminine form. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 it teach: He gives all of its value to the priest? And if it is referring to the animal and not the firstborn, what is the relevance of the priest? The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the Jew gave the gentile a pregnant animal to fatten it in order to divide the profits as well as the offspring. Since we penalize him for selling the animal in a prohibited manner, we penalize him with regard to the fetus as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讛讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讗住讜专 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讻讜诇 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讚诪讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi says: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale to a gentile of a damaged animal permitted, because it is incapable of being cured. This statement indicates that if it is capable of being cured, Rabbi Yehuda deems its sale prohibited. And this fetus is also similar to one who is able to be cured, as it ultimately will be capable of working. Learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale of a fetus to a gentile prohibited.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讻专 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages concerning the prohibition against selling large livestock to a gentile: In the case of a Jew who sold an animal to a gentile only with regard to rights to its fetuses, but retained ownership of the animal itself, what is the halakha concerning the permissibility of the sale? The Gemara clarifies: Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits the sale of a damaged animal, and let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute that ruling.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 砖专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜专讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讗讘诇 砖诇诪讛 讚讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讗住专

The Gemara elaborates: Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as follows: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda permits only the sale of a damaged animal, as people will not come to confuse this animal with a healthy animal, which is prohibited for sale to a gentile, as they are visibly different. But in the case of one who sells an unblemished animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses, which people may come to confuse with the case of selling the animal entirely and consider that sale permitted as well, Rabbi Yehuda deems the sale prohibited.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讜诪讛 砖讘讜专讛 讚驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇诪讛 讚诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛

Or perhaps Rabbi Yehuda would claim that in the case of a damaged animal, which is separated from him in its entirety in the sale, the sale is permitted, and all the more so with regard to the sale of an unblemished animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses, where the animal is not entirely separated from him, as he did not sell the actual animal, the sale is permitted.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗住专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜专讛 讚驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 砖诇诪讛 讚诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖专讜

Likewise, the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis: Perhaps the Rabbis deemed the sale prohibited only in a case of a damaged animal, as the animal is separated from him. But in the case of an unblemished animal that is sold only with regard to the fetuses, where it is not separated from him, and there is no concern that people will mistakenly sell the entire animal to a gentile, they deem the sale permitted.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讜诪讛 砖讘讜专讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讗住专讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇诪讛 讚讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬

Or perhaps the Rabbis would claim that in the case of a damaged animal, which people will not come to confuse with the case of an unblemished animal, the Rabbis deem the sale prohibited, and all the more so they would prohibit selling an unblemished animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses, which people may come to confuse with the case of selling an unblemished animal in its entirety.

讜讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讗诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 注讜讘专讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And is the reason of the opinion of the Rabbis due to that concern that people may confuse the sale of a damaged animal with the sale of an unblemished animal in its entirety? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But why do you hold that is it permitted to sell a damaged animal? Don鈥檛 they breed it with another animal, and it gives birth to offspring, which will then be owned by a gentile? Apparently, the reason the Rabbis prohibit the sale is due to the animal鈥檚 fetuses. If so, they should prohibit selling large livestock to a gentile with regard to the fetuses as well.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 讗转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讬转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讻诪讗谉 讚讝讘谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: This is not truly the Rabbis鈥 opinion. Rather, this is what they were saying to Rabbi Yehuda: Our reason for prohibiting the sale of a damaged animal is because people might come to confuse this case with the sale of an unblemished animal. But you, what is the reason that you permit selling a damaged animal? It is because the animal is incapable of being cured, and you therefore consider it similar to one who sold an animal explicitly for slaughter, which is permitted.

讜讛诇讗 诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪专讘讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 诪砖讛讗 诇讛

But actually it is not similar to that case, as don鈥檛 they breed a damaged animal with another animal, and it gives birth? And since they breed it and it gives birth, the gentile will delay its slaughter. Others may then mistakenly believe that selling large livestock for purposes other than slaughter is permitted.

讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讻砖转诇讚 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇转 讝讻专

And Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis in response: When a damaged animal actually gives birth, I will concern myself with this possibility. Practically, this concern may be disregarded, as such an animal cannot breed with a male. In any event, no proof may be brought from this baraita concerning the opinion of the Rabbis concerning selling an animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讛谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘拽讘诇讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna, where it states: And in the case of one who gives his donkey to a gentile in receivership, meaning that he divides the offspring with him in exchange for caring for the animal, the donkey is exempt from the obligations of firstborn status. This case is identical to that of selling an animal with regard to the rights to its fetuses, and the mishna does not teach: Although he is not permitted to do so. Apparently such a sale is permitted.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛诪砖转转祝 诇讜 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚专砖讗讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬注砖讛 砖讜转驻讜转 注诐 讛讙讜讬 砖诪讗 讬转讞讬讬讘 诇讜 砖讘讜注讛 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讘砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讗 讬砖诪注 注诇 驻讬讱

The Gemara responds: But according to your reasoning, with regard to that which the mishna states: One who enters into a partnership with a gentile, where it also does not teach: Although he is not permitted to do so, so too, should it be derived that it is permitted to enter into such a partnership? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel鈥檚 father say: It is prohibited for a person to enter into a partnership with a gentile lest their joint ventures lead them to quarrel and his gentile partner will be obligated to take an oath to him and he will take an oath in the name of his object of idol worship; and the Torah states: 鈥淣either let it be heard out of your mouth鈥 (Exodus 23:13), which includes causing a gentile to take an oath in the name of an idol.

讗诇讗 转谞讗 诪讻讬专讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇砖讜转驻讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 转谞讗 诪讻讬专讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇拽讘诇谞讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻讬专讛 讚谞拽讟 讚注讬拽专 诪讻讬专讛 讛讬讗

Rather, the tanna taught that a sale to a gentile is not permitted, and the same is true for the case of a partnership. So too, the tanna taught that a sale to a gentile is prohibited, and the same is true for a case of receivership. The Gemara asks: And what is different about the case of selling that the tanna cited the prohibition specifically in that case? The Gemara answers that the primary prohibition is that of selling the animal to a gentile.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讬诇讚讛 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜讜讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉 讜讛谞讜转谉 讘拽讘诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讻诇 讚诪讬讜 诇讻讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma of whether selling an animal to a gentile with regard to the rights to its fetuses is permitted from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that in the case of one who receives an animal from a gentile to care for and receives a portion of the offspring in exchange for his work, and it gave birth to a firstborn, they assess its value, and the Jew gives half of its value to the priest to redeem his portion, which is considered to have the sanctity of a firstborn. And in the case of one who gives the gentile an animal in receivership even though he is not permitted to do so, the Sages penalize him by requiring that he purchase the gentile鈥檚 portion of the animal for up to ten times its value, and he gives all of its value to the priest.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讚 讛讙讜讬 讘讗诪爪注 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛

And the Rabbis say: As long as the ownership of the gentile is involved, in that he possesses at least partial ownership of the mother or the fetus, the animal is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn.

Scroll To Top