Bechorot Daf 31 (בכורות דף ל״א)
Daf: 31 | Amudim: 31a – 31b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (31a)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא (מחלוקת)
A ḥaver who reverted to being an am ha’aretz: Rabbi Meir says he is never readmitted; Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes private from public retraction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן עוֹלָמִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חָזְרוּ בְּמַטְמוֹנִיּוֹת — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן, בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא — מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן.
English Translation:
With regard to an am ha’aretz who accepts upon himself the stringent practices of a ḥaver, the Sages taught in a baraita: And with regard to all of them, when they retract and return to being amei ha’aretz, they are never accepted as ḥaverim; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If they retracted in private, while in public they continue to act as ḥaverim, they are not accepted, but if they retract in public [befarheseya], they are accepted, as they can be trusted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing the laws of accepting chaverut from daf 30, the baraita asks what happens to someone who took on the stringencies of a ḥaver and then abandoned them. Rabbi Meir closes the door permanently: one who has shown he cannot sustain the commitment is never trusted again. Rabbi Yehuda draws a moral distinction. A man who quietly dropped the practices while still presenting himself as a ḥaver has been living a deception, and such a person cannot be trusted; one who retracted openly was at least honest about his status, so he may be readmitted.
Key Terms:
- וְכוּלָּן שֶׁחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן = all of them who retracted — ḥaverim who abandoned their accepted stringencies
- בְּמַטְמוֹנִיּוֹת = in secret, in private
- בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא = in public, openly
- חָבֵר = a ḥaver — one who has formally accepted to be scrupulous in tithes and ritual purity
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא (לישנא אחרינא)
A second version of Rabbi Yehuda: the test is whether the original observance was sincere even in private
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אִם עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶן בְּמַטְמוֹנִיּוֹת — מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן, בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן.
English Translation:
There are those who say another version of this discussion: If they performed their actions as ḥaverim even in private, when they initially accepted the status of ḥaverim, then they are accepted when they wish to return to that status. Conversely, if they performed their actions as ḥaverim only in public, they are not accepted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The ‘there are those who say’ version moves the question from how he retracted to how he observed in the first place. If, while a ḥaver, he kept the practices even when no one was watching, his commitment was genuine and he may return. If his observance was only for public show, he never truly was a ḥaver, and he is not readmitted. Both versions share Rabbi Yehuda’s underlying concern: the community must be able to rely on a ḥaver’s private conduct, not merely his public image.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי = there are those who say — introduces an alternative version of a tradition
- עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶן = performed their practices — observed the stringencies of chaverut
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא ופסק הלכה
Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: they are readmitted in all cases, and the halakha follows them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים״. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּאוֹתוֹ הַזּוּג.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa say: Both in this case and in that case they are accepted, as it is stated: “Return, you backsliding children; I will heal your backslidings” (Jeremiah 3:22). Rabbi Yitzḥak of the village of Akko says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that pair, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, i.e., those who return are accepted in both cases.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third position rejects any permanent exclusion: whether the retraction was private or public, the returnee is accepted. The proof-text is Yirmeyahu’s call ‘Return, you backsliding children; I will heal your backslidings’ — if God Himself invites the wayward back, the community cannot refuse them. Rabbi Yoḥanan, via Rabbi Yitzḥak of Kefar Akko, rules in accordance with this pair, so the gates of return remain open.
Key Terms:
- שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים = ‘Return, you backsliding children’ (Jeremiah 3:22)
- הֲלָכָה כְּאוֹתוֹ הַזּוּג = the halakha follows that pair — Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa
- כְּפַר עַכּוֹ = the village of Akko, hometown of Rabbi Yitzḥak
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא (משנה ראשונה ומשנה אחרונה)
A ḥaver who became a tax collector: originally rejected permanently, later readmitted once he resigns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: חָבֵר וְנַעֲשָׂה גַּבַּאי — דּוֹחִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲבֵירָתוֹ, פֵּירַשׁ — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: פֵּירַשׁ — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל אָדָם.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Initially, the Sages would say with regard to one who is a ḥaver and became a tax collector that he is rejected from his status as a ḥaver. Even if he later resigns from his position as a tax collector, he is not accepted. In later generations they went back to saying that if he resigns from his position as a tax collector he is like any other person and may be accepted once again as a ḥaver.
קלאוד על הדף:
Tax collectors (gabba’im) in this period were notorious for extortion and for taking more than was owed, so a ḥaver who took up the post forfeited his trusted status. The baraita records a shift in policy: the earlier Sages held that even after resigning he could never be readmitted, while later Sages ruled that once he leaves the post he is like anyone else and may reaccept chaverut. The phrase ‘they went back to saying’ (חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר) signals the later, operative ruling.
Key Terms:
- גַּבַּאי = tax collector — a post associated with extortion and therefore with untrustworthiness
- דּוֹחִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲבֵירָתוֹ = he is expelled from his status as a ḥaver
- פֵּירַשׁ = he withdrew, resigned from the post
- חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר = they went back to saying — marks a later revision of an earlier ruling
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya prepares four hundred chairs for the Sages, is then discovered to be a tax collector, and declares that he has repented
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ שַׁעְתָּא, הֲוָה עָיֵיל גַּבֵּיהּ רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף וְאַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּגֵא דְּרַבָּנַן. שְׁמַע דְּאָתוּ, קְטַיר לְהוּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה תַּכְתָּקֵי. לְסוֹף שְׁמַעוּ דְּנַעֲשָׂה גַּבַּאי, שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל לַחֲשִׁיבוּתֵיהּ, זִיל לְקַדְמוּתֵיהּ. שְׁלַח לְהוּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי. רַב יוֹסֵף לָא אֲזַל, רַבָּה אֲזַל.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that one time the Sages needed Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya for a certain matter. Rabba and Rav Yosef and four hundred pairs of Sages ascended to his home. When he heard that they were coming, he tied for them four hundred chairs [takhtekei] to sit on. Eventually the Sages heard that he had become a tax collector. They sent him the following message: Go to your important position as a tax collector, and go to your former status, as we no longer need you. He sent to them the following message: I have repented and am no longer a tax collector. Rav Yosef did not go to him, but Rabba went to him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara illustrates the baraita with a story. The Sages needed Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya and came to him in great numbers, and he honoured them lavishly. When they learned he had become a tax collector, they sent a cutting message — go back to your ‘important’ office — effectively breaking off contact. He replied that he had already withdrawn from the post. The two great Amoraim then acted differently: Rav Yosef stayed away, while Rabba went to him, setting up the dispute explained in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ שַׁעְתָּא = the hour needed him — the Sages needed him for some matter
- תַּכְתָּקֵי = chairs, seats
- זִיל לַחֲשִׁיבוּתֵיהּ = go to your importance — a sarcastic dismissal
- הֲדַרִי בִּי = I have retracted — I have repented and left the post
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא (מחלוקת אמוראים)
Rav Yosef relied on the first clause of the baraita, Rabba on the later revision
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: תְּנֵינָא, פֵּירַשׁ — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ; רַבָּה אָמַר: תְּנֵינָא, חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: פֵּירַשׁ — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל אָדָם.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said in explanation of why he did not go: We learn in a baraita that even if such an individual resigns from his position as a tax collector he is not accepted. Rabba said: We learn in the baraita that in later generations they went back to saying that if he resigns from his position as a tax collector he is like any other person and may be accepted once again as a ḥaver.
קלאוד על הדף:
The difference in conduct is traced to the two clauses of the same baraita. Rav Yosef cited the earlier ruling that a tax collector who resigns is never readmitted, so he would not go to Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya. Rabba cited the later ruling — ‘they went back to saying’ — that once he resigns he is like anyone else. Since a revised ruling ordinarily supersedes the earlier one, Rabba’s approach reflects the more lenient final word of the baraita.
Key Terms:
- תְּנֵינָא = we have learned it — citing a tannaitic source as support
- הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל אָדָם = he is like any other person — restored to ordinary status
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
One may inspect any firstborn for blemishes except his own, yet may inspect his own consecrated animals and tithes and rule on his own pure foods
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַבְּכוֹרוֹת אָדָם רוֹאֶה, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל עַצְמוֹ, וְרוֹאֶה אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו, וְאֶת מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו, וְנִשְׁאָל עַל טׇהֳרוֹתָיו.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may inspect all firstborns for blemishes except for his own firstborns, as he has a vested interest. And despite his vested interest in these cases, one may inspect his own sanctified animals that he consecrated for the Temple, to determine whether they have blemishes and may be redeemed; and he may inspect his animal tithes to decide whether they are fit for sacrifice in the Temple; and one may ask himself with regard to his ritually pure foods, i.e., he may decide for himself whether or not they have become impure, and he is not suspected of claiming that impure food is actually pure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya now turns to conflict of interest in rulings. A firstborn may be eaten by its owner (the kohen) only if it has a disqualifying blemish, so the owner has an obvious stake in finding one and may not judge his own animal. Yet the baraita permits a person to rule on his own consecrated animals, his own animal tithes, and the purity of his own foods. The Gemara will explain why in each of these cases his personal interest is not strong enough to disqualify him.
Key Terms:
- רוֹאֶה = inspects — examines an animal to determine whether it has a disqualifying blemish
- קֳדָשָׁיו = his consecrated animals — animals he dedicated for the Temple
- מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו = his animal tithes (maaser beheima)
- טׇהֳרוֹתָיו = his ritually pure foods
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Which examiner is meant? A single person cannot permit a firstborn at all, while three judges are not suspected of bias
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: כׇּל הַבְּכוֹרוֹת אָדָם רוֹאֶה חוּץ מִשֶּׁל עַצְמוֹ. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּחַד — מִי מְהֵימַן? אֶלָּא בִּתְלָתָא, וּמִי חֲשִׁידִי? וְהָתְנַן: מֵיאֲנָה אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצָה בְּפָנָיו — יִשָּׂאֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בֵּית דִּין!
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: A person may inspect all firstborns except for his own firstborns. What are we dealing with here? If we say that we are dealing with a case of one person examining a blemish, is he trusted by himself to deem any firstborn animal permitted for slaughter? The mishna on 36b states that only three people may permit a firstborn animal to be slaughtered. Rather, it must be dealing with one of three who jointly decide the status of the firstborn animal. And is he suspect in such a case? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yevamot 25b): A judge before whom a woman performed refusal when she was a minor, by declaring that she did not desire the husband chosen for her by her family, or before whom she performed ḥalitza, may marry her,because he was only one member of the court, and therefore there is no suspicion of conflict of interest?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the case. If the baraita speaks of a single person, the problem is that ordinarily three are required to permit a firstborn, so the exclusion of one’s own animal would be superfluous. If it speaks of a court of three, a member of a court is not suspected of personal interest, as the mishna in Yevamot shows: a judge may marry a woman who performed mi’un or ḥalitza before him, since he acted as part of a court and not as an individual. Either way, the baraita’s clause seems hard to place.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן = with what are we dealing? — what case is under discussion?
- מֵיאֲנָה = she performed mi’un — a girl married off as a minor by her mother or brothers who refuses the marriage
- חָלְצָה = she performed ḥalitza — the ceremony releasing a childless widow from levirate marriage
- מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בֵּית דִּין = because he is a court — he acted as one of three judges, so no personal bias is suspected
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
The baraita speaks of a single recognised expert, who may permit others’ firstborns but not his own
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם בְּחַד, וְכִדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Actually, we are dealing with a case of a single judge, and this is as Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says with regard to a different matter: Vows may be dissolved even by a single expert, and a three-member court is not always necessary. Here too, we are dealing with a single expert who deems the firstborn animal permitted. A single expert may rule with regard to the firstborn animals belonging to others, but not his own animals, due to his vested interest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer adopts the first option: the baraita refers to a single judge, and specifically to a yaḥid mumḥeh, a publicly recognised expert, who like an expert in the annulment of vows (per Rav Ḥisda in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan) may rule alone. Since he acts alone and not as one member of a court, the suspicion of self-interest does apply, and he may not rule on his own firstborn.
Key Terms:
- יָחִיד מוּמְחֶה = a single expert — a recognised authority empowered to rule alone where three would otherwise be needed
- לְעוֹלָם = actually, in truth — introduces a return to an earlier option
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא (טעם)
He may inspect his own consecrated animals because he could in any case have his consecration annulled
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרוֹאֶה אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מִיתְּשִׁיל עֲלַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes the last section of the baraita. And despite his vested interest, one may inspect his own sanctified animals. Why is it permitted for him to inspect them? The reason is that if he wants to avoid giving the animal to the Temple, he can issue a request from a halakhic authority to annul his oath. Consequently, he does not truly have a vested interest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Why is an owner trusted to rule on his own consecrated animals? Because his consecration was a vow-like act which he could have dissolved before a sage through she’eilah. Since he has a fully legitimate way to release the animal from sanctity, he has no motive to lie about a blemish. This reasoning does not apply to a firstborn, whose sanctity is inherent from birth and cannot be annulled.
Key Terms:
- מִיתְּשִׁיל עֲלַיְיהוּ = to request annulment of them — she’eilah, asking a sage to dissolve the consecration
- הֶקְדֵּשׁ = consecration — dedication of property to the Temple or altar
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא (טעם)
He may rule on his own animal tithes because he could have blemished his whole herd before tithing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו, דְּאִי בָּעֵי שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ עֶדְרֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The baraita also teaches: And he may rule with regard to his own animal tithes to decide whether they are fit to be sacrificed in the Temple. The Gemara explains that the reason is that if he wants to avoid bringing the animals as offerings, he can inflict a blemish upon his entire herd before separating the tithe, which would render them all unfit for sacrifice in the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
Before the tithe is separated, the animals are ordinary non-sacred property, and one may inflict a blemish on them. An owner who wished to avoid bringing tithe animals as offerings could therefore have blemished his entire flock beforehand, so that every tenth animal would emerge already unfit for the altar. Having passed up that legitimate option, he gains little by lying now, and he is trusted.
Key Terms:
- שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא = he casts a blemish upon it — deliberately inflicts a disqualifying blemish
- עֶדְרֵיהּ = his herd, his flock
- מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה = the animal tithe — every tenth animal born in a year, which is sanctified
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא (טעם)
He may rule on his own pure foods because impure food is still usable to him during his own days of impurity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנִשְׁאָל עַל טׇהֳרוֹתָיו, דְּהָא חֲזוּ לֵיהּ בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ.
English Translation:
Finally, the baraita states: And one may ask himself with regard to his ritually pure foods, i.e., he may decide for himself whether or not they have become impure, and he is not suspected of claiming that impure food is actually pure. The Gemara explains that his vested interested in this case is not so great, as the food is fit for him to eat in his days of impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The last clause is explained in the same spirit. If his food is ruled impure, he does not lose it entirely: he can eat it during periods when he himself is ritually impure. Since the loss is limited, his personal interest is weak, and he is trusted to rule on his own foods. The three explanations together define the principle: one is disqualified only where self-interest is strong and there is no legitimate alternative.
Key Terms:
- חֲזוּ לֵיהּ = they are fit for him — usable by him
- יְמֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ = the days of his impurity — periods when he himself is ritually impure
Segment 13
TYPE: הדרן
The conclusion of Perek Ad Kamah, the fourth chapter of Bechorot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ עַד כַּמָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיבִין.
English Translation:
HADRAN: We shall return to you, Perek Ad Kamah — the fourth chapter of Bechorot concludes here.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the traditional formula recited at the end of a perek: ‘We will return to you, Ad Kamah.’ The fourth perek of Bechorot, which began on 26b with the question of how long an Israelite must care for a firstborn before giving it to a kohen, and went on to the examiner’s fee, those suspected in various matters and the acceptance of chaverut, ends here. It is not the end of the masechet: Bechorot has nine perakim, and the fifth begins at once.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ = we will return to you — said on completing a perek
- עַד כַּמָּה = until how long — the name of the fourth perek, from its opening words
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (פתיחת פרק כל פסולי המוקדשין)
Perek 5 opens: disqualified consecrated animals, whose proceeds go to the Temple, are sold, slaughtered and weighed in the market like ordinary meat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כָּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, הֲנָאָתָן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, נִמְכָּרִין בָּאִיטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁחָטִין בָּאִיטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁקָלִין בְּלִיטְרָא,
English Translation:
MISHNA: With regard to all disqualified consecrated animals that were disqualified for sacrifice due to blemishes and were redeemed, all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the Temple treasury. In order to ensure that the Temple treasury will not suffer a loss, these animals are sold in the butchers’ market [ba’itliz] and slaughtered in the butchers’ market, where the demand is great and the price is consequently higher. And their meat is weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner that non-sacred meat is sold.
קלאוד על הדף:
The fifth perek, Kol Pesulei HaMukdashin, begins with animals that were consecrated, developed a blemish, and were redeemed. Ordinarily such animals may not be treated with the casualness of ordinary meat, but here the rule is relaxed: they may be sold and slaughtered in the itliz, the butchers’ market, and sold by weight. The reason given is that the benefit belongs to hekdesh — allowing market sale raises their value, and the Temple treasury is the beneficiary. The Gemara on 31b will clarify how this works.
Key Terms:
- פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = disqualified consecrated animals — animals consecrated for the altar that became blemished and were redeemed
- אִיטְלִיז = the butchers’ market (Greek loanword)
- לִיטְרָא = litra, a unit of weight — selling by weight is the normal way of selling ordinary meat
- הֲנָאָתָן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ = their benefit goes to hekdesh, the Temple treasury
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
The firstborn and the animal tithe are excluded, since their benefit goes to the owners
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁהֲנָיָיתָן לַבְּעָלִים. פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין — הֲנָיָיתָן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
English Translation:
This is the halakha with regard to all consecrated animals except for the firstborn offering and an animal tithe offering. When these become blemished and their slaughter is permitted, they are sold and slaughtered only in the owner’s house and are not weighed; rather, they are sold by estimate. The reason is that all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the owner, i.e., the priest in the case of the firstborn and the owner in the case of the animal tithe offering. It is not permitted to treat disqualified consecrated animals as one treats non-sacred animals merely to guarantee that the owner will receive the optimal price. This is in contrast to disqualified consecrated animals, where all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the Temple treasury, and therefore the animal is sold in the market to ensure that the optimal price is received.
קלאוד על הדף:
The exception is the firstborn and the animal tithe. These are never redeemed; when blemished they are eaten by their owner (the kohen for the firstborn, the owner for the tithe), so any gain from treating them like market meat would accrue to private individuals, not to the Temple. There is therefore no justification for demeaning sacred meat by selling it in the market or by weight; it is sold at home and by estimate.
Key Terms:
- בְּכוֹר = firstborn male of a kosher animal, given to a kohen
- הֲנָיָיתָן לַבְּעָלִים = their benefit goes to the owners
- מַעֲשֵׂר = here, the animal tithe (maaser beheima)
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
One may weigh a portion of firstborn meat against a portion of non-sacred meat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְשׁוֹקְלִין מָנָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה בַּבְּכוֹר.
English Translation:
And although the meat of the firstborn is not weighed and sold by the litra, nevertheless, if one has non-sacred meat weighing one hundred dinars, one may weigh one portion of non-sacred meat against one portion of the meat of the firstborn, because that is unlike the manner in which non-sacred meat is weighed.
קלאוד על הדף:
A small leniency closes the mishna. Although firstborn meat may not be sold by standard weights, one may balance a piece of it against a piece of ordinary meat of known weight. Since that is not the normal manner of weighing for sale, it does not treat the sacred meat as ordinary merchandise, yet it allows a fair exchange.
Key Terms:
- מָנָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה = portion against portion — weighing one piece of meat against another rather than against standard weights
Amud Bet (31b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא (קושיא)
When does ‘their benefit goes to hekdesh’ apply? After redemption the benefit belongs to the owner
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ כָּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין הֲנָאָתָן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנוֹ — הֲנָאָתָן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ? הֲנָאָתָן דִּבְעָלִים הוּא!
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that with regard to all disqualified consecrated animals that were disqualified for sacrifice due to blemishes and were redeemed, all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the Temple treasury, and the animals may consequently be sold in the manner of non-sacred meat. The Gemara asks: When does this apply? If we say that it applies to an animal after its redemption, i.e., after the owner redeemed it from the Temple treasury, does the benefit accrued belong to the Temple? Certainly not. Once a consecrated animal is redeemed from the Temple treasury, it is in the possession of its owner, which means that the benefit accrued belongs to the owner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens by challenging the mishna’s rationale. If the market sale happens after the animal was redeemed, the money from the sale is the owner’s, not the Temple’s, so the claim that ‘their benefit goes to hekdesh’ seems mistaken. The other possibility is examined next.
Key Terms:
- פִּדְיוֹן = redemption — transferring an animal’s sanctity onto money paid to the Temple
- אֵימַת = when?
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Before redemption the proceeds would go to hekdesh, but a slaughtered animal cannot be redeemed, since redemption requires standing and valuation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנוֹ. נִשְׁחָטִין? הָא בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה!
English Translation:
Rather, it applies to an animal before its redemption, in which case the money accrued from its sale, which renders it non-sacred, belongs to the Temple treasury. But if so, the mishna’s statement that the animals may be slaughtered in the butchers’ market is problematic. The Gemara explains the difficulty: How can the animal be evaluated after having been slaughtered? Redeeming a sanctified animal requires standing and valuation, i.e., it has to be set standing before a priest for him to appraise its monetary value and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12).
קלאוד על הדף:
If instead the sale in the market is itself the act of redemption, the proceeds do go to hekdesh. But then the mishna’s permission to slaughter in the market is problematic: redeeming a consecrated animal requires that it be stood before the kohen and appraised while alive (Leviticus 27:11-12), which is impossible once it has been slaughtered.
Key Terms:
- הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה = standing and valuation — the requirement to stand a consecrated animal before a kohen for appraisal before it is redeemed
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא (המשך)
The difficulty holds according to the view that altar offerings are subject to standing and valuation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: This works out well according to the one who says that items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were then disqualified due to a blemish were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation. If so, the animal may be slaughtered and subsequently sold. But according to the one who says that items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar were included in the requirement of standing and valuation, what is there to say in explanation of the mishna?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes that this objection depends on a known dispute. According to the view that animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation, the animal could be slaughtered first and redeemed afterward, and the mishna is fine. But according to the view that they were included, the second interpretation fails, and the Gemara needs another solution.
Key Terms:
- קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ = items consecrated for the altar — animals designated as offerings, as opposed to those consecrated for Temple upkeep
- הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר = this works out according to the one who says
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
The sale is after redemption; ‘benefit to hekdesh’ refers to the initial redemption price
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹן, וּמַאי הֲנָאָתָן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ? אַדְּמֵעִיקָּרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rather, the ruling of the mishna actually applies to a case where the animals are sold and slaughtered after their redemption by the owner. And what is the meaning of the mishna’s statement that all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the Temple treasury? This is not referring to the profit from the sale in the butchers’ market, as was previously assumed. Instead, it is referring to their initial redemption from the Temple treasury.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the first option: the market sale takes place after redemption, when the animal belongs to the owner. The phrase ‘their benefit goes to hekdesh’ does not describe the proceeds of the market sale but looks back to the original redemption, explained in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- אַדְּמֵעִיקָּרָא = with regard to the beginning — referring to the initial redemption
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ (המשך)
Because the owner knows he may sell in the market by weight, he will pay more to redeem it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּכֵיוָן דְּשָׁרֵי לְהוּ מָר, נִמְכָּרִין בָּאִיטְלִיז וְנִשְׁחָטִין בָּאִיטְלִיז וְנִשְׁקָלִין בְּלִיטְרָא, טָפֵי וּפָרֵיק מֵעִיקָּרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Since the Sage in the mishna deems it permitted for the redeemed animals to be subsequently sold in the butchers’ market and slaughtered in the butchers’ market, and weighed and sold by the litra, there is a higher probability that the owner will redeem the animal for more money initially. The owner’s later ability to sell the redeemed animal for the highest market value is in effect a benefit that eventually accrues to the Temple treasury, as he will be willing to spend more money to redeem the animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The logic is economic. A buyer who knows that the redeemed animal may be marketed like ordinary meat, at full market price, will be willing to pay a higher redemption price to the Temple. The leniency thus serves hekdesh indirectly, and that is what the mishna means by ‘their benefit goes to hekdesh.’ This also explains why the firstborn and tithe, which are never redeemed, do not share the leniency.
Key Terms:
- טָפֵי וּפָרֵיק = he adds and redeems — he pays a higher price to redeem it
- מָר = the master — here the tanna of the mishna
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
The firstborn may be sold at home, but may the animal tithe be sold at all?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁהֲנָיָיתָן לַבְּעָלִים. בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּכוֹר — בָּאִיטְלִיז הוּא דְּלָא מִיזְדַּבַּן, הָא בְּבֵיתֵיהּ מִיזְדַּבַּן, אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂר — בְּבֵיתֵיהּ מִי מִיזְדַּבַּן?
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the meat of blemished, consecrated animals may be sold in the same manner as non-sacred meat, except for the firstborn animal and animal tithe offering, as all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the owner. Accordingly, even if it is blemished, the meat may be sold only in the owner’s house. The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case of a firstborn offering, it is in the butchers’ market that it may not be sold, whereas it may be sold in its owner’s house. But with regard to the animal tithe offering, may it be sold in its owner’s house?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s exclusion. The implication is that the firstborn and the tithe may not be sold in the market but may be sold at home. For the firstborn that is correct, but the Gemara doubts it for the animal tithe, as the baraita in the next segment shows.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted — introduces the case that is understood, before posing the difficulty
- בְּבֵיתֵיהּ = in his house — privately, not in the market
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
‘You shall not redeem’ the firstborn, yet it may be sold alive; ‘it shall not be redeemed’ of the tithe means it may not be sold in any state
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: בִּבְכוֹר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״ וְנִמְכָּר חַי, בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר, לֹא חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט, לֹא תָּם וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם.
English Translation:
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn animal it is stated: “You shall not redeem” (Numbers 18:17), indicating that its sanctity can never be removed from it and transferred to non-sacred objects. But it can be sold after it comes into the possession of the priest, while it is alive. By contrast, with regard to the animal tithe offering, it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33), which teaches that its sanctity can never be removed from it, and it cannot be sold either, as the Gemara will explain (32a–b), not when alive and not when slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. This baraita clearly states that the animal tithe offering may not be sold no matter what its status, which seems to contradict the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita contrasts the two verses. Of the firstborn the Torah says ‘you shall not redeem’ (Numbers 18:17): its sanctity cannot be transferred, but the kohen may sell it while alive. Of the animal tithe the Torah says ‘it shall not be redeemed’ (Leviticus 27:33), which the Sages read as a prohibition of sale — whether alive or slaughtered, unblemished or blemished. The mishna’s implication that the tithe may be sold at home therefore seems contradicted.
Key Terms:
- לֹא תִפְדֶּה = ‘you shall not redeem’ (Numbers 18:17), said of the firstborn
- לֹא יִגָּאֵל = ‘it shall not be redeemed’ (Leviticus 27:33), said of the animal tithe and interpreted as a ban on sale
- תָּם / בַּעַל מוּם = unblemished / blemished
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Sheshet: the mishna speaks of the animal tithe of orphans, permitted for sale to prevent their loss
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא מִילְּתָא אִיקַּשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּאוּרְתָּא, וְשַׁנְּיַיהּ בְּקַדְמוּתָא מִבָּרַיְיתָא, בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים עָסְקִינַן, וּמִשּׁוּם הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: At night, Rav Sheshet found this matter difficult, and he resolved it in the morning from a baraita. He explains that in the mishna we are dealing with a case of an animal tithe offering belonging to young orphans that was blemished and slaughtered. Since the orphans are unable to consume the entire animal and would therefore suffer a monetary loss if the meat were to spoil, the Sages permitted its sale, and it is due to the principle of returning a lost item that they touched upon it, i.e., allowed for this.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet struggled with this contradiction overnight and resolved it in the morning on the basis of a baraita. The mishna speaks of the tithe of young orphans who cannot consume all the meat; to spare them a loss, the Sages permitted its sale, treating the case as akin to returning a lost object. The general prohibition on selling the tithe remains in force for others.
Key Terms:
- בְּאוּרְתָּא / בְּקַדְמוּתָא = in the evening / in the morning
- יְתוֹמִים = orphans — here young orphans who are unable to eat all the meat
- הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה = returning a lost item — the principle of preventing another’s loss
- נָגְעוּ בָּהּ = they touched upon it — they made a special allowance
Segment 9
TYPE: מעשה ואגדה
Rav Idi repeats Rav Sheshet’s answer without crediting him; Rav Sheshet is pained, and the Gemara explains why attribution matters
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אִידִי סַרְסְיֵהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת הֲוָה שַׁמְעַהּ מִינֵּיהּ, אֲזַל אַמְרַהּ בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא וְלָא אַמְרַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ, שְׁמַע רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אִיקְּפַד, אֲמַר: מַאן דְּעָקֵיץ לִיעְקְצֵיהּ עַקְרַבָּא, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ? דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״אָגוּרָה בְּאׇהׇלְךָ עוֹלָמִים״? וְכִי אִיפְשָׁר לְאָדָם לָגוּר בִּשְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים?
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Rav Idi, the attendant [saraseih] of Rav Sheshet, heard this explanation from Rav Sheshet. Rav Idi went and stated the matter in the study hall, but did not say it in his master’s name. Rav Sheshet heard what he had done and was annoyed. Rav Sheshet said: The one who stung me, let him be stung by a scorpion. The Gemara asks: And as for Rav Sheshet, what difference does it make to him whether or not his interpretation was cited in his name? The Gemara answers that this is as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will dwell in Your tent forever [olamim]” (Psalms 61:5)? Rav asked: But is it possible for a person to live in two worlds [olamim], this world and the next, simultaneously?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Idi, Rav Sheshet’s attendant, repeated the resolution in the study hall without naming its author. Rav Sheshet’s sharp response — let the one who stung me be stung by a scorpion — prompts the Gemara to ask why the attribution mattered to him. The answer draws on Rav’s reading of ‘I will dwell in Your tent olamim’ (Psalms 61:5): since one cannot literally live in two worlds at once, the verse must mean something more, which the next segment explains.
Key Terms:
- סַרְסְיֵהּ = his attendant
- אִיקְּפַד = he was annoyed, offended
- עַקְרַבָּא = scorpion
- אָגוּרָה בְאׇהׇלְךָ עוֹלָמִים = ‘I will dwell in Your tent forever [olamim]’ (Psalms 61:5)
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדה
David asked that his teachings be quoted in his name in this world: the lips of a scholar quoted after death move in the grave
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר דָּוִד: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, יֹאמְרוּ דְּבַר שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּי בְּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים דְּבַר שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּיו בְּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה — שִׂפְתוֹתָיו דּוֹבְבוֹת בַּקֶּבֶר.
English Translation:
Rather, David, who recited this psalm, said to God: Master of the Universe, let people say a matter of halakha in my name in this world after I have passed on to another world. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to any Torah scholar in whose name a matter of halakha is stated in this world, his lips mouth the words in the grave, as though he were speaking.
קלאוד על הדף:
David’s prayer was that after his death his words of Torah would continue to be said in his name in this world, so that he would ‘dwell’ in both worlds at once. Rabbi Yoḥanan, in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, teaches that when a scholar’s teaching is repeated in his name, his lips move in the grave as though he were speaking. Attribution is thus not vanity but a way for the teacher to live on through his Torah, which is why Rav Sheshet felt wronged.
Key Terms:
- דְּבַר שְׁמוּעָה = a matter of tradition — a halakhic teaching
- שִׂפְתוֹתָיו דּוֹבְבוֹת בַּקֶּבֶר = his lips move in the grave
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדה (מקור הדרשה)
Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ze’eiri derives it from Song of Songs: like a heap of grapes that flows when touched
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר זְעֵירִי: מַאי קְרָאָה — ״וְחִכֵּךְ כְּיֵין הַטּוֹב הוֹלֵךְ לְדוֹדִי לְמֵישָׁרִים דּוֹבֵב שִׂפְתֵי יְשֵׁנִים״, כְּכוֹמֶר שֶׁל עֲנָבִים, מָה כּוֹמֶר שֶׁל עֲנָבִים כֵּיוָן דְּאָדָם נוֹגֵעַ בּוֹ – דּוֹבֵב, אַף תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָדָם אוֹמֵר דְּבַר שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּיו – דּוֹבְבוֹת שְׂפָתָיו בַּקֶּבֶר.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ze’eiri says: What is the verse from which this is derived? The verse states: “And the roof of your mouth is like the best wine that glides down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those who are asleep” (Song of Songs 7:10). Here, words of Torah in the mouths of the Jewish people are likened to a pile [kekhomer] of grapes left to warm before they are pressed, which causes the wine to exude from them easily: Just as with regard to a pile of grapes, when a person places his finger on it and touches it, it moves and issues a sound as the wine bursts forth, so too with regard to Torah scholars, when a matter of halakha is stated in their name, their lips mouth the words in the grave.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ze’eiri locates the source in ‘moving gently the lips of those who are asleep’ (Song of Songs 7:10). The image is a komer of grapes, a heap left to warm before pressing, which yields its juice the moment someone touches it. So too a departed scholar: as soon as his teaching is spoken, his lips ‘flow’ in the grave. The Torah he left behind remains alive and responsive.
Key Terms:
- כּוֹמֶר שֶׁל עֲנָבִים = a heap of grapes set aside before pressing, which oozes when touched
- דּוֹבֵב שִׂפְתֵי יְשֵׁנִים = ‘moving the lips of those who sleep’ (Song of Songs 7:10)
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
Rav Sheshet’s source: the tithe of orphans may be sold, and a slaughtered tithe may be sold by folding its price into the hide, fat, sinews and horns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי בָּרַיְיתָא? דְּתַנְיָא: מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים — מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ, וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ — מַבְלִיעוֹ בְּעוֹרוֹ, בְּחֶלְבּוֹ, וּבְגִידוֹ, וּבְקַרְנָיו.
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to Rav Sheshet’s explanation: What is the baraita mentioned by Rav Sheshet, upon which he based his resolution? The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an animal tithe offering of young orphans, one may sell it. And with regard to an animal tithe offering that one has slaughtered, whose meat may not be sold, one may include the cost of the meat in the cost of its negligent parts, thereby inflating the cost of those parts, i.e., the animal’s hide, its fat, its sinews, and its horns, which are permitted to be sold.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now identifies the baraita behind Rav Sheshet’s answer. It states that the animal tithe of orphans may be sold, and that a slaughtered tithe animal may be sold by havla’ah — inclusion: the meat itself is not sold, but its value is absorbed into an inflated price for the parts that may be sold freely. The meaning of the two clauses, and whether they describe one case or two, is debated next.
Key Terms:
- מַבְלִיעוֹ = he includes it — havla’ah, folding the price of a forbidden item into that of a permitted one
- עוֹרוֹ, חֶלְבּוֹ, גִידוֹ, קַרְנָיו = its hide, fat, sinews and horns — parts of the animal that may be sold
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא (ביאור - אביי)
Abaye: the baraita describes one case — the orphans’ tithe may be sold, but only by inclusion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר — מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּהַבְלָעָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the baraita saying? Initially, the baraita stated that one may sell the meat of an animal tithe offering belonging to young orphans, which indicates that this may be done in the normal fashion. The baraita then proceeds to state that the sale of the meat must be performed in the indirect manner of inclusion. Abaye said: The baraita is actually referring to only one case, and this is what it is saying: With regard to the meat of an animal tithe offering of young orphans, it may be sold, but only by means of inclusion.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks how the two clauses relate. Abaye reads them as a single ruling: the orphans’ tithe is the case, and the second clause tells us how it is sold, namely by havla’ah. On this reading even orphans do not sell the meat outright; they are given only the indirect method.
Key Terms:
- מַאי קָאָמַר = what is it saying?
- בְּהַבְלָעָה = by means of inclusion
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
On Abaye’s reading, an adult may not sell even by inclusion — yet in Shevi’it a seller may include the price of an etrog in a lulav
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּלָל דְּגָדוֹל בְּהַבְלָעָה לָא? מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ לוּלָב מֵחֲבֵירוֹ בִּשְׁבִיעִית — נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶתְרוֹג בְּמַתָּנָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְלוֹקְחוֹ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית.
English Translation:
The Gemara states: One can conclude by inference from this baraita that in the case of an animal tithe offering of an adult, i.e., a non-orphan, its meat may not be sold even by means of inclusion. What is different in this case from that which is taught in a mishna (Sukka 3:11): In the case of one who purchases a lulav from another, who is an am ha’aretz, during the Sabbatical Year, the seller gives him an etrog together with the lulav as a gift, as it is not permitted for one to purchase the etrog during the Sabbatical Year, and one may not give the value of Sabbatical-Year produce to an am ha’aretz, lest he engage in commerce with it, which is prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye’s reading implies that an adult’s tithe may not be sold even by havla’ah, since only orphans received that allowance. The Gemara challenges this from the mishna in Sukka: one who buys a lulav from an am ha’aretz during the Sabbatical Year receives the etrog as a ‘gift,’ because one may not pay an am ha’aretz for Shevi’it produce, lest he trade with the money.
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָל = by inference
- גָּדוֹל = an adult — here, a tithe owner who is not an orphan
- שְׁבִיעִית = the Sabbatical Year, whose produce may not be traded
- לוּלָב / אֶתְרוֹג = palm branch / citron of the four species
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא (המשך)
Rav Huna: if he will not give the etrog as a gift, he includes its price in the lulav
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: לֹא רָצָה לִיתֵּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה מַאי? וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַבְלִיעַ לוֹ דְּמֵי אֶתְרוֹג בַּלּוּלָב!
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: And we discussed this mishna and asked: If the seller did not want to give him the etrog as a gift, what is the halakha? How can the buyer receive the etrog? And Rav Huna said: The seller includes the value of the etrog in the cost of the lulav. The buyer should purchase the lulav at an elevated price to cover the cost of the etrog as well. If inclusion is allowed in the case of the etrog, why would it not be permitted in the case of the meat of an animal tithe offering belonging to an adult?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues the Sukka discussion. If the seller refuses to give the etrog free, Rav Huna rules that its value may be folded into the price of the lulav. Havla’ah is therefore permitted there even for adults with no special hardship, so why should it be forbidden for an adult’s animal tithe?
Key Terms:
- וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ = and we discussed it — the Gemara recalls its own earlier analysis
- מַבְלִיעַ לוֹ דְּמֵי אֶתְרוֹג = he includes the price of the etrog — in the lulav’s price
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
There the inclusion is not evident; here it is obvious
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָתָם לָא מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא, הָכָא מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the etrog, the matter is not evident, whereas here, with regard to the meat of an animal tithe offering, the matter is evident. The inclusion of the cost of the etrog in the elevated cost of the lulav is not evident, as it is reasonable that the price of a lulav might fluctuate. By contrast, inflating the cost of the negligible parts of the animal tithe offering to include the cost of its expensive meat is obviously an artifice and is therefore not permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The distinction is visibility. A lulav’s price can vary, so a high price for it does not obviously conceal payment for the etrog. But hide, fat, sinews and horns are of little value compared to the meat; selling them for the price of a whole animal is plainly a sale of the meat in disguise. A transparent artifice is not permitted, so the adult’s tithe cannot be sold by havla’ah, while the orphans’ can.
Key Terms:
- מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא = the matter is evident — the evasion is plain to see
- הָתָם / הָכָא = there / here
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא (ביאור - רבא)
Rava: the repetition of ‘animal tithe’ shows two cases — orphans sell normally, an adult only by inclusion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: אִם כֵּן, ״מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה״ תְּרֵי זִמְנֵי לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדַרְכּוֹ, וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה דְּגָדוֹל שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ מַבְלִיעוֹ בְּעוֹרוֹ בְּחֶלְבּוֹ בְּגִידוֹ וּבְקַרְנָיו.
English Translation:
Rava said to Abaye in response: If so, that the baraita is referring to only one case, why do I need it to use the expression: Animal tithe offering, twice? Rather, Rava said that the baraita is discussing two distinct cases, and this is what the tanna is saying: With regard to the meat of an animal tithe offering of young orphans, one may sell it in its usual manner, but in the case of an animal tithe offering belonging to an adult that was slaughtered, one may sell its meat only by means of including its cost in the elevated price of the animal’s hide, its fat, its sinews, and its horns.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava objects that if the baraita described one case it would not repeat the words ‘animal tithe.’ He reads two separate rulings: the orphans’ tithe may be sold in the ordinary way, and an adult’s slaughtered tithe may be sold through havla’ah in its hide, fat, sinews and horns. On Rava’s reading, havla’ah is permitted even to an adult, and orphans receive a fuller leniency.
Key Terms:
- תְּרֵי זִמְנֵי לְמָה לִי = why do I need it twice? — an argument from repetition
- כְּדַרְכּוֹ = in its usual manner — an ordinary sale
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא (מקור - רבא)
Rava’s source: Leviticus 27:33 juxtaposes substitution with ‘it shall not be redeemed’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לֹא יִגָּאֵל״.
English Translation:
Rava said: From where do I say that the meat of an animal tithe offering belonging to an adult may be sold by inclusion? As it is written with regard to the animal tithe offering: “Then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33). This indicates that a non-sacred animal designated as a substitute for an animal tithe offering assumes sacred status, while the animal tithe offering retains its sacred status as well. As stated earlier, the phrase “it shall not be redeemed” is interpreted as referring to the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering. The verse’s juxtaposition of substitution and the prohibition against selling an animal tithe offering indicates a similarity between the two.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava grounds his reading in the verse itself. Leviticus 27:33 places the law of temurah — the substitute animal becomes holy alongside the original — next to the ban ‘it shall not be redeemed,’ which the Sages read as a ban on sale. The juxtaposition teaches that the two laws share the same scope, which the next segment develops.
Key Terms:
- תְּמוּרָה = substitution — attempting to transfer an animal’s sanctity to another, which leaves both holy
- וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ = ‘then both it and its substitute shall be holy’ (Leviticus 27:33)
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא (המשך)
Substitution applies only to a living animal, so the Torah ban on sale applies only in life; selling after slaughter is a rabbinic decree
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָתַי עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה — מֵחַיִּים, אֵימָתַי אֵינוֹ נִגְאָל — מֵחַיִּים, הָא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה — נִגְאָל, וְרַבָּנַן (ההוא) [הוּא] דִּגְזַרוּ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, אַטּוּ לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
Rava explains: When does an animal tithe offering render consecrated as a substitute a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged? Only when the animal tithe offering is alive, as substitution is invalid after its death. Similarly, when may the animal tithe offering not be redeemed, i.e., sold? When it is alive. It may be inferred from here that it may be redeemed, i.e., sold, after its slaughter. This teaches that by Torah law, the meat of an animal tithe offering may be sold once the animal has been slaughtered. The Sages decreed that an animal tithe offering may not be sold after its slaughter, due to the concern that one might sell it before its slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Just as temurah takes effect only while the animal is alive, so the Torah’s ban on selling the tithe applies only to a live animal. By Torah law, then, the meat may be sold after slaughter; it was the Sages who forbade it, lest people come to sell before slaughter. This explains why havla’ah is acceptable: the underlying prohibition after slaughter is only rabbinic.
Key Terms:
- מֵחַיִּים = while alive
- גְּזַרוּ … אַטּוּ = they decreed … on account of — a rabbinic safeguard against a more serious violation
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא (המשך, נמשך בדף ל״ב)
The decree covered only what is appraised in life, the meat — implying the minor parts were left free
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּבָר הַנִּישּׁוֹם מֵחַיִּים — גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה אַטּוּ לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה,
English Translation:
Rava continues: It was only with regard to an item that is appraised when the animal is alive, i.e., its meat, which gives the animal its primary value, that the Sages decreed that it may not be sold even after its slaughter, due to the concern that one might sell the animal before its slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava refines the scope of the decree: the Sages forbade after slaughter only what is valued while the animal is alive, namely the meat, which gives the animal its worth. The implication, completed at the top of 32a, is that the hide, fat, sinews and horns were never included in the decree, which is why the meat’s price may be absorbed into them by havla’ah.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר הַנִּישּׁוֹם מֵחַיִּים = an item appraised while alive — the meat, the animal’s main value