Bechorot Daf 3 (בכורות דף ג׳)
Daf: 3 | Amudim: 3a – 3b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (3a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
The 2b question closes: the baraita speaks of an animal already pregnant.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי לָאו אַבְּהֵמָה? לָא, אַעוּבָּר.
English Translation:
What, is the baraita not referring to the animal when it prohibits giving it in receivership? If so, the baraita prohibits giving it to the gentile in exchange for half the rights to future fetuses, and certainly giving the gentile rights to all the future fetuses would be forbidden. The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to a case of an existing fetus, as the animal is pregnant, and therefore it is prohibited to sell it. It is permitted to sell to a gentile an animal that is not yet pregnant, for the rights to the fetuses alone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma of מָכַר בְּהֵמָה לְעוּבָּרֶיהָ is resolved by narrowing the baraita’s case. What it forbids is giving over an animal that is already carrying, where a fetus exists to be sold; it says nothing about an animal not yet pregnant, whose future offspring remain a thing not yet come into the world. The permission that daf 2 could not establish is therefore left standing, not by proof but by removing the source that seemed to deny it.
Key Terms:
- אַעוּבָּר = concerning the fetus — an existing one, the animal being pregnant
- בְּקַבָּלָה = in receivership — entrusting an animal for a share of its young
Segment 2
TYPE: ראיה
The masculine דָּמָיו confirms the reading and supports Reish Lakish.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי: קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַד עֲשָׂרָה בְּדָמָיו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: 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 affirms: Learn from it that this is correct, and it cannot be proven from the baraita that it is forbidden to sell rights to a future fetus to a gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The grammatical point that was a difficulty on 2b now becomes a proof. דָּמָיו is masculine and so refers to the עוּבָּר rather than the בְּהֵמָה, which fits the reading just given and is offered as דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, the language is precise. The same clause then does a second job: its figure of ten times the value will anchor Reish Lakish’s ruling in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- דַּיְקָא נָמֵי = the language is also precise — corroboration from wording
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = conclude from it
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Reish Lakish: one who sells large livestock to a gentile is penalised tenfold.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמּוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה לְגוֹי — קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַד עֲשָׂרָה בְּדָמֶיהָ.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments that the language of the baraita: The Sages penalize him up to ten times its value, supports the opinion of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish says: In the case of one who sells large livestock to a gentile, the Sages penalize him, requiring him to repurchase it from the gentile for up to ten times its value.
קלאוד על הדף:
The penalty is not a fine paid to a court but a forced undoing of the sale: the seller must buy the animal back, and the Sages authorise the gentile to hold out for up to ten times what he paid. The sanction is therefore proportioned to the difficulty of recovery rather than to the offence, and its aim is that the animal return to a Jewish owner and its Shabbat rest with it.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה = large livestock — as against small animals
- קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַד עֲשָׂרָה בְּדָמֶיהָ = they penalise him up to ten times its value
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Is ten precise? The slave sold to a gentile costs a hundred, for a stated reason.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּוְקָא אוֹ לָאו דַּוְקָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְגוֹי — קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַד מֵאָה בְּדָמָיו! שָׁאנֵי עֶבֶד, דְּכׇל יוֹמָא וְיוֹמָא מַפְקַע לֵיהּ מִמִּצְוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Does the phrase: For up to ten times its value, mean specifically this amount and no more, or does it not mean specifically this amount? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In the case of one who sells his Canaanite slave to a gentile, the Sages penalize him, requiring him to repurchase the slave from the gentile for up to one hundred times its value. It is therefore evident that the phrase: For up to ten times its value, is not precise. The Gemara responds: A slave is different, as each day that he works for the gentile, the gentile restricts him from performing mitzvot. Therefore, one who sells a slave is penalized more severely than one who sells his animal to a gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s figure of a hundred for a slave appears to show that these numbers are rhetorical rather than exact. The answer keeps both figures and explains the gap: a slave is different because כׇּל יוֹמָא וְיוֹמָא מַפְקַע לֵיהּ מִמִּצְוֹת, every single day in the gentile’s hands deprives him of mitzvot he is obligated in. The loss is recurring and personal, so the ransom the Sages will underwrite is correspondingly higher.
Key Terms:
- דַּוְקָא אוֹ לָאו דַּוְקָא = is it precise or not precise
- מַפְקַע לֵיהּ מִמִּצְוֹת = it removes him from mitzvot
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
An אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי reverses the figures: a hundred for livestock.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמּוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה לְגוֹי — קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַד מֵאָה בְּדָמֶיהָ. תְּנַן: וְהַנּוֹתֵן לוֹ בְּקַבָּלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי — קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַד עֲשָׂרָה בְּדָמֶיהָ!
English Translation:
And there are those who say that there is another version of the previous discussion: Reish Lakish says that in the case of one who sells large livestock to a gentile, the Sages penalize him, requiring him to repurchase it from the gentile for up to one hundred times its value. We learned in a baraita: 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’s portion of the animal for up to ten times its value. This contradicts the statement of Reish Lakish.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second transmission has Reish Lakish setting the livestock penalty at a hundred, which immediately collides with the baraita’s ten for receivership. The objection is genuine, and the answer distinguishes the two transactions rather than the two numbers — a point about how far the animal has gone from its owner’s hands. Note that this is the second consecutive daf on which the Gemara preserves two versions of one discussion.
Key Terms:
- וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי = and there are those who say — an alternative recension
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
A sale severs the animal entirely; receivership does not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְכִירָה — פָּסְקָה מִינֵּיהּ, קַבְּלָנוּת — לָא פָּסְקָה מִינֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The penalties in these two cases are not the same, as in a case of a sale, the animal is entirely separated from the Jew, while in the case of receivership, it is not entirely separated from him, as the animal still belongs to the Jew. Therefore, the penalty in this case is not as severe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The distinction is one of degree of loss. מְכִירָה פָּסְקָה מִינֵּיהּ — in a sale the animal is cut off from its owner completely and its recovery is genuinely doubtful, so the Sages will underwrite a hundredfold ransom. In receivership the beast remains his and only a share in the young has passed, so a tenfold penalty suffices. The same axis of פְּסַקָה מִינֵּיהּ that structured daf 2’s unresolved dilemma reappears here doing quieter work.
Key Terms:
- פָּסְקָה מִינֵּיהּ = it is severed from him
- קַבְּלָנוּת = receivership — the arrangement short of sale
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Is a hundred precise? Now the slave figure is ten, answered differently.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּוְקָא אוֹ לָאו דַּוְקָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְגוֹי — קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַד עֲשָׂרָה בְּדָמָיו! שָׁאנֵי עֶבֶד, דְּלָא הָדַר לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Does the amount of one hundred times its value stated by Reish Lakish mean specifically this amount and no more, or does it not mean specifically this amount? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In the case of one who sells his Canaanite slave to a gentile, the Sages penalize him, requiring him to repurchase the slave from the gentile for up to ten times its value. Apparently, the number one hundred is not meant literally. The Gemara responds: A slave is different, since the Sages already penalized the owner in that the slave does not return to him. Since the slave will be emancipated once the master redeems him, it may be that the Sages would not penalize him to such a great extent.
קלאוד על הדף:
In this recension the numbers are swapped, so the challenge comes from the other direction: the slave costs only ten, which would make a hundred for an animal implausible. The answer inverts the earlier reasoning — שָׁאנֵי עֶבֶד דְּלָא הָדַר לֵיהּ, a slave does not come back to his master, since redemption sets him free. The owner has already suffered the loss of the man himself, so the Sages do not compound it.
Key Terms:
- דְּלָא הָדַר לֵיהּ = that he does not return to him — the redeemed slave goes free
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
That answer is pressed, and a principle of rabbinic legislation emerges.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּהֵמָה מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא הָדְרָא לֵיהּ, נִיקְנְסֵיהּ טְפֵי חַד! אֶלָּא, עֶבֶד — מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא הִיא, וְכׇל מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא לָא גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: Rather, what is the reason that he is penalized in the case of an animal more so than in the case of a slave? Is it because of the fact that it returns to him? If so, he should be penalized only one additional amount. If the difference is that an animal returns to its owners and a slave does not, then the difference in penalties should be reflective of this, and he should have to purchase the animal for no more than eleven times its value. Rather, the Gemara offers a different distinction: The sale of a slave is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not issue a decree with regard to an uncommon matter. Therefore, one cannot compare the penalty in the case of selling a slave to the penalty in the case of selling an animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
If recovery of the animal were the whole difference, the penalties should differ by a single notch — נִיקְנְסֵיהּ טְפֵי חַד, eleven rather than a hundred. The objection is arithmetical and decisive, and it forces a better distinction: selling a slave is מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא, an uncommon occurrence, וְכׇל מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא לָא גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן. The Sages legislate against what actually happens, so the two cases were never calibrated against each other at all.
Key Terms:
- נִיקְנְסֵיהּ טְפֵי חַד = let us penalise him one more
- מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא = an uncommon matter
- לָא גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן = the Sages did not decree concerning it
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehoshua: both sides expound the same verse, כׇּל בְּכוֹר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיַּד הַגּוֹי כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״כׇּל בְּכוֹר״.
English Translation:
§ A previously cited baraita (2b) states that if one receives an animal from a gentile to care for and receives a portion of the offspring in exchange, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Jew’s portion is sanctified with firstborn status. And the Rabbis say that as long as the ownership of the gentile is involved, i.e., he owns a portion of the firstborn animal, it does not have firstborn status. Rabbi Yehoshua said: And both of them interpreted the same one verse in accordance with their opinions. The verse states: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb, among the children of Israel” (Exodus 13:2).
קלאוד על הדף:
The dispute reported on 2b is now given its scriptural footing, and the striking claim is that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis are not reading different verses but the same three words of Shemot 13:2. That a single phrase can be made to yield opposite rules is not presented as a scandal but as an ordinary feature of derashah, and the next segment shows exactly how the mechanism works.
Key Terms:
- וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ = and both of them expounded one verse
- כׇּל בְּכוֹר = all the firstborn (Shemot 13:2)
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The mechanism: each side assumes a different default for the bare word בְּכוֹר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״בְּכוֹר״ — מִקְצָת בְּכוֹר מַשְׁמַע, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל״ — עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״בְּכוֹר״ — כּוּלֵּיהּ בְּכוֹר מַשְׁמַע, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל״ — דַּאֲפִילּוּ כׇּל דְּהוּא.
English Translation:
The Rabbis hold that the words “the firstborn, whatever opens the womb, among the children of Israel” indicate that even when a Jew owns part of the firstborn, it is subject to the obligations of firstborn status. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: “All the firstborn,” which teaches that it is not subject to the obligations of firstborn status unless the entire animal is owned by a Jew. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the words “the firstborn, whatever opens the womb, among the children of Israel” indicate that only if the entire firstborn is owned by a Jew would it be subject to the obligations of firstborn status. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote the word “all” to demonstrate that even if any amount of the animal belongs to a Jew, it has firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
Everything turns on what בְּכוֹר would have meant standing alone. The Rabbis take it to have included a partly owned firstborn, so כׇּל tightens it — עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ, only when the whole is his. Rabbi Yehuda takes it to have required the whole, so כׇּל loosens it — דַּאֲפִילּוּ כׇּל דְּהוּא, even any share at all. The same word narrows for one and widens for the other, because each is correcting a different assumed baseline.
Key Terms:
- מִקְצָת בְּכוֹר = a partial firstborn
- עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ = until the whole of it is present
- אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל דְּהוּא = even any amount whatsoever
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
An alternative: both read בְּכוֹר as a majority, and divide over כׇּל.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״בְּכוֹר״ רוּבָּא מַשְׁמַע, מָר סָבַר: ״כׇּל״ מַשְׁמַע לְמַלּוֹיֵי אֲתָא, וּמָר סָבַר: לְגָרוֹעֵי אֲתָא.
English Translation:
If you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the words “the firstborn, whatever opens the womb, among the children of Israel” indicate that if the majority of the animal belongs to the Jew, it is subject to the obligations of firstborn status. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that the word “all” indicates that it comes to fill the Jewish portion of ownership, meaning that it has firstborn status only if the entire animal belongs to a Jew. And one Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the word “all” comes to detract from the necessary Jewish ownership, indicating that the animal has firstborn status even if it is partially owned by a Jew.
קלאוד על הדף:
The אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא supplies a common baseline and relocates the dispute entirely into the added word. If בְּכוֹר already denotes majority ownership, then כׇּל either comes לְמַלּוֹיֵי, to fill the measure up to the whole, or לְגָרוֹעֵי, to detract from it and admit any fraction. The two readings of one particle are exact opposites, which is the point: an inclusive word can enlarge or restrict depending on what it is thought to be acting upon.
Key Terms:
- לְמַלּוֹיֵי = to fill up — to raise the requirement to the whole
- לְגָרוֹעֵי = to detract — to lower the requirement to any share
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Huna: even the gentile’s ownership of its ear suffices; Rav Nachman objects.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה תְּהֵא שׁוּתָּפוּת שֶׁל גּוֹי, וּתְהֵא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֲפִילּוּ אׇזְנוֹ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״שְׁקֵיל אׇזְנָךְ וְזִיל״!
English Translation:
§ The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, how much should the gentile’s partnership in the animal be in order for it to be exempt from being counted a firstborn? Rav Huna says: It is sufficient even if the gentile owns only its ear. Rav Naḥman objects to this: Let the animal have firstborn status, and let the priest say to the gentile: Take your ear and go, as a blemished firstborn animal belongs to the priesthood.
קלאוד על הדף:
With the Rabbis’ view settled, the practical question is how small a share will do, and Rav Huna sets the threshold as low as it can go. Rav Nachman’s objection is sharp: a firstborn with a blemish belongs to the kohen in any case, so the kohen could simply tell the gentile שְׁקֵיל אׇזְנָךְ וְזִיל, take your ear and go, losing nothing. If the gentile’s share can be excised at no cost, it is hard to see how it prevents the sanctity from attaching.
Key Terms:
- שְׁקֵיל אׇזְנָךְ וְזִיל = take your ear and go
- שׁוּתָּפוּת = partnership, a share in ownership
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Chisda and Rava set the threshold at a vital organ — nevelah or tereifa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר, רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ נְבֵלָה, וְרָבָא אָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ טְרֵיפָה.
English Translation:
It was stated that the amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning this question: Rav Ḥisda says that if the gentile is a partner in an item, i.e., a part of the body, that renders the animal a carcass, meaning if that limb were removed the animal would die immediately, the animal is exempt from the obligations of firstborn status. And Rava says it is exempt if the gentile is a partner in an item that if removed renders the animal a tereifa, meaning the animal will die but not immediately.
קלאוד על הדף:
Both amoraim require the gentile’s share to lie in something the animal cannot spare, and they differ only over how vital. Rav Chisda demands a part whose removal makes it a נְבֵלָה, killing it at once; Rava is satisfied with one that makes it a טְרֵיפָה, fatally compromised though not immediately dead. Either way the share must be structural rather than cosmetic, which answers Rav Nachman’s objection by making excision impossible.
Key Terms:
- נְבֵלָה = a carcass — an animal that dies from the injury
- טְרֵיפָה = fatally damaged, though not dead at once
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Their dispute reduces to whether a tereifa can survive.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בִּטְרֵיפָה חַיָּה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ טְרֵיפָה — קָסָבַר טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ נְבֵלָה — אֲבָל טְרֵיפָה חַיָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers that they disagree about whether a tereifa can live for an extended period of time. According to the one who says that a gentile’s partnership in an item that renders the animal a tereifa exempts him from the obligations of firstborn status, it is because he holds that a tereifa cannot live, and therefore the gentile owns an essential portion of the animal. And according to the one who says that the gentile must be a partner in an item that renders the animal a carcass, this is because he holds that it cannot live without this part, but a tereifa can live for an extended period of time without those missing limbs.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara traces the difference to an older question, טְרֵיפָה חַיָּה. Rava requires only a tereifa-making share because he holds a tereifa cannot live, so such a part is as vital as one whose loss kills outright. Rav Chisda demands more because on his view a tereifa does survive for a time, and a part the animal can live without is not essential enough to carry the gentile’s stake.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵיפָה חַיָּה = whether a tereifa can live — a standing dispute
- בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי = concerning what do they disagree
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
A proposed harmonisation: Rav Huna speaks of the fetus, the others of the mother.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, וְרַב חִסְדָּא וְרָבָא — לָא פְּלִיגִי, הָא בּוֹ, הָא בְּאִמּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Sages said before Rav Pappa: That which Rav Huna said, that even if the gentile’s share of the animal is only its ear it does not have firstborn status, and that which Rav Ḥisda and Rava said, that the animal does not have firstborn status only if the gentile is a partner in the primary limbs of the body on which its life is dependent, do not disagree. This ruling of Rav Huna is referring to it, i.e., the fetus, while that ruling of Rav Ḥisda and Rava is referring to its mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages before Rav Pappa try to dissolve the dispute by assigning each view its own subject — the ear standard governing a share in the newborn itself, the vital-organ standard governing a share in the mother. It is an attractive move, since it would leave all three amoraim correct, and the objection that follows is what gives the sugya its edge.
Key Terms:
- הָא בּוֹ הָא בְּאִמּוֹ = this concerns it, that concerns its mother
Segment 16
TYPE: דחייה
Rav Pappa rejects it: the mother is governed by כׇּל מִקְנְךָ, which equally requires all.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי שְׁנָא בּוֹ, דְּבָעֵינַן ״כׇּל בְּכוֹר״ וְלֵיכָּא? אִמּוֹ נָמֵי בָּעֵינַן ״כׇּל מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר״ וְלֵיכָּא! אֶלָּא, לָא שְׁנָא.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said to them: What is different about the case of the fetus, where owning a portion of its ear exempts the Jew from the obligations of firstborn status? It is because we require the fulfillment of the verse “all the firstborn,” i.e., that all of it be owned by the Jew, and that is not the case. If so, with regard to its mother as well we require the fulfillment of the verse: “From all your livestock you shall take the males” (Exodus 34:19), which also indicates that all the livestock, including the mother, must belong to the Jew, and this is not the case. Rather, there is no difference, and they disagree both in the case of the fetus and in that of the mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The harmonisation assumed that only the fetus is subject to a demand of wholeness. Rav Pappa points to כׇּל מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר, which imposes the identical requirement on the mother, so the reasoning that exempts on a shared ear applies to both equally. לָא שְׁנָא — there is no difference between the cases, and the three amoraim are in genuine disagreement rather than speaking past one another.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר = all your livestock, the males (Shemot 34:19)
- לָא שְׁנָא = there is no difference
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Mar bar Rav Ashi: stillborn firstborns are holy, though not viable.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא מִנְּפָלִים, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָאו בְּנֵי חִיּוּתָא נִינְהוּ קָדְשִׁי, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״פֶּטֶר שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה״ — שֶׁגֶר בִּבְהֵמָה!
English Translation:
Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: Why does gentile partnership in an essential limb of the fetus exempt the Jew from the obligations of firstborn status? In what way is this animal different from non-viable newborns, which are sacred even though they are not viable? As the Master said in reference to the verse: “Every firstborn that emerges from [sheger] an animal” (Exodus 13:12), any fetus that dwells [shegar] inside an animal, i.e., inside the mother’s womb, even one that is non-viable, is also sanctified as a firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection tests whether viability is really what the exemption tracks. נְפָלִים are sanctified as firstborn despite being incapable of life, on the reading of פֶּטֶר שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה as שֶׁגֶר בִּבְהֵמָה, whatever was carried within the animal. If holiness does not require a viable creature, it is unclear why a gentile’s share in a vital organ should prevent it.
Key Terms:
- נְפָלִים = non-viable newborns
- פֶּטֶר שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה = the firstling issue of an animal (Shemot 13:12)
- בְּנֵי חִיּוּתָא = viable, capable of life
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer: a stillborn is wholly Jewish-owned; a shared animal has חוּלִּין mixed in.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא עָרִיבוּ בְּהוּ חוּלִּין — קָרֵינָא בְּהוּ בִּבְהֵמָה ״כָּל בְּכוֹר״, הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּעָרִיבוּ בְּהוּ חוּלִּין — לָא קָרֵינָא בְּהוּ ״כׇּל בְּכוֹר״.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: There, in the case of non-viable newborns, since there is no non-sacred element mixed in with them, we apply to the animal the phrase “all the firstborn.” But here, in the case where a gentile owns a portion of the fetuses, since a non-sacred element is mixed in with them, we do not apply to them the phrase: “all the firstborn.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The two cases fail different tests. A non-viable newborn is defective but entirely its owner’s, so כׇּל בְּכוֹר can be said of it without strain. A partly gentile-owned animal may be perfectly healthy and still cannot be so described, because עָרִיבוּ בְּהוּ חוּלִּין, non-sacred ownership is mixed into it. Viability was never the criterion; undivided possession is.
Key Terms:
- עָרִיבוּ בְּהוּ חוּלִּין = non-sacred matter is mixed into them
- לָא קָרֵינָא בְּהוּ = we do not apply to them the phrase
Segment 19
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Elazar missed the study hall and asks Rabbi Asi what was said; the answer runs into 3b.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָא עַל לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַסִּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ:
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that one day Rabbi Elazar did not enter the study hall. Rabbi Elazar then found Rabbi Asi, and said to him: What did the Sages say in the study hall? Rabbi Asi said to him:
קלאוד על הדף:
The narrative frame is slight but it does real work, marking what follows as a report of the beit midrash’s own conclusion rather than a fresh argument. Rabbi Elazar’s question — מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא — is the ordinary question of a man who has missed a session, and the reply, carrying Rabbi Yochanan’s two rulings, begins at the head of the next amud.
Key Terms:
- בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא = the study hall
- מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן = what did the Sages say
Amud Bet (3b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Asi reports both of Rabbi Yochanan’s rulings: a slight blemish suffices, and the cross-species birth is permanently blemished.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ מוּם קַל. וְהָדִתְנַן: רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז וְעֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיָּיב. מוּם קָבוּעַ הָוֵי לִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו.
English Translation:
This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if only a slight blemish would result from the removal of the portion of the animal owned by the gentile, the animal still does not have firstborn status. And in addition, Rabbi Yoḥanan also commented on that which we learned in a mishna (16b): A ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. And if the offspring has some of the characteristics of its mother, it is obligated, i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status. Rabbi Yoḥanan commented: Nevertheless, it may not be sacrificed on the altar because this is a permanent blemish. Therefore, a priest is permitted to slaughter it outside of the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Asi’s report answers 3a’s question at the low end — אֲפִילּוּ מוּם קַל, even a slight blemish resulting from removal of the gentile’s share is enough to exempt. A second ruling is attached, on the mishna of 16b: an animal born to a mother of another species yet carrying מִקְצָת סִימָנִין, some of her characteristics, is obligated in bechora, but its very strangeness is a מוּם קָבוּעַ, so it may be slaughtered rather than offered. The rest of the amud tests whether that second ruling adds anything the mishnayot do not already say.
Key Terms:
- מוּם קַל = a slight blemish
- מוּם קָבוּעַ = a permanent blemish — one that permits slaughter
- מִקְצָת סִימָנִין = some of the characteristics — of the mother’s species
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
The first ruling is granted as novel: it sides with Rav Huna against Rav Chisda and Rava.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא מוּם קַל — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְרַב הוּנָא, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְרָבָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s first statement that the animal does not have firstborn status even if it has a slight blemish is necessary, as he teaches us that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, who said previously (2b) that even if the gentile owns only the ear of the firstborn it does not have firstborn status, and his statement is to the exclusion of the opinions of Rav Ḥisda and Rava, who said the gentile must own a portion of the fetus that would render it a carcass or a tereifa if it were removed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concedes that the first statement earns its place, since it takes a side in the dispute just recorded on 3a. Rabbi Yochanan sets the threshold where Rav Huna set it — a share small enough that its removal leaves only a slight blemish — and so rules against Rav Chisda’s nevelah standard and Rava’s tereifa standard. The second statement is another matter.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted — conceding one point before pressing another
- לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּ = to exclude the view of
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
What does the second ruling teach? The pig-like mouth already establishes that deviation is a blemish.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מוּם קָבוּעַ — מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי הָוֵה לֵיהּ מוּמָא? תְּנֵינָא: וּפִיו דּוֹמֶה כְּשֶׁל חֲזִיר — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם!
English Translation:
But with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s second statement that a goat of sorts that was born to a ewe but has some characteristics of the mother is considered to have a permanent blemish, what is it teaching us? Is it teaching that since it looks different from the normal appearance of a sheep this appearance is considered a blemish? We already learned this in the mishna (40a): Or with regard to a lamb whose mouth is similar to that of a pig, that is a blemish that enables slaughter of the firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the point is merely that an altered appearance constitutes a blemish, the mishna at 40a has said so: a lamb whose mouth resembles a pig’s is blemished. The Gemara’s working premise is that an amora does not restate what a mishna already holds, so Rabbi Yochanan must be adding something — and each candidate novelty will now be tested against an existing source until one survives or none does.
Key Terms:
- תְּנֵינָא = we have already learned it
- דְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי הָוֵה לֵיהּ מוּמָא = since it has changed, it is a blemish
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
A proposed distinction, refuted from the mishna of the mismatched eyes.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָתָם נִשְׁתַּנָּה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, הָכָא נִשְׁתַּנָּה בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: עֵינוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה.
English Translation:
And if you would say that there, where the animal’s mouth is similar to that of a pig, its appearance was altered into a being in whose species there is no sanctity of the firstborn, while here, where it looks like a goat, its appearance was altered into a being in whose species there is sanctity of the firstborn, and Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that this animal too is considered to be blemished, we already learned this, too, in the subsequent mishna (40b): An animal with one of its eyes large and one small is also considered blemished.
קלאוד על הדף:
One might rescue the novelty by distinguishing the pig’s mouth, a change toward a species that has no firstborn sanctity, from our case, a change toward a species that does. The distinction is plausible but the mishna of 40b forecloses it: an animal with one eye large and one small is blemished, and that is a deviation entirely within the ordinary range of kosher animals.
Key Terms:
- אֵין בְּמִינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה = its species has no firstborn sanctity
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
The tanna’s gloss sharpens the proof: an eye large as a calf’s, small as a goose’s.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַנָּא גְּדוֹלָה — גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל, וּקְטַנָּה — קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז. בִּשְׁלָמָא קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז, אֵין בְּמִינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, אֶלָּא גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל — יֵשׁ בְּמִינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה! אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי הָוֵה לֵיהּ מוּמָא?
English Translation:
And a tanna taught in explanation of the mishna: A large eye is referring to one as large as that of a calf, and a small eye is referring to one as small as that of a goose. Granted, in the case of an eye as small as that of a goose the reason it is considered a blemish is that there is no sanctity of the firstborn among its species, i.e., that of a bird. But in the case of an eye that is as large as that of a calf there is sanctity of a firstborn among its species. Rather, is it not considered blemished because we say that since it has changed from the appearance of a sheep it is considered a blemish? Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement has still not introduced any novelty.
קלאוד על הדף:
The measures decide the argument. A goose-sized eye is a shift toward a species with no firstborn sanctity and so proves nothing; but a calf-sized eye is a shift toward a species that has it, which is precisely the case Rabbi Yochanan is supposed to be teaching. If the mishna already counts that as a blemish, his second ruling adds nothing.
Key Terms:
- גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל = large as a calf’s
- קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז = small as a goose’s
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
The calf-sized eye is a blemish as שָׂרוּעַ, an oversized limb; supported from the mishnayot of 43a and 44a.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ ״שָׂרוּעַ״. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּתְנַן: מוּמִין אֵלּוּ, בֵּין קְבוּעִין בֵּין עוֹבְרִין — פּוֹסְלִין. יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אָדָם: עֵינָיו שְׁתֵּיהֶן גְּדוֹלוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְטַנּוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, an eye as large as that of a calf is considered a blemish because the animal is one that has a limb that is too large [sarua], which is listed in the Torah as one of the blemished animals (see Leviticus 22:23). The Gemara comments: This, too, stands to reason, as we learned in a mishna (43a): Concerning these blemishes that were taught with regard to an animal, whether they are permanent or transient, they also disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service. And the subsequent mishna (44a) adds: Beyond those are additional blemishes that apply exclusively to a person, i.e., a priest: If both of his eyes are large, or both of them are small.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof is deflected by reclassifying the case. A calf-sized eye disqualifies not because the animal looks unlike a sheep but because it is שָׂרוּעַ, possessed of a limb too large, an independent Torah category at Vayikra 22:23. The support is indirect and elegant: the mishna of 43a rules that the animal blemishes disqualify a kohen too, yet 44a lists two large or two small eyes among the disqualifications of a person alone — which suggests the animal’s disqualification never rested on strangeness of appearance in the first place.
Key Terms:
- שָׂרוּעַ = having a limb too large (Vayikra 22:23)
Segment 7
TYPE: דרשה
The kohen’s stricter standard is derived from אִישׁ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גַּבֵּי אָדָם הוּא דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן״, דְּבָעֵינַן אִישׁ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה, שְׁתֵּיהֶן גְּדוֹלוֹת שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְטַנּוֹת — נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא.
English Translation:
The reason for the latter halakha is that it is with regard to a person that it is written: “Any man from the offspring of Aaron” (Leviticus 22:4), which indicates that we require a man who is equal to the seed of Aaron, i.e., he has an ordinary appearance like other priests; but with regard to an animal, if both eyes are big or both eyes are small, it is also not a blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
The asymmetry is grounded in a verse about the priesthood rather than about blemishes. אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן is read as requiring one who is שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, equal to Aharon’s seed — of ordinary appearance among his fellow kohanim. A man may therefore be disqualified by a feature unremarkable in itself that merely sets him apart, while in an animal two matching eyes are no blemish at all.
Key Terms:
- בֵּין קְבוּעִין בֵּין עוֹבְרִין = whether permanent or transient
- יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אָדָם = beyond them, in a person
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Then why is one large and one small eye a blemish at all? It must be שָׂרוּעַ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה, מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי מִשּׁוּם שִׁינּוּי — אֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן גְּדוֹלוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְטַנּוֹת נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ ״שָׂרוּעַ״?
English Translation:
Accordingly, if one of the animal’s eyes is big or one is small, what is the reason that it is considered a blemish? If it is due to the deviation in appearance, meaning it does not look like a sheep, then even if both eyes are big or both are small it should be considered a blemish. Rather, is it not because it is an animal with a limb that is too large?
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection presses the previous answer to its conclusion. If deviation as such were the criterion, two oversized eyes would disqualify as readily as one; since they do not, the mismatched pair cannot be disqualified on grounds of deviation either, and the operative category must be שָׂרוּעַ. The argument is put as a dilemma with only one escape, and the next segment declines to take it.
Key Terms:
- אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן = any man of the seed of Aharon (Vayikra 22:4)
- שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן = equal to the seed of Aharon
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
A physiological answer: matched eyes record the animal’s condition; only a mismatched pair is incoherent.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ מִשּׁוּם שִׁינּוּי, שִׁינּוּי הָוֵי מוּמָא. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: אֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן גְּדוֹלוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְטַנּוֹת? הָתָם, אִי מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיּוּתָא יַתִּירָא — תַּרְוַויְיהוּ בָּעֵי לְמִיבְרָא, אִי מֵחֲמַת כְּחִישׁוּתָא יַתִּירָא — תַּרְוַויְיהוּ בָּעֵי מִיכְחַשׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, actually I will say to you that the reason an animal with one big eye and one small eye is considered blemished is because of its deviation, as a deviation is considered a blemish. And as for that which is difficult for you, that if it is due to an anomalous appearance then even if both are big or both are small it should be considered a blemish, there it is not considered a deviation. This is because a particularly healthy animal has large eyes, while a particularly weak animal has small eyes. Therefore, only an animal with one large eye and with one small eye is considered to be blemished, as if the large eye is due to extreme health both should have been healthy, and if the small eye is due to extreme weakness both should have been weak.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final answer keeps שִׁינּוּי as the criterion and explains the exception from the body rather than from the law. An exceptionally robust animal ought to have both eyes large and an exceptionally weak one both small — אִי מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיּוּתָא יַתִּירָא תַּרְוַויְיהוּ בָּעֵי לְמִיבְרָא — so a matched pair at either extreme faithfully records the creature’s condition and is no deviation at all. Only one of each is internally inconsistent, and it is that inconsistency, not the size, that constitutes the blemish.
Key Terms:
- אִי מִשּׁוּם שִׁינּוּי = if it is on account of the deviation
Segment 10
TYPE: מעשה
The convert whose gentile brothers gave her animals to fatten; Rava rules against Rabbi Yehuda.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא גִּיּוֹרְתָּא דַּהֲווֹ מָסְרִין לַהּ אַחֵי חֵיוְתָא לְפַטּוֹמַהּ, אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לַהּ: לֵית דְּחַשׁ לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה.
English Translation:
§ In connection with the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis whether an animal owned in partnership with a gentile has firstborn status, the Gemara relates the following incident: There was a certain female convert whose gentile brothers would give her animals to fatten and would then divide the profits with her. She came before Rava to ask whether firstborn status applies to the firstborn of these animals. Rava said to her: There is no one who is concerned with this ruling of Rabbi Yehuda, who says an animal owned in partnership with a gentile is obligated, i.e., subject to counting its first offspring a firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
The case is exactly the partnership of daf 2’s mishna, arriving as a practical question rather than a theoretical one. Rava settles the machloket for practice in a few words — לֵית דְּחַשׁ לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, there is nobody who is concerned for Rabbi Yehuda’s view that gentile partnership leaves an animal obligated. The statement is about the state of the halacha rather than a fresh derivation: the brothers’ share exempts, and the firstborn need not be treated as holy.
Key Terms:
- בְּרִיּוּתָא יַתִּירָא = exceptional robustness
- כְּחִישׁוּתָא יַתִּירָא = exceptional weakness
- שִׁינּוּי הָוֵי מוּמָא = deviation constitutes a blemish
Segment 11
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Mari bar Rachel sold the ears to a gentile, treated the animals as holy anyway, and they died.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל הַוְיָא לֵיהּ הָהִיא חֵיוָתָא, הֲוָה מַקְנֶה לְאוּדְנַיְיהוּ לְגוֹי, וְאָסַר לְהוּ בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, וְיָהֵיב לְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים, וּכְלַאי חֵיוָתָא דְּרַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates another incident: Rav Mari bar Raḥel had a certain flock of animals. He would transfer ownership of the ears of the firstborn fetuses to a gentile in order to exempt them from the obligations of firstborn status. But nevertheless he prohibited them from being sheared and used for labor, and gave them to the priests, halakhot that apply to a standard firstborn animal. And ultimately, the animals of Rav Mari bar Raḥel died.
קלאוד על הדף:
The story is reported without comment and is the more disturbing for it. Rav Mari used the very device the halacha permits — transferring the ears before birth so that sanctity would never attach — and then, having exempted the animals, withheld them from shearing and labour and gave them to kohanim as though they were holy after all. וּכְלַאי חֵיוָתָא, and his animals perished; the next three segments ask what exactly he did wrong.
Key Terms:
- גִּיּוֹרְתָּא = a female convert
- לְפַטּוֹמַהּ = to fatten it
- לֵית דְּחַשׁ לַהּ = there is none who is concerned for it
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Why sell the ears at all, and why then the punishment?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּאָסַר לְהוּ בְּגִיזָה וַעֲבוֹדָה, וְיָהֵיב לְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים, אַמַּאי מַקְנֶה לְהוּ לְאוּדְנַיְיהוּ לְגוֹי, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה? אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמָא כְּלוֹ חֵיוָתָא דְּרַב מָרִי? מִשּׁוּם דְּמַפְקַע לְהוּ מִקְּדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But since he prohibited them from being sheared and used for labor and also gave them to the priests, why did he initially transfer ownership of their ears to the gentile, abrogating their firstborn status? The Gemara answers that he did so lest the priests come to experience a mishap with them, improperly shearing them or using them for labor. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason that the animals of Rav Mari died as a punishment? The Gemara answers: It was because he abrogated their sanctity by selling their ears.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two questions in sequence, pulling opposite ways. If he meant to treat the animals as holy, the sale was pointless — and the answer is that it protected others, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה, lest the kohanim who received them shear or work them in error. But if the motive was protective, the deaths need explaining, and the first answer is blunt: מִשּׁוּם דְּמַפְקַע לְהוּ מִקְּדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ, because he stripped them of their sanctity.
Key Terms:
- מַקְנֶה לְאוּדְנַיְיהוּ = he transferred ownership of their ears
- גִּיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה = shearing and labour — forbidden with a firstborn
- כְּלַאי = they perished
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Yehuda permits a pre-natal blemish; the distinction is which sanctity is removed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מוּתָּר לָאָדָם לְהַטִּיל מוּם בִּבְכוֹר קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם! הָתָם מִקְּדוּשַּׁת מִזְבֵּחַ קָא מַפְקַע לֵיהּ, מִקְּדוּשַּׁת כֹּהֵן לָא מַפְקַע לֵיהּ. הָכָא אֲפִילּוּ מִקְּדוּשַּׁת כֹּהֵן קָא מַפְקַע לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say it is permitted for a person to inflict a blemish on a firstborn animal fetus before it emerges into the air of the world? Here, too, Rav Mari abrogated his firstborn animals’ sanctity by selling their ears before their birth. The Gemara answers: There, when one inflicts a blemish on a firstborn animal, he abrogates the animal’s sanctity of the altar, as it is no longer fit for an offering, but does not abrogate its sanctity of the priest, as it is still given to the priest. Here, by contrast, when Rav Mari sold his animals’ ears to a gentile, he abrogated even their sanctity of the priest, as the partnership exempts the animals from the obligations of firstborn status entirely.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda’s ruling appears to license exactly what Rav Mari did, since inflicting a blemish before birth is itself a pre-emptive strike against sanctity. The distinction is what survives the act: a blemish removes only קְדוּשַּׁת מִזְבֵּחַ, altar-sanctity, leaving the animal to the kohen, whereas Rav Mari’s sale of the ears removed קְדוּשַּׁת כֹּהֵן as well and left the kohen with no claim at all.
Key Terms:
- תַּקָּלָה = a mishap — an inadvertent transgression
- מַפְקַע מִקְּדוּשָּׁה = removing something from its sanctity
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
A second answer: he could effect a complete transfer, but imitators could not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל יָדַע לְאַקְנוֹיֵי קִנְיַן גָּמוּר, וְחָזֵי לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא, וְאָזֵיל וְעָבֵיד, וְסָבַר רַב מָרִי מִילְּתָא הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְאָתֵי בָּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead that the reason the animals of Rav Mari bar Raḥel died is that he himself knew that is was necessary to transfer ownership of the ears of the fetus to the gentile through a complete transaction. And another person would see him transferring ownership of the ears to a gentile and would go and do it himself but not perform a complete transaction, and would think that Rav Mari performed the same matter in abrogating its firstborn status, and would come to experience a mishap with his animal by not treating it with the sanctity of firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
The alternative answer shifts the fault from the act to its visibility. Rav Mari knew how to effect a קִנְיַן גָּמוּר, a complete transfer, but another person watching would copy the practice without completing the transaction, assume his own animals were likewise exempt, and come to a mishap with a firstborn still genuinely holy. The same word תַּקָּלָה that justified the sale in the previous segment now condemns it.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשַּׁת מִזְבֵּחַ / קְדוּשַּׁת כֹּהֵן = sanctity of the altar / sanctity of the priest
- קִנְיַן גָּמוּר = a complete act of acquisition
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: kohanim and levi’im are exempt from redeeming a firstborn donkey.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם פְּטוּרִין, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: אִם פָּטְרוּ אֶת שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ אֶת שֶׁל עַצְמָן.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Priests and Levites are exempt from the obligation to redeem a firstborn donkey; this is derived from an a fortiori inference: In the wilderness the firstborn were redeemed in exchange for the Levites, as it is stated: “Take the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn among the children of Israel and the animal of the Levites in exchange for their animals” (Numbers 3:45). If the priests and Levites rendered exempt the firstborn children and donkeys of the Israelites in the wilderness from being counted firstborns, it is only logical that the priests and the Levites should render the firstborn of their own donkeys exempt from being counted firstborns.
קלאוד על הדף:
The perek turns from the gentile’s share to Israel’s own tribes. The exemption is derived by קַל וָחוֹמֶר from the wilderness census, where the levi’im were taken in place of Israel’s firstborn (Bamidbar 3:45): if they released others from the claim, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ אֶת שֶׁל עַצְמָן, it stands to reason that they release themselves. The mishna stands at the daf’s end and its Gemara opens on 4a.
Key Terms:
- כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם = priests and Levites
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר = an a fortiori inference
- פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר = redemption of a firstborn donkey