Bechorot Daf 32 (בכורות דף ל״ב)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (32a)

Segment 1

TYPE: גמרא (סוף דברי רבא)

The decree against selling slaughtered maaser covers only the meat; hide, fat, sinews and horns are exempt, and for orphans the Sages left the Torah law in place

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִישּׁוֹם מֵחַיִּים — לָא גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן, וּבְיַתְמֵי אוֹקְמוּהָ רַבָּנַן אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

English Translation:

But with regard to an item that is not appraised when an animal is sold when alive, e.g., the hide and sinews, as these are not primary contributing factors to the animal’s value, the Sages did not decree that one may not sell such items after the animal’s slaughter. Consequently, the meat of an animal tithe offering may be sold by means of inclusion in the animal’s hide, fat, sinews, and horns. And with regard to a case of young orphans, the Sages established the halakha as if by Torah law, and therefore the meat may be sold in its usual manner.

קלאוד על הדף:

This completes Rava’s statement from the end of 31b. By Torah law the meat of a slaughtered maaser animal may be sold; the Sages forbade it only out of concern that one would come to sell the living animal, and that concern applies only to what sets the live animal’s price — its meat. The hide, fat, sinews and horns play no real part in the price of a living animal, so the Sages did not extend their decree to them, which is exactly what makes hav’la’ah possible: the buyer pays an inflated price for the hide and receives the meat with it. For young orphans the Sages waived the decree entirely, leaving the Torah law in force so as not to diminish their property.

Key Terms:

• דָּבָר הַנִּישּׁוֹם מֵחַיִּים = an item that is appraised when the animal is alive, i.e. one that determines the price of a living animal
• לָא גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן = the Sages did not decree
• יַתְמֵי = orphans — here, minor heirs whose property the court protects
• אוֹקְמוּהָ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = they left it standing on Torah law, i.e. the rabbinic decree was not applied

Segment 2

TYPE: גמרא (סייעתא)

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak also holds that by Torah law slaughtered maaser may be sold, and asks for the source for selling orphans’ maaser normally

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאַף רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים שֶׁמּוֹכְרִים אוֹתוֹ כְּדַרְכּוֹ?

English Translation:

The Gemara notes: And even Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak holds in accordance with that opinion of Rava, that by Torah law, the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering may be sold in the normal manner. As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: From where is it derived that one may sell the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering of young orphans in its usual manner, without having to resort to the method of inclusion?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara brings support for Rava from an earlier Amora. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak asks how we know that orphans’ maaser may be sold in the ordinary way, without resorting to hav’la’ah. The very question presupposes Rava’s view: if orphans may sell it outright, the prohibition on adults must be rabbinic, and the Torah itself must permit the sale of slaughtered maaser meat.

Key Terms:

• מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה = the animal tithe — every tenth animal born in the herd, passed under the rod and sanctified as an offering
• כְּדַרְכּוֹ = in its usual manner, i.e. by an ordinary sale rather than by inclusion (hav’la’ah)
• סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרָבָא = he holds in accordance with this view of Rava

Segment 3

TYPE: דרשה

From ‘according to the blessing of Hashem’ (Devarim 12:15): the item that yields no benefit alive but yields benefit after slaughter is maaser beheima

Hebrew/Aramaic:

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רַק בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ בָשָׂר״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בְּרָכָה מֵחַיִּים אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

English Translation:

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated in a verse discussing consecrated animals that became blemished: “Notwithstanding, after all the desire of your soul, you may slaughter and eat flesh, according to the blessing of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:15). Now which is the item that has no blessing when it is alive, i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, but it does have a blessing after its slaughter, as indicated by the verse “You may slaughter…according to the blessing of the Lord your God”? You must say that this is the meat of the animal tithe offering.

קלאוד על הדף:

The verse speaks of disqualified consecrated animals that may be slaughtered and eaten ‘according to the blessing of Hashem your God’, and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak reads ‘blessing’ as profit — the right to sell. Most blemished offerings can be redeemed while alive, so they have ‘blessing’ even then; maaser alone can never be redeemed or sold while alive, yet the verse grants it ‘blessing’ after slaughter. Thus the Torah itself permits selling the meat of slaughtered maaser, and the orphans, for whom the Sages waived their decree, may do so in the usual way.

Key Terms:

• אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ = the desire of your soul — the phrase permitting ordinary slaughter and eating
• בְּרָכָה = blessing — here understood as profit, the right to sell
• אֵין בּוֹ בְּרָכָה מֵחַיִּים = it has no blessing (benefit) while alive, since live maaser cannot be redeemed or sold
• לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה = after slaughter

Segment 4

TYPE: בעיא

May the price of maaser meat be included in the price of the bones? Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon son of Rebbi disagree

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לְהַבְלִיעוֹ בַּעֲצָמוֹת? רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי, חַד אָמַר: מַבְלִיעוֹ, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין מַבְלִיעוֹ.

English Translation:

§ The baraita cited earlier teaches that the Sages permitted the inclusion of the value of a blemished animal-tithe offering’s meat in the cost of its hide, fat, sinews, and horns. In this regard, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to including the value of the meat in the cost of the animal’s bones? Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disputed this matter. One says that one may include the value in the cost of the bones, and one says one may not include it.

קלאוד על הדף:

Having established that the meat may be sold by inclusion in the price of the hide, fat, sinews and horns, the Gemara asks whether the bones can serve the same purpose. Hav’la’ah only works with something that is a plausible object of sale in its own right; otherwise the ‘sale’ of the accompanying item is transparently a sale of the meat itself. Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree on whether bones qualify.

Key Terms:

• לְהַבְלִיעוֹ = to include it — to absorb the price of the meat into the price of another item (hav’la’ah)
• עֲצָמוֹת = bones
• רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי = Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi

Segment 5

TYPE: תירוץ (ולא פליגי)

No real dispute: the bones of a small animal cannot be used, those of a large animal can

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — הָא בְּדַקָּה, הָא בְּגַסָּה.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree. This one, who maintains that one may not include the value in the cost of the bones, is referring to a small, domesticated animal, whose bones are incapable of being fashioned into utensils and are therefore never sold. That one, who holds that one may include the value in the cost of the bones, is referring to a large, domesticated animal, whose bones can be used and are therefore sold.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara harmonises the two views. The bones of sheep and goats are not fashioned into utensils and have no market, so including the meat’s price in them would be an obvious sham; the bones of cattle are usable and saleable, so they can carry the price of the meat like the hide does. Each Sage spoke of a different kind of animal.

Key Terms:

• וְלָא פְּלִיגִי = and they do not disagree
• דַּקָּה = small livestock — sheep and goats
• גַּסָּה = large livestock — cattle

Segment 6

TYPE: תירוץ (איבעית אימא)

Alternatively both speak of large animals, and each ruled by the custom of his own place

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּגַסָּה, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ, וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ.

English Translation:

And if you wish, say instead that both this one and that one are referring even to a large, domesticated animal, and still they do not disagree. This Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale, and that Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale. In other words, in certain places the custom is to use the bones and sell them, while elsewhere they do not.

קלאוד על הדף:

A second harmonisation: both Sages discuss cattle, but in one locale cattle bones are used and sold while in the other they are discarded. The halachic test is thus the same — whether the item has real commercial value — but its application depends on local practice. This is a recurring Talmudic move in which an apparent dispute reflects differing local realities rather than differing principles.

Key Terms:

• אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי = both this one and that one
• מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ = this Sage according to his locale — each ruled by the custom of his own place

Segment 7

TYPE: גמרא (גופא)

Back to the baraita: a firstborn (‘lo tifdeh’) may be sold, but maaser (‘lo yiga’el’) may never be sold — what is the source?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גּוּפָא: בִּבְכוֹר הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא יִפְדֶּה״, וְנִמְכָּר; בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר, לֹא חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט, וְלֹא תָּם וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

English Translation:

§ The Gemara returns to the matter itself, stated in the baraita: With regard to a firstborn male animal offering the verse states: “You shall not redeem” (Numbers 18:17), but it may be sold while alive, by the priest to whom it belongs. By contrast, with regard to the animal tithe offering, it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that its sanctity can never be removed from it, and it cannot be sold, not when alive and not when slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived, that the phrase “it shall not be redeemed” is referring to the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara returns to the baraita cited on the previous daf, which contrasts the two offerings. The firstborn is described with ‘you shall not redeem’ (Bamidbar 18:17), yet the priest may sell it; maaser is described with ‘it shall not be redeemed’ (Vayikra 27:33), and it may not be sold in any state — alive or slaughtered, unblemished or blemished. The question is how the word ‘redeem’ in the maaser verse comes to mean a prohibition on sale, which sets off a long exegetical discussion.

Key Terms:

• גּוּפָא = the matter itself — the Gemara returns to analyse a source cited earlier
• לֹא יִפְדֶּה / לֹא תִפְדֶּה = you shall not redeem — said of the firstborn
• לֹא יִגָּאֵל = it shall not be redeemed — said of maaser
• מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי = from where are these matters derived?

Segment 8

TYPE: גזירה שוה

Rav (via Rav Chinnana) and Rabbi Yochanan (via Rav Dimi): ‘lo yiga’el’ in maaser is linked to ‘lo yiga’el’ in charamim, where sale is prohibited alongside redemption

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא אָמַר רַב, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְנֶאֱמַר ״וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בַּחֲרָמִים, מָה לְהַלָּן מְכִירָה עִמּוֹ, אַף כָּאן מְכִירָה עִמּוֹ.

English Translation:

Rav Ḥinnana says that Rav says, and similarly, Rav Dimi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is stated: “It shall not be redeemed,” with regard to the animal tithe offering, and it is stated: “And it shall not be redeemed,” with regard to dedications [baḥaramim], i.e., property that one consecrated by means of the expression: Ḥerem. With regard to dedications, the verse states: “Notwithstanding, any dedicated item…may neither be sold nor redeemed” (Leviticus 27:28). This is a verbal analogy: Just as there, with regard to dedications, the prohibition against selling is mentioned together with the prohibition against redeeming, so too here, with regard to the animal tithe offering, the prohibition against selling is mentioned together with the prohibition against redeeming.

קלאוד על הדף:

The source is a gezeirah shavah. Of charamim, property devoted by the expression ‘cherem’, the Torah says ‘it shall be neither sold nor redeemed’ (Vayikra 27:28), pairing the two prohibitions. Because maaser shares the phrase ‘it shall not be redeemed’, it inherits the companion prohibition of sale. The derivation is reported in the names of both Rav and Rabbi Yochanan, the leading Amoraim of Bavel and Eretz Yisrael.

Key Terms:

• גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה = verbal analogy — a hermeneutic rule linking two passages that share a word or phrase
• חֲרָמִים = dedications — property consecrated with the term cherem, which goes to the priests
• מְכִירָה עִמּוֹ = sale is (mentioned) together with it

Segment 9

TYPE: קושיא (מופנה)

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: the analogy only stands if one of the phrases is free (mufneh); otherwise it is refuted, since charamim apply to everything

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מַפְנֵי, דְּאִי לָא מַפְנֵי, אִיכָּא לְמִפְרַךְ: מָה לַחֲרָמִים, שֶׁכֵּן חָלִים עַל הַכֹּל!

English Translation:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: It must be that at least one of the phrases “It shall not be redeemed” is free, i.e., at least one of these terms is superfluous in its context, which means that it is included for the specific purpose of the verbal analogy. In such a case the verbal analogy cannot be refuted by logic, whereas if neither phrase is free one can refute the analogy if there is a significant difference between the two cases. As, if these terms are not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted: What is notable about dedications, in contrast to the animal tithe offering? They are notable in that they apply to all items one wishes to dedicate, whereas an animal tithe offering applies only to kosher animals.

קלאוד על הדף:

A gezeirah shavah drawn from words that are needed in their own context can be refuted by pointing to a difference between the two subjects. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak notes such a difference: cherem can be declared on any property — land, slaves, movables, any animal — whereas maaser applies only to kosher livestock. Unless one of the phrases is superfluous in its own place, and thus ‘free’ for the analogy, the derivation fails. The rest of the amud is a search for which phrase is free.

Key Terms:

• מַפְנֵי / מוּפְנֶה = free — a word superfluous in its own context, available for a gezeirah shavah that cannot be refuted by logic
• אִיכָּא לְמִפְרַךְ = there is a refutation to be made
• חָלִים עַל הַכֹּל = they take effect on everything — cherem can be declared on any kind of property

Segment 10

TYPE: תירוץ (הצעה)

It is free: the phrase in charamim is superfluous, since ‘not redeemed’ could be derived for charamim from maaser

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לָאיֵי אַפְנוֹיֵי מַפְנֵי, לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בַּחֲרָמִים, וְיִגְמַר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל, אַף חֲרָמִים קְדוֹשִׁים וְאֵינָם נִגְאָלִין. ״וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes: This is not so [la’ai], as at least one of the phrases: “It shall not be redeemed,” is certainly free. How so? Let the verse not state: “It shall not be redeemed,” with regard to dedications, and instead one could derive the prohibition from an animal tithe offering: Just as an animal tithe offering is sacred and may not be redeemed, so too, dedications are also sacred and may not be redeemed. Why then do I need the phrase “It shall not be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes, in the case of dedications? It is evidently to be considered free to enable the verbal analogy.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara proposes that the phrase in the charamim verse is free. If the Torah had stated ‘it shall not be redeemed’ only regarding maaser, one could have reasoned: just as maaser is sacred and cannot be redeemed, so too charamim. The repetition of the phrase for charamim would then be superfluous and available for the analogy.

Key Terms:

• לָאיֵי = this is not so — an Aramaic expression rejecting the previous claim
• לְאַפְנוֹיֵי = to be made free — to render the phrase available for the analogy
• דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא = that the Merciful One wrote

Segment 11

TYPE: פירכא

Refuted: maaser is more stringent, since its sanctity extends to the ninth and the eleventh

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁכֵּן קָדוֹשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו!

English Translation:

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. It is still possible that the phrase “It shall not be redeemed,” written with regard to dedications, is not free, as the suggested derivation stated above can be refuted: What is notable about the animal tithe offering? It is notable in that there is sanctity before it and after it. If, instead of proclaiming as the tithe the tenth animal that one counted, one inadvertently proclaimed either the ninth animal or the eleventh animal as the tithe, the mistakenly proclaimed animal assumes the sacred status of the animal tithe offering. By contrast, one cannot inadvertently dedicate property to the Temple. Since the case of the animal tithe offering includes a stringency not shared by dedications, the phrase “It shall not be redeemed” is required to teach that dedications may not be redeemed, and is therefore not free for the verbal analogy.

קלאוד על הדף:

The proposed derivation of charamim from maaser is refuted. Maaser has a unique stringency: if the owner mistakenly calls the ninth or the eleventh animal ‘tenth’, those animals become sanctified as well. Since maaser is in this respect stronger than charamim, one could not derive the laws of charamim from it, so the phrase in charamim is needed for its own sake and is not free.

Key Terms:

• פִּירְכָא = refutation — pointing out a feature of the source case that the derived case lacks
• קָדוֹשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו = sanctified before and after it — the ninth and eleventh animals mistakenly called tenth become sacred

Segment 12

TYPE: הצעה

Then let charamim learn from the firstborn, leaving the phrase in charamim free

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בַּחֲרָמִים, וְיִגְמַר מִבְּכוֹר: מָה בְּכוֹר קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל, אַף חֲרָמִים קְדוֹשִׁין וְאֵינָן נִגְאָלִין. ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

English Translation:

The Gemara cites an alternative suggestion. Rather, let the verse not state: “It shall not be redeemed,” with regard to dedications, and instead one can derive the prohibition from the firstborn offering: Just as the firstborn offering is sacred and may not be redeemed, as the verse states: “You shall not redeem it” (Numbers 18:17), so too, dedications are also sacred and may not be redeemed. Why do I need the phrase “It shall not be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes in the case of dedications? It is evidently to be considered free to enable the verbal analogy to the animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new proposal: the non-redemption of charamim could have been learned from the firstborn, of which the Torah says ‘you shall not redeem’ (Bamidbar 18:17). If so, the phrase in charamim would again be superfluous and free for the analogy with maaser.

Key Terms:

• בְּכוֹר = the firstborn male of a kosher animal, holy from birth and given to a priest
• קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל = sacred and cannot be redeemed

Segment 13

TYPE: פירכא

Refuted: the firstborn is more stringent, as its sanctity is from the womb

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִבְכוֹר, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם!

English Translation:

The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: It is possible that the phrase “It shall not be redeemed” is not free, as the above derivation can be refuted: What is notable about the firstborn offering? It is notable in that its sanctity is from the womb, whereas dedications require an act of consecration.

קלאוד על הדף:

This too is refuted. The firstborn becomes holy on its own, at birth, without any human act of consecration, while charamim require a declaration. A sanctity that comes from the womb is intrinsically stronger, so the law of charamim cannot be derived from it, and the phrase in charamim is again needed for itself.

Key Terms:

• קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם = its sanctity is from the womb — it is sanctified automatically at birth

Segment 14

TYPE: הצעה (העברה העברה)

Reverse the direction: maaser could learn non-redemption from the firstborn via the shared word ‘passing’, leaving maaser’s phrase free

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְיִגְמַר הַעֲבָרָה הַעֲבָרָה מִבְּכוֹר, מָה בְּכוֹר קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל, אַף מַעֲשֵׂר קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל. ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר לְמָה לִי? לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

English Translation:

Rather, let the verse not say: “It shall not be redeemed,” with regard to the animal tithe offering, and instead one can derive the prohibition from a verbal analogy from the term of passing stated there and the term of passing stated in the case of a firstborn. With regard to an animal tithe offering the verse states: “Whatsoever passes under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32), and in the case of the firstborn offering it is stated: “And you shall cause to pass all that opens the womb, to the Lord” (Exodus 13:12). Just as the firstborn offering is sacred and may not be redeemed, so too, an animal tithe offering is also sacred and may not be redeemed. Why do I need the phrase “It shall not be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes with regard to animal tithe offerings? It is evidently to be considered free to enable the verbal analogy to dedications.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara now tries to free the phrase in the maaser verse instead. Maaser is described as ‘whatever passes under the rod’ (Vayikra 27:32) and the firstborn as ‘you shall cause to pass all that opens the womb’ (Shemot 13:12). Through this gezeirah shavah maaser could learn from the firstborn that it may not be redeemed, so maaser’s own ‘it shall not be redeemed’ would be free to link with charamim.

Key Terms:

• הַעֲבָרָה = passing — the word shared by the verses on maaser (passing under the rod) and the firstborn
• יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט = passes under the rod — the counting procedure by which the tenth animal is designated

Segment 15

TYPE: קושיא

But the same refutation applies — the firstborn is holy from the womb

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאַכַּתִּי, בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי לָא, מַפְנֵי דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ כִּדְפָרְכִינַן!

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: But still, the phrase “It shall not be redeemed,” written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is itself not free, as the analogy between the animal tithe offering and the firstborn offering can be refuted as we refuted the analogy between the firstborn offering and dedications, since the firstborn offering is notable in that it is sanctified from the womb.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara objects that this derivation suffers from the very weakness just identified. Maaser, like charamim, requires an act of designation, while the firstborn is holy from birth; so learning maaser from the firstborn can be refuted, and maaser’s phrase is not free after all.

Key Terms:

• וְאַכַּתִּי = but still
• כִּדְפָרְכִינַן = as we refuted (above)

Segment 16

TYPE: תירוץ

The word ‘and you shall cause to pass’ in the firstborn verse is itself superfluous, so the ‘passing’ analogy cannot be refuted

Hebrew/Aramaic:

״וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ״ קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: The term “And you shall cause to pass,” written in the context of the firstborn, is a superfluous verse, as it could have simply stated: All that opens the womb is to be for the Lord. Consequently, it is free to enable the verbal analogy. In sum, the Gemara is suggesting that due to the term “And you shall cause to pass,” there is a verbal analogy between the animal tithe offering and the firstborn offering, from which it is derived that the animal tithe offering may not be redeemed. This means that the phrase “It shall not be redeemed,” written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is free to enable the verbal analogy with dedications, from which the prohibition against selling the meat of the animal tithe offering is derived.

קלאוד על הדף:

The answer is that this gezeirah shavah is not open to refutation, because ‘and you shall cause to pass’ in the firstborn verse is extra — the Torah could simply have said that every firstborn belongs to Hashem. A gezeirah shavah based on a free word stands even when the two subjects differ. So maaser learns non-redemption from the firstborn, and maaser’s own ‘it shall not be redeemed’ is free to be linked with charamim, teaching that maaser may not be sold.

Key Terms:

• קְרָא יַתִּירָא = a superfluous verse (or word)
• וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ = and you shall cause to pass (Shemot 13:12)

Segment 17

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not apply the charamim analogy to the firstborn too? Because the firstborn’s phrase is not free

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בְּכוֹר נָמֵי נֵילַף ״גְּאוּלָּה״ ״גְּאוּלָּה״ מֵחֲרָמִים! דְּמַעֲשֵׂר מַפְנֵי, דִּבְכוֹר לָא מַפְנֵי.

English Translation:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to a firstborn offering as well, let us derive that one may not sell its meat from a verbal analogy between the expression of redemption written there and the expression of redemption written in the context of dedications. This would contradict the ruling of the baraita that a firstborn offering can be sold after it enters the possession of the priest. The Gemara answers: The expression of redemption in the context of the animal tithe offering is free to enable the verbal analogy to dedications, but the expression of redemption in the context of a firstborn offering is not free, as it is required in its own context to teach that the firstborn offering may not be redeemed and as the source for the halakha of the animal tithe offering.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the firstborn also has a ‘redemption’ phrase, why should it not also learn the prohibition of sale from charamim — contradicting the baraita, which allows the priest to sell it? The Gemara answers that only maaser’s phrase is free; the firstborn’s ‘you shall not redeem’ is needed in its own context to teach non-redemption, and it is the source from which maaser learns that law.

Key Terms:

• גְּאוּלָּה = redemption (from the root ga’al) — the term used for maaser and charamim
• לָא מַפְנֵי = it is not free

Segment 18

TYPE: קושיא

Why assume the firstborn’s phrase is needed and maaser’s is free, rather than the reverse?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּלֹא תִפְדֶּה דִּבְכוֹר — לְגוּפֵיהּ, וּדְמַעֲשֵׂר — לְאַפְנוֹיֵי? וְאֵימָא: דְּמַעֲשֵׂר — לְגוּפֵיהּ, דִּבְכוֹר — לְאַפְנוֹיֵי!

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that you said that the phrase “you shall not redeem” written in the context of a firstborn offering is not free, but is necessary for itself, i.e., to teach that it may not be redeemed, and yet the expression of redemption written with regard to the animal tithe offering is free to enable the verbal analogy, as the halakha of its redemption is derived from the firstborn? But one can say the reverse, that the expression of redemption written in the context of the animal tithe offering is for itself, whereas that written with regard to a firstborn offering is free.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges the arbitrariness of the arrangement. One could just as well say that maaser’s phrase teaches its own non-redemption and the firstborn’s phrase is the free one — which would forbid selling the firstborn and permit selling maaser, the opposite of the baraita.

Key Terms:

• מַאי חָזֵית = what did you see? — what is your reason for preferring one reading over the other?
• לְגוּפֵיהּ = for itself — needed to teach its own law

Segment 19

TYPE: תירוץ

We derive geula from geula, not pediya from geula

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דָּנִין גְּאוּלָּה מִגְּאוּלָּה, וְאֵין דָּנִין פְּדִיָּיה מִגְּאוּלָּה.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: We derive the expression of redemption [geula] written in the context of the animal tithe offering from the expression of redemption [geula] written in the context of dedications, but we do not derive the expression of redemption [pediya] written in the context of a firstborn offering from the different expression of redemption [geula] written in the context of the dedications.

קלאוד על הדף:

The answer rests on the wording. Maaser and charamim share the identical verb, ‘yiga’el’, from the root ga’al, while the firstborn uses a different verb, ‘tifdeh’, from the root padah. A gezeirah shavah is drawn between identical words, so only maaser can be linked to charamim.

Key Terms:

• גְּאוּלָּה = redemption expressed with the root ga’al
• פְּדִיָּיה = redemption expressed with the root padah
• דָּנִין … מִ = we derive … from

Segment 20

TYPE: קושיא

But the school of Rabbi Yishmael drew an analogy between different words — ‘veshav’ and ‘uva’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? הָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ — זוֹ הִיא שִׁיבָה זוֹ הִיא בִּיאָה!

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether or not an identical expression is used for a verbal analogy? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: “And the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest’s visit seven days later states: “And the priest shall come [uva] and look” (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the same halakha that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week also applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. Here too, the different terms of pediya and geula should not prevent the application of a verbal analogy.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara objects that a gezeirah shavah does not always require identical words. In the laws of tzara’at of houses, the school of Rabbi Yishmael linked ‘and the priest shall return’ (veshav, Vayikra 14:39) with ‘and the priest shall come’ (uva, 14:44), declaring that returning and coming are the same thing. By that precedent, pediya and geula should also be linkable.

Key Terms:

• תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught
• שִׁיבָה / בִּיאָה = returning / coming
• נִגְעֵי בָתִּים = tzara’at of houses, the context of the verses cited

Segment 21

TYPE: תירוץ

Different words may be linked only when no identical word is available

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הָנֵי מִילֵּי, הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל אִיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ — מִדְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: This statement, that the phrases used for a verbal analogy do not have to be identical, applies only where there are no terms that are equivalent to it. But where there are terms that are equivalent to it, we derive the verbal analogy from the terms that are equivalent to it, rather than from the terms that are not equivalent.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara qualifies the principle. Synonyms may serve a gezeirah shavah only where there is no exactly matching word; where one exists, the analogy is drawn from it. Since maaser and charamim share the identical ‘yiga’el’, maaser and not the firstborn is linked to charamim.

Key Terms:

• הָנֵי מִילֵּי = this applies only
• דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ = something that resembles it — an identical expression

Segment 22

TYPE: קושיא

Then let the firstborn learn from maaser through the ‘passing’ analogy that it too may not be sold

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלֵילַף בְּכוֹר ״הַעֲבָרָה״ ״הַעֲבָרָה״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר, דְּהָא מַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי גָּמַר ״גְּאוּלָּה״ ״גְּאוּלָּה״ מֵחֲרָמִים!

English Translation:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let one derive that it is prohibited to sell the meat of a blemished firstborn offering from the verbal analogy between the expression of passing and the expression of passing, from the case of the animal tithe offering. This should be possible, as the sale of the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering is also prohibited, as derived by a verbal analogy between the expression of redemption written in its context and the expression of redemption written with regard to dedications, as explained earlier.

קלאוד על הדף:

The two analogies seem to form a chain: the firstborn is linked to maaser by ‘passing’, and maaser is linked to charamim by ‘redemption’. If so, whatever maaser learns — including the prohibition of sale — should pass back to the firstborn, again contradicting the baraita’s ruling that the firstborn may be sold.

Key Terms:

• וְלֵילַף = and let one derive
• גָּמַר = it derives (by analogy)

Segment 23

TYPE: תירוץ (מיעוט)

The word ‘hu’ in the charamim verse excludes the firstborn; maaser is not excluded because it shares the word geula

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חֲרָמִים, ״הוּא״ — ״הוּא״ וְלֹא בְּכוֹר. וְאֵימָא ״הוּא״ וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר! מַעֲשֵׂר גְּאוּלָּה כְּמוֹתוֹ.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: The Merciful One limits the extension of the prohibition against selling with regard to dedications by adding the term “it” in the verse: “It is most holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). The term “it” teaches that the prohibition against selling applies only to it, i.e., dedications, but not to a firstborn offering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say instead that the term “it” teaches that the prohibition against selling applies to dedications, but not to the animal tithe offering. The Gemara answers: The prohibition against selling applies to the animal tithe offering, with regard to which the expression of redemption is written, just like dedications, while the term “it” limits the prohibition to the firstborn offering.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Torah blocks the chain with a limiting word: ‘it (hu) is most holy to Hashem’ (Vayikra 27:28) restricts the prohibition of sale. The Gemara asks why the exclusion should fall on the firstborn rather than on maaser, and answers that maaser shares the same word, geula, with charamim and so is treated like them; the exclusion therefore falls on the firstborn, which is linked only indirectly.

Key Terms:

• מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One excluded
• הוּא = it — a limiting word that restricts a law to its own subject
• גְּאוּלָּה כְּמוֹתוֹ = redemption (written) like it — maaser shares the term with charamim

Segment 24

TYPE: שיטה אחרת (רבא)

Rava: charamim’s ‘lo yiga’el’ is unnecessary in its own context, since charamim are hekdesh with the owner and chullin with the priest

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רָבָא אָמַר, ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דַּחֲרָמִים לָא צְרִיךְ, דְּאִיתַנְהוּ הֵיכָא? אִי בֵּי בְעָלִים — הֶקְדֵּשׁ נִינְהוּ, אִי בֵּי כֹהֵן — חוּלִּין נִינְהוּ.

English Translation:

§ Rava says that there is an alternative explanation for the prohibition against selling the animal tithe. The phrase “It may not be redeemed,” written with regard to dedications, is unnecessary and is therefore free to enable a verbal analogy with the animal tithe offering. Rava explains: As where are the items of dedication, designated for the priests, located? If they are in the owner’s possession, they are considered consecrated and may not be redeemed. And if they are in the priest’s possession, they are considered non-sacred and the priest may sell them.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava offers a simpler route. The phrase ‘it shall not be redeemed’ cannot have any practical meaning for charamim themselves: while the property is with the owner it is consecrated and plainly cannot be redeemed, and once given to the priest it becomes his ordinary property, which he may sell freely. Since the phrase has no work to do there, it is free and must be applied elsewhere.

Key Terms:

• הֶקְדֵּשׁ = consecrated property
• חוּלִּין = non-sacred, ordinary property
• בֵּי בְעָלִים / בֵּי כֹהֵן = in the owner’s possession / in the priest’s possession

Segment 25

TYPE: ברייתא

Charamim in the owner’s possession are like hekdesh in every respect; given to the priest they are like chullin in every respect

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּתַנְיָא: חֲרָמִים, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּבֵית בְּעָלִים — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה׳״. נְתָנָן לְכֹהֵן — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ יִהְיֶה״. ״לֹא

English Translation:

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Dedications, as long as they are in the owner’s possession, are like consecrated property in all respects, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner gave them to the priest, they are like non-sacred property in all respects, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item in Israel shall be for You” (Numbers 18:14). Rava continues: Accordingly, concerning the phrase “It may not

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava supports his premise with a baraita. While charamim are still in the owner’s house they are ‘most holy to Hashem’ (Vayikra 27:28) and subject to all the laws of consecrated property; once handed to the priest, ‘every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours’ (Bamidbar 18:14) makes them fully his. The segment breaks off mid-quotation at the end of the amud, as Rava begins to ask what the phrase ‘it shall not be redeemed’ is for — a question completed on 32b.

Key Terms:

• לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם = in all respects
• כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ יִהְיֶה = every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours — the verse granting charamim to the priest

Amud Bet (32b)

Segment 1

TYPE: גמרא (המשך דברי רבא)

Since the phrase does not apply to charamim, apply it to maaser — and not to the firstborn, because maaser shares the word geula

Hebrew/Aramaic:

יִגָּאֵל״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַחֲרָמִים — תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְמַעֲשֵׂר. אֵימָא תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִבְכוֹר? מַעֲשֵׂר גְּאוּלָּה כְּמוֹתוֹ.

English Translation:

be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes, why do I need it? If it is not referring to the matter of dedications, as can be inferred from the baraita, apply it to the matter of the animal tithe offering, teaching that it may not be sold. The Gemara raises a difficulty: One can say that instead of applying it to the animal tithe offering, apply it to the matter of a firstborn offering. The Gemara rejects this possibility: The prohibition against selling extends to the animal tithe offering, concerning which the expression of redemption is written, just like dedications, which is not so concerning the firstborn offering.

קלאוד על הדף:

This continues Rava’s argument from the end of 32a. Since ‘it shall not be redeemed’ is meaningless for charamim, the rule ‘if it is not needed for its own matter, apply it to another matter’ directs it to maaser, so that the prohibition of sale paired with it in the charamim verse applies to maaser. When asked why it should not be applied to the firstborn, Rava gives the same answer as before: maaser uses the identical word geula.

Key Terms:

• אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְ… תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְ = if it is not needed for this matter, apply it to that matter — a hermeneutic principle for redirecting a superfluous phrase
• תְּנֵהוּ = apply it

Segment 2

TYPE: שיטה אחרת (רב אשי)

Rav Ashi: ‘lo yiga’el’ in the maaser verse itself means ‘it shall not be sold’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דְּמַעֲשֵׂר — לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לֹא יִגָּאֵל״.

English Translation:

§ Rav Ashi says that the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is not derived from dedications, but rather from the case of the animal tithe offering itself. The phrase “It may not be redeemed,” written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is to be understood as meaning: It may not be sold. Rav Ashi further says: From where do I say this? As it is written: “Then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33).

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Ashi needs no analogy with charamim at all: the phrase ‘it shall not be redeemed’ in the maaser verse (Vayikra 27:33) simply means ‘it shall not be sold’. His proof comes from the structure of that very verse, which places the law of substitution (temurah) next to the phrase.

Key Terms:

• לֹא יִמָּכֵר = it shall not be sold
• תְּמוּרָה = substitution — declaring an ordinary animal a replacement for a consecrated one; both become holy
• וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ = both it and its substitute shall be holy (Vayikra 27:33)

Segment 3

TYPE: ראיה וקושיא

Temurah applies only while alive, so ‘not redeemed’ applies only while alive — but slaughtered offerings cannot be redeemed, since redemption requires standing and valuation

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֵימָתַי עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה — מֵחַיִּים, אֵימָתַי אֵינוֹ נִגְאָל — מֵחַיִּים, הָא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה — נִגְאָל, הָא בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה!

English Translation:

Rav Ashi elaborates: When does the animal tithe offering render a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute? Only when the animal tithe offering is alive. Similarly, when may the animal tithe offering not be redeemed by its owner? Only when it is alive, which indicates that it may be redeemed after its slaughter. But when redeeming a sanctified animal, it requires standing and valuation, i.e., it has to be set standing before a priest for him to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). How, then, can the animal tithe offering be redeemed after having been slaughtered?

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Ashi reads the juxtaposition: substitution works only while maaser is alive, so ‘it shall not be redeemed’ likewise speaks only of the living animal, implying that after slaughter it may be ‘redeemed’. But literal redemption of a slaughtered animal is impossible, since redeeming an offering requires that it be stood before a priest and valued (Vayikra 27:11-12), which cannot be done with a carcass.

Key Terms:

• הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה = standing and valuation — the consecrated animal must be stood before the priest and assessed before redemption
• מֵחַיִּים = while alive
• נִגְאָל = is redeemed

Segment 4

TYPE: מסקנא

Therefore ‘lo yiga’el’ must mean ‘it shall not be sold’ — forbidden while alive, permitted after slaughter

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ — לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא.

English Translation:

Rav Ashi continues: Rather, conclude from this verse that the phrase “it may not be redeemed” is not referring to redemption. Rather, it is actually to be understood as: It may not be sold. Accordingly, the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is in effect only while it is alive, as is the halakha with regard to a substitute; but once it is slaughtered, it may be sold.

קלאוד על הדף:

Since the implied permission after slaughter cannot mean redemption, ‘redeemed’ here must mean sold. The result is that maaser may not be sold while alive but may be sold after slaughter by Torah law — the same conclusion Rava reached on 31b, which grounds the rabbinic decree, the hav’la’ah method and the orphans’ exemption discussed at the start of the daf.

Key Terms:

• שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = conclude from this
• לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא = it means ‘it shall not be sold’

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא

That works for the view that altar-offerings require standing and valuation, but not for the view that they do not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

English Translation:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were included in the requirement of standing and valuation. But according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation, what is there to say? According to this opinion, the phrase “It may not be redeemed” can be interpreted literally, in contrast to Rav Ashi’s claim.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Ashi’s argument depends on the assumption that consecrated altar animals that became blemished require standing and valuation before redemption. There is a dispute about this; according to the view that they did not require it, a slaughtered maaser could in principle be redeemed, and the phrase could be read literally.

Key Terms:

• קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ = animals consecrated for the altar
• הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה = were included in the requirement of standing and valuation
• הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר = this works well according to the one who says

Segment 6

TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא

The real argument: nothing is unredeemable alive yet redeemable after slaughter — but perhaps strong sanctity alive prevents redemption while weaker sanctity after slaughter allows it

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: מִי אִיכָּא דְּמֵחַיִּים לָא מִיפְּרִיק, וּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה מִיפְּרִיק? אַלְּמָה לָא מֵחַיִּים דְּאַלִּימָא קְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ — לָא מִיפְּרִיק, לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דְּאַקֵּיל לֵיהּ קְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ — מִיפְּרִיק!

English Translation:

The Gemara explains: This is what we said, i.e., this is what we meant. The phrase “It may not be redeemed” cannot be understood literally, as is there ever an instance where an animal may not be redeemed when alive, and yet it may be redeemed after its slaughter? Since such a scenario is impossible, the verse must be referring to the prohibition against selling. The Gemara asks: But why can it not be said that an animal may be redeemed only after its slaughter? One can claim that when the animal is alive, since its sanctity is strong, it is logical to say that it may not be redeemed. Conversely, after its slaughter, when its sanctity is weak, it is logical to claim that it may be redeemed. If so, the phrase can be understood literally.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara reframes Rav Ashi: his point is not technical but conceptual — there is no such thing as an offering that cannot be redeemed alive yet can be redeemed after slaughter. It then challenges this: the opposite seems logical, since the sanctity of a living animal is strong and resists redemption, while after slaughter it is weaker and might be redeemable.

Key Terms:

• אַלִּימָא קְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ = its sanctity is strong
• אַקֵּיל לֵיהּ קְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ = its sanctity has become lighter
• מִיפְּרִיק = it is redeemed

Segment 7

TYPE: תירוץ (קל וחומר)

On the contrary, a kal vachomer: if the stronger sanctity alive cannot pass to redemption money, the weaker sanctity after slaughter certainly cannot

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלָא כֹּל דְּכֵן הוּא? וּמָה מֵחַיִּים דְּאַלִּים לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ — לָא מִיפְּרִיק, לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָא אַלִּים לְמִיתְפָּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ — מִיפְּרִיק? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ — לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא.

English Translation:

The Gemara rejects this contention: But isn’t the opposite claim, that a slaughtered animal tithe offering may not be redeemed, based on an a fortiori inference: If, when the animal tithe offering is alive and its sanctity is strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, just as it renders a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, nevertheless it may not be redeemed, then after its slaughter, when its sanctity is not strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, as at this stage it cannot render a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, should it be able to be redeemed? In other words, the fact that substitution can be effected only with a living animal indicates that a strong sanctity is more easily transferable to another item than a weak sanctity. Rather, conclude from this that the phrase “It may not be redeemed” is actually to be understood as meaning that it may not be sold.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara replies that logic actually runs the other way. A living animal’s sanctity is strong enough to pass to a substitute, and so would more readily pass to redemption money — yet it may not be redeemed; after slaughter, when its sanctity can no longer transfer even to a substitute, redemption is all the more impossible. So ‘it shall not be redeemed’ cannot be about redemption, and Rav Ashi’s reading, ‘it shall not be sold’, stands.

Key Terms:

• קַל וָחוֹמֶר = a fortiori inference — what applies in a lenient case applies all the more in a stringent one
• לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ = to transfer (its sanctity) to its redemption money
• וְלָא כֹּל דְּכֵן הוּא = is it not all the more so?

Segment 8

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not write ‘lo yimacher’? Because then one might think redemption is allowed; ‘lo yiga’el’ forbids both

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״! אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אִיזְדַּבּוֹנֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִזְדַּבַּן, דְּקָא עָבֵיד עוֹבָדִין דְּחוֹל, אֲבָל אִיפְּרוֹקֵי — מִיפְּרִיק, דְּהָא עָיְילִי דָּמָיו לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. לְהָכִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, דְּלָא אִיזְדַּבּוֹנֵי מִיזְדַּבַּן וְלָא אִיפְּרוֹקֵי מִיפְּרִיק.

English Translation:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the Merciful One write explicitly: It may not be sold. The Gemara answers: Had the Merciful One written: It may not be sold, I would say that the animal tithe offering only may not be sold, as one who does so performs an act of a non-sacred item, by treating the consecrated animal in the same manner as a non-sacred animal and transferring its value to non-sacred money. But I would say that it may be redeemed, as in this manner its value becomes consecrated. Therefore, in order to counter this notion, the Merciful One writes: “It may not be redeemed,” which teaches both that the animal tithe offering may not be sold and that it may not be redeemed.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the Torah means ‘not sold’, why use a word for redemption? Had it written ‘it shall not be sold’, one might have limited the ban to sale, which turns a holy animal into ordinary money, while still permitting redemption, in which the money becomes holy. The word ‘redeemed’ teaches both: maaser can be neither sold nor redeemed.

Key Terms:

• אִיזְדַּבּוֹנֵי = to be sold
• אִיפְּרוֹקֵי = to be redeemed
• עוֹבָדִין דְּחוֹל = acts of ordinary (non-sacred) property
• עָיְילִי דָּמָיו לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ = its money goes into hekdesh — in redemption the payment itself becomes consecrated

Segment 9

TYPE: משנה

Beit Shammai: an Israelite may not be counted with a priest to eat a blemished firstborn; Beit Hillel permit, even a gentile

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִמָּנֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל עִם הַכֹּהֵן לַבְּכוֹר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.

English Translation:

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: An Israelite cannot be counted with the priest to partake of a blemished firstborn. And Beit Hillel deem it permitted for him to partake of it, and they deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new mishna in Perek Kol Pesulei HaMukdashin turns to who may eat a blemished firstborn. Beit Shammai restrict it to priests, so an Israelite cannot join a priest’s group; Beit Hillel allow non-priests and even a gentile. The dispute turns on whether the blemished firstborn retains a priestly, sacred character or has become ordinary meat that the priest owns and may share with anyone.

Key Terms:

• לֹא יִמָּנֶה = he may not be counted — join the group designated to eat the meat
• בְּכוֹר = here, a blemished firstborn slaughtered and eaten outside the Temple
• גּוֹי = a gentile

Segment 10

TYPE: גמרא (ברייתא)

The mishna follows Rabbi Akiva’s report of Beit Hillel, who permitted even a gentile

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּכוֹר אֵין נִמְנִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא חֲבוּרָה שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כֹּהֲנִים, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ זָרִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַתִּיר אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn offering. The Gemara says: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a blemished firstborn offering, only a group constituted entirely of priests may be counted to partake of it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: The group may even be constituted of non-priests. Rabbi Akiva says that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn. Evidently, Beit Hillel’s opinion in the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s explanation in this baraita.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara identifies the mishna’s author by citing a baraita. Beit Shammai require a group composed entirely of priests, and Beit Hillel permit non-priests; Rabbi Akiva reports that Beit Hillel go further and permit even a gentile. Since our mishna includes the gentile, it follows Rabbi Akiva’s version.

Key Terms:

• מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי = whose opinion is the mishna?
• חֲבוּרָה = a group registered to eat together
• זָרִים = non-priests

Segment 11

TYPE: גמרא (טעם)

Beit Shammai’s reason: ‘their meat shall be yours’ compares the firstborn to the breast and thigh, which only priests may eat

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? דִּכְתִיב ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ וְגוֹ׳״, מָה הָתָם כֹּהֲנִים — אִין, יִשְׂרָאֵל — לָא, אַף הָכָא כֹּהֲנִים — אִין, יִשְׂרָאֵל — לָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? As it is written in a verse discussing the firstborn offering, addressed to Aaron and his sons: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy …and their flesh shall be yours, as the wave breast and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). Just as there, with regard to the breast and the thigh, priests may partake of it but an Israelite, i.e., a non-priest, may not, as the verse states: “You shall eat in a pure place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with you” (Leviticus 10:14), so too here, with regard to the firstborn offering, only priests may partake of it, but an Israelite may not.

קלאוד על הדף:

Beit Shammai rely on the verse ‘their meat shall be yours, like the breast of waving and the right thigh’ (Bamidbar 18:18). Just as the breast and thigh of a shelamim belong to priests and may not be eaten by an Israelite, so too the firstborn, even when blemished. Beit Hillel’s response, a kal vachomer, is presented at the start of daf 33.

Key Terms:

• וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ = and their meat shall be yours (Bamidbar 18:18)
• חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק = the breast and the thigh of a peace offering, given to the priests
• כֹּהֲנִים — אִין, יִשְׂרָאֵל — לָא = priests, yes; Israelites, no

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 32 belongs to Perek 5, כל פסולי המוקדשין, which began on 31a. Almost all of it is one question: where does the Torah teach that the animal tithe (מעשר בהמה) may not be sold? The daf opens by finishing Rava’s statement from 31b. By Torah law the meat of a slaughtered, blemished maaser animal may be sold. The Sages forbade it only because of the meat, since the meat is what sets a living animal’s price. Hide, fat, sinews and horns were left out of the decree, and that is what makes inclusion (הבלעה) work. For orphans the Sages left the Torah law in place. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak supports Rava from “according to the blessing of Hashem” (Devarim 12:15). The Gemara then asks whether bones can carry the price of the meat. After that it returns to the baraita’s contrast: the firstborn (“לא תפדה”) may be sold, but maaser (“לא יגאל”) may not be sold in any state. Three Amoraic routes to that rule follow. The first is a gezeirah shavah from charamim that has to be shown to rest on a free (מופנה) word. The second is Rava’s argument that the phrase has no work to do for charamim. The third is Rav Ashi’s reading that “לא יגאל” simply means “it shall not be sold”. The daf ends with a new mishna on whether an Israelite, or even a gentile, may eat a blemished firstborn. It stops after Beit Shammai’s reason, and Beit Hillel’s reply comes on 33a.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• The end of Rava’s statement: an item that is not priced in a living animal (דבר שאינו נישום מחיים), such as the hide or sinews, was not covered by the rabbinic decree. So the meat may be sold by folding its price into theirs. For young orphans (יתמי) the Sages “left it on Torah law” (אוקמוה אדאורייתא), and they may sell the meat in the ordinary way.
• Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak’s support: “You may slaughter and eat meat… according to the blessing of Hashem your God” (Devarim 12:15). Which item has no “blessing”, meaning no right of sale or profit, while alive, but has it after slaughter? Only maaser, which can never be redeemed or sold while alive. So by Torah law its slaughtered meat may be sold.
• Inclusion in the bones: Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon son of Rebbi disagree on whether the meat’s price may be included in the bones. The Gemara says they do not really disagree. Bones of small livestock (דקה) are useless and unsaleable, while bones of cattle (גסה) are made into utensils. Alternatively, both spoke of cattle, and each ruled by the custom of his own place (מר כי אתריה).
• The baraita (גופא): of the firstborn the Torah says “you shall not redeem” (Bamidbar 18:17), and it may be sold. Of maaser it says “it shall not be redeemed” (Vayikra 27:33), and it may not be sold, alive or slaughtered, unblemished or blemished.
• The gezeirah shavah: Rav Chinnana in the name of Rav, and Rav Dimi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, link “לא יגאל” in maaser with “ולא יגאל” in charamim. There the Torah says the item “shall be neither sold nor redeemed” (Vayikra 27:28), so maaser too may not be sold.
• It must be free: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak tells Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua that the analogy needs a superfluous word. Otherwise it can be refuted, since cherem can be declared on any property, while maaser applies only to kosher livestock.
• The search for the free word: charamim cannot learn non-redemption from maaser, because maaser is stronger: the ninth and eleventh animals called “tenth” also become holy (קדוש לפניו ולאחריו). Nor can charamim learn it from the firstborn, which is holy from the womb (קדושתו מרחם). Instead, maaser learns non-redemption from the firstborn through “passing” (העברה העברה), linking “passes under the rod” (Vayikra 27:32) with “you shall cause to pass” (Shemot 13:12). This analogy cannot be refuted, because “והעברת” is an extra word (קרא יתירא). That frees maaser’s own “לא יגאל” for the analogy with charamim.
• Why not the firstborn too? The firstborn’s phrase is needed for its own law. Maaser shares the same verb as charamim (גאולה), while the firstborn uses a different verb (פדייה). The precedent of “ושב”/“ובא” from the school of Rabbi Yishmael is set aside: different words are linked only when no identical word exists. Finally, the chain firstborn to maaser to charamim is blocked by “it (הוא) is most holy” (Vayikra 27:28), which excludes the firstborn.
• Rava’s route: “לא יגאל” has no work to do for charamim. A baraita teaches that in the owner’s house they are fully consecrated, and once given to the priest they are fully ordinary (Bamidbar 18:14). The sentence runs over onto 32b.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Rava concluded: if the phrase is not needed for charamim, apply it to maaser (אם אינו ענין… תנהו ענין). It goes to maaser and not to the firstborn, because maaser shares the word גאולה.
• Rav Ashi: “לא יגאל” in maaser means “it shall not be sold” (לא ימכר). The same verse mentions substitution (תמורה), which works only while the animal is alive. So the ban, too, covers only the living animal, which implies that after slaughter it may be “redeemed”. But redemption requires standing and valuation (העמדה והערכה), which is impossible for a carcass. The word must therefore mean sale.
• Challenge and refinement: the argument seems to depend on the view that altar offerings required standing and valuation. The Gemara restates it more broadly: nothing is unredeemable alive yet redeemable after slaughter. To the objection that weaker sanctity after slaughter might allow redemption, it answers with a kal vachomer. Living sanctity is strong enough to pass to a substitute and still cannot be redeemed, so weaker sanctity after slaughter certainly cannot.
• Why not write “לא ימכר”? Then one might have banned only sale, which turns holy property into ordinary money, while allowing redemption, in which the money becomes holy. “לא יגאל” forbids both.
• The new mishna: Beit Shammai say an Israelite may not be counted with a priest to eat a blemished firstborn. Beit Hillel permit it, even for a gentile. The Gemara attributes this to Rabbi Akiva, who reports in a baraita that Beit Hillel permitted even a gentile, while the general report has Beit Hillel permitting non-priests (זרים).
• Beit Shammai’s reason: “their meat shall be yours, like the breast of waving and the right thigh” (Bamidbar 18:18). Just as only priests eat the breast and thigh, so only priests eat the firstborn.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

All three Amoraic routes reach the baraita’s conclusion: maaser may not be sold, while the firstborn, whose verse uses a different verb and is excluded by “הוא”, may be sold by the priest. Rav Ashi’s reading, which the Gemara defends against both challenges, also confirms Rava’s opening point. The ban on sale applies by Torah law only while the animal is alive. After slaughter the restriction is rabbinic, which explains why the Sages could allow sale by inclusion in the hide, fat, sinews and horns (and cattle bones where they are saleable), and could waive the decree entirely for orphans. The Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute over eating a blemished firstborn is left open here. Beit Hillel’s kal vachomer answer begins on 33a.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, the school of Rabbi Yishmael; in the transitional generation, Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon son of Rebbi

Amoraim: Rav, Rabbi Yochanan, Rav Chinnana, Rav Dimi, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, Rava, Rav Ashi

One-Line Takeaway

“It shall not be redeemed” forbids selling maaser, whether learned from charamim through a free word or read directly as “not sold”, but only the living animal is barred by Torah law, so a blemished maaser’s meat may be sold after slaughter wherever the Sages allowed it.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is about two holy animals and one big question: can you sell them? The firstborn (בכור, bechor) can be sold by the kohen, but the animal tithe (מעשר בהמה, maaser beheima) mostly can’t. The Gemara goes on a long, twisty treasure hunt through the verses to find out why. Then a new mishna asks: when a kohen eats a blemished firstborn, who is allowed to join him at the table?

Quick Reminder: Two Holy Animals 🐑🐑

Let’s meet our two animals.

• 🥇 The bechor (firstborn): The very first boy a cow, sheep or goat ever gives birth to. It’s holy from the moment it’s born, all by itself. It goes to the kohen (the priest).
• 🔟 Maaser beheima (the animal tithe): Once a year, a farmer lines up all his new baby animals and walks them one by one through a little gate. He counts: one, two, three… and every tenth one gets tapped with a stick and becomes holy. The owner keeps it and eats it in Jerusalem.

Nowadays, without a Temple, both of these animals can only be eaten if they get a מום (mum, a “blemish,” a real injury like a torn ear). Then the meat can be eaten like regular meat. But there’s still a big difference between them, and that’s our whole daf!

The Simple Idea 💡: Both animals are holy, but the firstborn is holy from birth, and the tithe is holy because the farmer counted it.

The Hide Trick 🐄💰

Yesterday’s daf left us with a rule: you’re not allowed to sell the meat of a maaser animal, even after it’s slaughtered. But Rava (a great Babylonian teacher) explained: that’s only a rule from the Rabbis. By Torah law, once the animal is slaughtered, you may sell its meat!

So why did the Rabbis forbid it? Because they worried that people would get mixed up and sell the live animal too, which the Torah really does forbid.

Now, what sets the price of a live cow at the market? Mostly its meat. Nobody buys a living cow because of how pretty its horns are! So the Rabbis only forbade selling the meat. They didn’t forbid selling the hide (the skin), the fat, the sinews or the horns.

That opens up a trick called הבלעה (hav’la’ah, “swallowing up” or “including”). The owner says: “I’m selling you this hide for a lot of money… and the meat comes along with it for free!” The price of the meat gets “swallowed up” into the price of the hide.

Think of it like… a cereal box with a toy inside. The store isn’t allowed to sell you the toy. But it can sell you the cereal box for a little extra, and hey, look, there’s a toy inside!

And for young orphans (kids whose father died), the Rabbis didn’t make the rule at all. They let orphans sell the meat the normal way, so the orphans wouldn’t lose money.

The Simple Idea 💡: The Rabbis only forbade selling the meat itself, so you can sell the hide and let the meat “come along."

"According to the Blessing” 🙏

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak (another teacher) agrees with Rava, and he even finds a verse for it. The Torah says you may slaughter and eat meat “according to the blessing of Hashem your God” (Devarim 12:15).

He reads “blessing” as profit, meaning you may make money from it. Then he asks a riddle:

🤔 Which holy animal has no blessing while it’s alive (you can’t sell it or redeem it), but does have blessing after it’s slaughtered?

Answer: the maaser animal! Most other blemished holy animals can be redeemed while alive. Only maaser can’t. So the verse must be telling us that after slaughter, maaser can be sold.

The Simple Idea 💡: The Torah itself lets you profit from slaughtered maaser meat, and the orphans get to use that Torah rule.

Can You Use the Bones? 🦴

Okay, so you can hide the meat’s price inside the price of the hide. What about the bones?

Two great teachers, Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon (the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who wrote down the Mishna), disagree. One says yes, one says no.

The Gemara says: they don’t really disagree! Here’s why. The trick only works if the thing you’re “selling” is something people really buy. Otherwise everyone knows you’re just selling the meat.

Or maybe both teachers were talking about cow bones, but in one town people used cow bones and in the other town they threw them away. Each teacher ruled for his own town.

Think of it like… trying to “sell” a used candy wrapper for ten dollars with a free candy bar inside. Nobody really buys candy wrappers! Everyone can see it’s just a sneaky candy sale.

The Simple Idea 💡: You can only hide the meat’s price inside something people really buy.

The Big Rule: Firstborn Yes, Tithe No 🥇✅ 🔟❌

Now the Gemara goes back to a teaching from yesterday:

• 🥇 About the firstborn, the Torah says “you shall not redeem” it. But the kohen may sell it.
• 🔟 About the tithe, the Torah says “it shall not be redeemed.” And it may never be sold, not alive, not slaughtered, not perfect, not blemished.

Wait a second! The verse about the tithe only says “redeemed.” Where does it say “sold”? That’s what the Gemara wants to know. Buckle up, this is a treasure hunt! 🗺️

Matching Words: The Gezeirah Shavah 🧩

Rav and Rabbi Yochanan (the two biggest teachers, one in Babylonia and one in the Land of Israel) both give the same answer.

There’s a third holy thing in the Torah called חרמים (charamim). That’s when a person says, “This field (or this cow, or this thing) is cherem!” and it goes to the kohanim. About charamim, the Torah says: “it shall not be sold and not be redeemed.” The two rules come as a pair!

Now, the tithe has the exact same words: “it shall not be redeemed.” So we connect them with a גזירה שוה (gezeirah shavah, a “matching words” rule). When two places in the Torah use the same special words, they share their rules. So the tithe “borrows” the no-selling rule from charamim.

Think of it like… two twins wearing the same red hat. If you know one twin is allergic to peanuts, and the hat is a sign they share everything, then you know the other twin is allergic too!

The Simple Idea 💡: The tithe and charamim use the same words, so the tithe borrows charamim’s “no selling” rule.

But Wait! Is the Word “Free”? 🆓

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak raises a problem. A matching-words rule is easy to knock down if the two things are very different. And they are! You can make anything into cherem: land, furniture, any animal. But the tithe only works on kosher farm animals.

There’s only one way to save the match: one of the matching phrases has to be extra, meaning the Torah didn’t need it for anything else. Then it’s called מופנה (mufneh, “free”), and a “free” match can’t be knocked down. It’s like the Torah put that word there on purpose, just for matching.

So now the hunt is on: which phrase is extra? 🔍

The Treasure Hunt 🗺️🔍

Here’s how the Gemara searches, step by step:

Try 1: Maybe the phrase in charamim is extra? Charamim could have learned “no redeeming” from the tithe. ❌ No! The tithe is extra-strong: if the farmer accidentally calls the 9th or the 11th animal “tenth,” that one becomes holy too! Charamim don’t have that power. You can’t learn from something that’s stronger.

Try 2: Maybe charamim could learn “no redeeming” from the firstborn? ❌ No! The firstborn is extra-strong too: it’s holy from birth, without anyone saying a word.

Try 3: Flip it around! Maybe the phrase in the tithe is extra. The tithe “passes” under the stick, and the firstborn verse says “you shall cause to pass” every firstborn to Hashem. Same word, “pass”! So the tithe could learn “no redeeming” from the firstborn. 🤔 But that match should get knocked down for the same reason: the firstborn is holy from birth! ✅ Not this time! The word “you shall cause to pass” in the firstborn verse is extra. The Torah could have just said, “every firstborn belongs to Hashem.” So that match is free and can’t be knocked down.

So the tithe learns “no redeeming” from the firstborn. That leaves the tithe’s own “it shall not be redeemed” free to match up with charamim and borrow “no selling.” 🎉

Think of it like… a puzzle where you have to find one extra puzzle piece. You try the blue one, nope, it’s needed. You try the red one, nope. Finally you find the green one that fits nowhere else, so it must be meant for this spot!

The Simple Idea 💡: After a long search, the Gemara finds an “extra” word, so the tithe really does borrow “no selling” from charamim.

Why Not the Firstborn Too? 🥇🤔

But wait! The firstborn also has a “no redeeming” phrase. Why can’t the firstborn match up with charamim too, and become “no selling”?

Answer 1: Different words! The tithe and charamim both use the exact word יגאל (yiga’el, from “ge’ulah,” redeem). The firstborn uses a different word, תפדה (tifdeh, from “pediyah,” also redeem). Matching words have to really match.

🤔 But wait! The school of Rabbi Yishmael once matched two different words: “and the kohen shall return” and “and the kohen shall come.” They said returning and coming are the same thing!

✅ Answer: You can match different-but-similar words only when there’s no exact match around. Here the tithe has the exact same word as charamim, so the tithe wins.

Think of it like… looking for a partner for a game of “Match the Socks.” A blue sock and a navy sock are close enough if they’re the only ones left. But if there’s another blue sock right there, you pick that one!

Answer 2: The chain gets cut! ✂️ The Gemara asks: the firstborn is linked to the tithe (“pass”), and the tithe is linked to charamim (“redeem”). So shouldn’t the firstborn get “no selling” through the chain? 🔗

No! The charamim verse says “it is most holy to Hashem.” That little word “it” (הוא, hu) means: only it, not the firstborn. And why does “it” leave out the firstborn and not the tithe? Because the tithe has the same word as charamim, so it’s treated like charamim’s twin.

The Simple Idea 💡: The tithe matches charamim exactly, and the firstborn doesn’t, so only the tithe can’t be sold.

Rava’s Shortcut 🏃

Rava has a much shorter way. He says: think about charamim. Where is the cherem?

• 🏠 If it’s still at the owner’s house, it’s holy, and of course you can’t redeem it.
• 👨‍🦳 Once it’s given to the kohen, it’s just the kohen’s regular stuff, and he can do whatever he wants with it, even sell it!

A ברייתא (baraita, a teaching from the time of the Mishna that isn’t in the Mishna) says exactly that. So the words “it shall not be redeemed” in charamim have nothing to do! They must be telling us about something else. And the tithe, with the same word, is the best match.

Think of it like… finding a “Do Not Feed the Animals” sign in an empty room with no animals. The sign must be meant for the room next door, where the animals are!

The Simple Idea 💡: The words don’t work for charamim, so they must be meant for the tithe.

Rav Ashi: “Redeemed” Really Means “Sold” 📖

Rav Ashi has the shortest answer of all. He says: in the tithe verse, “it shall not be redeemed” simply means “it shall not be sold.” No matching needed!

How does he know? Look at the whole verse: “both it and its substitute shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.”

What’s a substitute? It’s called תמורה (temurah). If someone points at a regular animal and says, “This one replaces the holy one,” both animals become holy. But that only works while the holy animal is alive.

Rav Ashi says: since the two rules sit side by side, “not redeemed” must also be about when the animal is alive. That means after it’s slaughtered, it can be “redeemed.”

🤔 But wait! You can’t redeem a slaughtered animal! To redeem a holy animal, you have to stand it up in front of a kohen so he can look at it and set a price. A slaughtered animal can’t stand up!

✅ So the word can’t mean “redeem.” It must mean “sell.” The tithe can’t be sold while alive, but can be sold after slaughter. (That’s the Torah law Rava talked about at the beginning of the daf!)

The Simple Idea 💡: A slaughtered animal can’t be redeemed, so “not redeemed” must mean “not sold.”

Strong Holiness, Weak Holiness 💪

The Gemara pokes at Rav Ashi: “Some teachers say blemished altar animals don’t need to be stood up. What then?”

So the Gemara explains Rav Ashi’s real point: there’s just no such thing as an animal that can’t be redeemed alive but can be redeemed after it’s slaughtered.

🤔 But wait! Maybe there is! When it’s alive, its holiness is strong, so it can’t be redeemed. After slaughter, its holiness is weaker, so maybe it can!

✅ Nope, it’s the opposite! When the animal is alive, its holiness is so strong it can jump onto another animal (that’s temurah!). Holiness that can jump should easily jump onto redemption money too. Yet even then, it can’t be redeemed. So after slaughter, when the holiness is too weak to jump anywhere, it certainly can’t be redeemed! This kind of reasoning is called a קל וחומר (kal vachomer, “if this, then all the more so that”).

Think of it like… a super-bouncy ball. If even the brand-new bouncy ball can’t bounce over the fence, then the old flat one definitely can’t!

The Simple Idea 💡: If the strong holiness can’t move to money, the weak holiness surely can’t, so the verse must mean “not sold.”

Then Why Not Just Say “Sold”? 🗣️

Last question: if the Torah means “not sold,” why didn’t it just say “not sold”?

Because then we might think: “Okay, selling is bad. Selling turns a holy animal into regular money. But redeeming is fine, because then the money becomes holy!”

So the Torah picked the word “redeemed” to teach both rules at once: the tithe can’t be sold, and it can’t be redeemed either.

Think of it like… a parent saying, “No trading your lunch.” A sneaky kid might think, “But I’m not trading, I’m swapping!” So the parent picks words that cover every trick.

The Simple Idea 💡: One word covers both: no selling and no redeeming.

New Mishna: Who Can Join the Firstborn Feast? 🍽️

Now a brand-new mishna! A kohen has a blemished firstborn, and he’s slaughtered it to eat. Can he invite friends who aren’t kohanim?

The Gemara says our mishna follows Rabbi Akiva. A baraita tells us that Beit Hillel allowed non-kohanim, and Rabbi Akiva reported that Beit Hillel allowed even a non-Jew.

Why does Beit Shammai say no? 📜 The Torah says about the firstborn: “its meat shall be yours, like the breast and the right thigh.” The breast and thigh are the parts of a peace offering that go to the kohanim, and only kohanim and their families may eat them. Beit Shammai say: just like the breast and thigh, the firstborn meat is for kohanim only, even when it has a blemish.

Think of it like… a special “Team Members Only” pizza after the big game. Beit Shammai says: only the team can eat it, even if the pizza got a little burnt. Beit Hillel says: once it’s burnt and not “official” anymore, the team captain can share it with anyone he wants!

The Simple Idea 💡: Beit Shammai keep the blemished firstborn for kohanim only; Beit Hillel let the kohen share it with anyone.

A Cliffhanger! 📖

So what’s Beit Hillel’s answer to that verse? How do they explain “like the breast and thigh”? We’ll have to wait for daf 33 to find out!

The Simple Idea 💡: Beit Hillel’s clever reply is coming next time!

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• The hide trick (hav’la’ah): The Rabbis only forbade selling slaughtered maaser meat, not the hide, fat, sinews or horns. So you can sell the hide for extra and the meat comes along. Orphans may sell the meat the normal way, because by Torah law it’s allowed (“according to the blessing of Hashem”).
• Bones: You can hide the meat’s price in cow bones (people buy them) but not sheep bones (nobody does), or it depends on what’s done with bones in each town.
• Firstborn yes, tithe no: The kohen may sell a firstborn, but the tithe can never be sold.
• Rav and Rabbi Yochanan: The tithe matches charamim (“not redeemed”), so it borrows charamim’s “not sold.” After a long hunt, the Gemara finds an extra word (“you shall cause to pass”) so the match can’t be knocked down.
• Why not the firstborn? Its word (tifdeh) is different, and the little word “it” in the charamim verse cuts it out of the chain.
• Rava: “Not redeemed” means nothing for charamim themselves, so it must be about the tithe.
• Rav Ashi: “Not redeemed” just means “not sold.” A slaughtered animal can’t be redeemed, and if the strong holiness of a live animal can’t move to money, the weak holiness of a slaughtered one surely can’t (kal vachomer). The Torah said “redeemed” to forbid both selling and redeeming.
• New mishna: Beit Shammai say only kohanim may eat a blemished firstborn (like the breast and thigh). Beit Hillel, as reported by Rabbi Akiva, let anyone join, even a non-Jew. Beit Hillel’s answer comes on daf 33!

⚖️ Halacha

Slaughtered Maaser: Forbidden for Sale by Rabbinic Decree, Permitted to Orphans

Source in Daf: 32a, Segments 1-3 (the end of Rava’s statement from 31b: by Torah law the meat of a slaughtered blemished maaser may be sold, and the Sages forbade it only lest one come to sell the living animal; for orphans “they left it standing on Torah law”; Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak’s derivation from “according to the blessing of Hashem your God” (Deuteronomy 12:15) that the item with no “blessing” while alive but “blessing” after slaughter is maaser beheima)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:4

Hebrew:

וְדִין מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִשְׁחָט בָּעֲזָרָה וְזוֹרְקִין אֶת דָּמוֹ זְרִיקָה אַחַת כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד וּמַקְטִירִין אֵימוּרָיו. וּשְׁאָר הַבָּשָׂר נֶאֱכָל לַבְּעָלִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם כִּשְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וְאֵין לַכֹּהֲנִים בּוֹ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא כֻּלּוֹ לַבְּעָלִים כַּפֶּסַח. וְאִם הָיָה בַּעַל מוּם בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל בּוֹ מוּם בֵּין שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּמוּמוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱכָל בְּכָל מָקוֹם:

English:

The laws applying to a tithe offering of an animal are that it should be slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard and its blood cast in one heave towards the Altar’s base. Its organs and fats are offered on the altar’s pyre and the remainder of the meat is eaten by the owner in Jerusalem like other sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. The priests do not receive any portion of it. Instead, it is given to its owner in its entirety, like the Paschal sacrifice. If it was blemished, whether it became blemished after it was designated or it was blemished when it was set aside, it may be eaten in any place.

Connection: This is the background to the whole first half of the daf. Unlike the firstborn, maaser belongs entirely to its owner (“ואין לכהנים בו כלום אלא כלו לבעלים כפסח”), so the question of sale is a question about what an ordinary Israelite may do with his own sanctified animal. The final clause, that a blemished maaser “is eaten in any place,” is the situation the sugya addresses: the owner has a large quantity of meat that may be eaten anywhere, and the issue is whether he may turn any of it into money.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:6

Hebrew:

מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁאָסוּר לְמָכְרוֹ בַּעַל מוּם וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁחוּט גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ חַי. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין שׁוֹקְלִין מָנָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה בְּמַעֲשֵׂר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁשּׁוֹקְלִין בִּבְכוֹר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה כְּמוֹכֵר:

English:

According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to sell an animal designated as a tithe offering when it is blemished and even when it is slaughtered. This is a decree, lest one sell such an animal when it is alive. For this reason, we may not weigh one portion against another, as is done when weighing portions of a firstborn animal, because it appears as if he is selling it.

Connection: “מדברי סופרים” is Rava’s thesis exactly: the prohibition on selling blemished or slaughtered maaser is rabbinic, and its stated reason, “גזרה שמא ימכרנו חי,” is the Gemara’s concern that permitting the sale of the meat would lead to selling the live animal. That is what makes the leniencies of our daf possible, because a rabbinic decree can be limited to what it was meant to protect. The Rambam adds a consequence not stated on our daf: the priests’ practice of weighing portion against portion with a firstborn is forbidden with maaser, since it “looks like selling.”

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:7

Hebrew:

וּמַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּמוּמוֹ מֻתָּר לְמָכְרוֹ כְּדַרְכּוֹ. מִפְּנֵי הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵדָה לִיתוֹמִים לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו:

English:

An animal designated as a tithe offering that belongs to orphans is permitted to be sold in an ordinary manner after being slaughtered when blemished. To prevent the orphans from suffering a loss, our Sages did not uphold their decree in this instance.

Connection: This codifies “וביתמי אוקמוה רבנן אדאורייתא” (Segment 1) and the derivation of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak (Segments 2-3). “מתר למכרו כדרכו” uses the very word of Segment 2: orphans may sell the meat in the ordinary way, without the device of hav’la’ah. The Rambam’s reason, “מפני השבת אבדה ליתומים,” supplies what the Gemara leaves implicit: the court acts as guardian of minor heirs and does not let a rabbinic safeguard cause them a loss. The permission only makes sense because the Torah itself allows the sale after slaughter, as the verse “according to the blessing of Hashem” teaches; the Sages could waive their own decree, but could not have permitted something the Torah forbids.

Hav’la’ah: Folding the Price of the Meat into the Hide, Fat, Sinews and Bones

Source in Daf: 32a, Segments 1 and 4-6 (the decree applies only to “an item that is appraised while alive,” the meat, not to the hide, fat, sinews and horns; the inquiry whether the price of the meat may be included in the price of the bones; Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon son of Rebbi; the two harmonisations: small versus large animals, or each according to the custom of his place)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:8

Hebrew:

מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּמוּמוֹ מֻתָּר לִמְכּוֹר חֶלְבּוֹ וְגִידָיו וְעוֹרוֹ וְעַצְמוֹתָיו. וְלֹא אָסְרוּ לִמְכֹּר אֶלָּא בְּשָׂרוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְאִם הִבְלִיעַ דְּמֵי הַבָּשָׂר בִּדְמֵי הָעוֹר וְהַחֵלֶב וְהַגִּידִין וּמָכַר הַכֹּל בְּהַבְלָעָה מֻתָּר. וְאִם הָיוּ דְּמֵי הָעֲצָמוֹת יְקָרִים וְהִבְלִיעַ דְּמֵי הַבָּשָׂר בִּדְמֵי הָעֲצָמוֹת מֻתָּר:

English:

When an animal designated as a tithe offering is slaughtered when blemished, it is permitted to sell its fats, sinews, hide, and bones. Only the sale of its meat was prohibited. If one included the price for its meat together with the price for its hide, fats, and sinews and sold everything in a collective price, the sale is permitted. If the price of the bones was high and he included the price of the meat in the price of the bones, it is permitted.

Connection: The halakha has three parts, each tracking the sugya. First, the fat, sinews, hide and bones may be sold outright, because the decree “only prohibited the sale of its meat,” the part that sets the live animal’s price (Segment 1). Second, the meat may be sold by inclusion in the price of the hide, fat and sinews, the hav’la’ah device. Third, on the bones, the Rambam does not choose between the Gemara’s two harmonisations by naming small and large animals or local custom; he states the principle underlying both: “if the price of the bones was high,” inclusion is permitted. Whether bones are valuable because they come from cattle (Segment 5) or because they are used in a particular place (Segment 6), the test is the same: hav’la’ah works only when the accompanying item is a plausible object of sale in its own right.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 306:6

Hebrew:

הבכור בזמן הזה מוכר אותו הכהן אפילו לישראל תמים חי ובעל מום חי ושחוט ומקדש בו את האשה שהוא כשאר ממונו אבל אינו נמכר במקולין ואינו נשקל בליטרא ומכל מקום מותר לשקול בו מנה כנגד מנה וכנגד כלי וקופיץ (פי’ כמו סכין גדול ורחב וחידודו בולט באמצעיתו) והני מילי בשרו אבל חלבו ודמו וגידו וקרניו נמכרים במקולין ונשקלין בליטרא ושמנו של גיד דינו כבשר כיון שהוא מותר מן התורה:

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

The firstborn in the present time: the priest may sell it, even to an Israelite, whether unblemished and alive, or blemished, alive or slaughtered; and he may betroth a woman with it, for it is like the rest of his property. But it is not sold in the butchers’ shops and is not weighed by the litra. Nevertheless, it is permitted to weigh portion against portion with it, and against a vessel or a cleaver (meaning a large, broad knife whose point protrudes from its middle). And this applies to its meat, but its fat, its blood, its sinew and its horns are sold in the butchers’ shops and weighed by the litra. And the fat of the sciatic nerve has the law of meat, since it is permitted by the Torah.

Connection: The firstborn is the practical case today, and the Shulchan Aruch draws the same line our daf draws for maaser: the restrictions on commerce fall on the meat, while “its fat, its blood, its sinew and its horns” are free of them. The reasoning is parallel. The meat is what the restriction protects; the by-products play no real part in the value of the animal as meat. Two contrasts with maaser stand out. The firstborn may be sold outright, alive or slaughtered, so the priest never needs hav’la’ah; only the manner of sale (not in the butchers’ market, not by weight) is restricted. And “מותר לשקול בו מנה כנגד מנה,” exactly what the Rambam (6:6, above) forbids for maaser because it looks like a sale.

”Lo Yiga’el”: Maaser May Be Neither Redeemed nor Sold

Source in Daf: 32a, Segments 7-23, and 32b, Segments 1-8 (the baraita: a firstborn may be sold, but maaser may not be sold, “alive or slaughtered, unblemished or blemished”; the gezeirah shavah “lo yiga’el” from charamim, where sale is paired with redemption; the long search for a free (mufneh) phrase; Rava: the phrase is meaningless for charamim and so applies to maaser; Rav Ashi: “lo yiga’el” in the maaser verse itself means “it shall not be sold”; the kal vachomer that the sanctity of a slaughtered animal cannot pass to redemption money; why the Torah wrote “redeemed” rather than “sold”)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:5

Hebrew:

מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אָסוּר לְמָכְרוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא תָּמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ (ויקרא כז לג) “לֹא יִגָּאֵל”. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יִגָּאֵל אַף אִסּוּר מְכִירָה בְּמַשְׁמָע שֶׁאֵין נִגְאָל וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר כְּלָל. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר מַעֲשֵׂר לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם וְלֹא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ. וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה כְּמוֹכֵר חֶרְמֵי כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ וּכְמוֹכֵר יְפַת תֹּאַר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:

English:

It is forbidden to sell an animal designated as a tithe offering when it is unblemished, for Leviticus 27:33 states with regard to it: “It shall not be redeemed.” According to the Oral Tradition, the phrase “It shall not be redeemed” also implies a prohibition against selling it; it is neither redeemed, nor sold at all. It appears to me that when one sells an animal designated as a tithe offering, the sale is of no consequence and the animal is not acquired by the purchaser. For this reason, the seller is not liable for lashes like one who sells property designated as a dedication offering to the priests, in which instance, the purchaser does not acquire it, or like one who sells a female captive, as will be explained in its place.

Connection: “מפי השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר לא יגאל אף אסור מכירה במשמע” is the conclusion the Gemara reached by three routes: the gezeirah shavah from charamim (Rav and Rabbi Yochanan, Segment 8), Rava’s “if it is not needed for its own matter” (32b, Segment 1), and Rav Ashi’s direct reading (32b, Segments 2-4). The Rambam does not decide between them; he simply records the received meaning. His phrase “שאין נגאל ואינו נמכר כלל” captures 32b, Segment 8: the Torah wrote “redeemed” rather than “sold” so that both acts are excluded. Note too that the Torah prohibition is stated for the unblemished animal (“כשהוא תמים”), with the blemished and slaughtered animal left to rabbinic law (6:6), which is Rav Ashi’s conclusion that the verse forbids sale “while alive” and the Torah permits it after slaughter (32b, Segment 4). The Rambam’s own addition (“ויראה לי”) is that the sale is simply void, so there are no lashes, and he compares it explicitly to selling charamim, the very case from which our sugya learns the prohibition.

Rambam — Hilchot Temurah 3:2

Hebrew:

תְּמוּרַת הַבְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֲנִים וּתְמוּרַת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר לַבְּעָלִים. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶן מוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ כָּךְ אֵין פּוֹדִים תְּמוּרָתָן:

English:

An animal to which the holiness of a firstborn is transferred should be given to the priests and an animal to which the holiness of a tithe offering was transferred is given to its owners. Just as a firstborn animal or a tithe offering that contracts a disqualifying physical blemish is not redeemed, as explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, so too, an animal to which their holiness is transferred is not redeemed.

Connection: The other half of “lo yiga’el” is its plain sense: maaser cannot be redeemed even when blemished. The Rambam states it here alongside the firstborn (“כשם שאין פודין בכור ומעשר שנפל בהן מום”) because, as the Gemara argued in 32a, Segments 14-16, maaser and the firstborn are linked by the “passing” analogy, and maaser can learn its non-redemption from the firstborn’s “לא תפדה.” The halakha also touches Rav Ashi’s argument in 32b, Segments 2-3, which reads “lo yiga’el” against its neighbour in the verse, “both it and its substitute shall be holy”: the substitute of maaser shares its status and likewise cannot be redeemed.

The Firstborn, by Contrast, May Be Sold

Source in Daf: 32a, Segments 7 and 17-23 (the baraita: of the firstborn it says “you shall not redeem” but it may be sold; the Gemara’s need to explain why the prohibition of sale does not pass to the firstborn: its phrase is not free, it uses “tifdeh” rather than “yiga’el,” and the word “hu” in the charamim verse excludes it)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 1:17

Hebrew:

הַבְּכוֹר אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח יז) “אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר אוֹ בְכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב אוֹ בְכוֹר עֵז לֹא תִפְדֶּה”. וְכֵן אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא תָּם שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד לְקָרְבָּן אֵין לַכֹּהֵן בּוֹ זְכוּת כְּדֵי לְמָכְרוֹ. וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת הוֹאִיל וְהוּא עוֹמֵד לַאֲכִילָה הֲרֵי הוּא מֻתָּר לְמָכְרוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא תָמִים בֵּין לְכֹהֵן בֵּין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל:

English:

A firstborn kosher animal should not be redeemed, as Numbers 18:17 states: “But the firstborn of an ox, the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat should not be redeemed. Similarly, it should not be sold if it is unblemished. The rationale is that since the animal is intended as a sacrifice, the priest does not have the right to sell it. In the present age, when there is no Temple, since the firstborn is intended to be eaten, it is permitted to sell it, even though it is presently unblemished. It may be sold either to a priest or to an Israelite.

Connection: The first sentence is the baraita’s “of the firstborn it says ‘you shall not redeem’” (Segment 7), with the same verse. But the Rambam limits the permission to sell: an unblemished firstborn in Temple times may not be sold, not because of “lo yiga’el” (which the Gemara labored to keep from reaching the firstborn, Segments 17-23), but because the priest has no rights in an animal destined for the altar. Where the Temple does not stand and the animal is “destined to be eaten,” even an unblemished firstborn may be sold, to a priest or to an Israelite. That is the practical situation today.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 1:18

Hebrew:

בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם יֵשׁ לַכֹּהֵן לְמָכְרוֹ בְּכָל זְמַן בֵּין לִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. בֵּין חַי בֵּין שָׁחוּט. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר בְּשַׂר בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם מוֹכְרוֹ בַּבַּיִת אֲבָל לֹא בַּשּׁוּק כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ אֲבָל בְּשַׂר בְּכוֹר תָּמִים אֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ. וְכֹהֲנִים שֶׁנִּמְנוּ עִם הַבְּכוֹר מֻתָּרִין לִשְׁקל מָנָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה:

English:

A priest may sell a blemished firstborn animal, in every age, whether the Temple is standing, whether it is not standing, whether it is alive, whether it has been slaughtered. When one sells a blemished firstborn, he should sell it at home, but not in the market-place, as we explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach. The meat of an unblemished firstborn animal, by contrast, should not be sold, because it is consecrated meat. Priests who are partners in the ownership of a firstborn animal are permitted to weigh one portion against another.

Connection: “בין חי בין שחוט” is the baraita’s contrast with maaser, which may not be sold “alive or slaughtered.” The blemished firstborn is the priest’s property in every period, and nothing in the Torah restricts its sale; the only limits are on the manner of sale (at home, not in the market), a theme of 31a. The last line, that priests may weigh portion against portion, is the practice the Rambam forbids for maaser in 6:6, which shows how differently the two offerings are treated once the Gemara has confined “lo yiga’el” to maaser.

Charamim: Sacred with the Owner, Ordinary with the Priest

Source in Daf: 32a, Segments 8 and 24-25, and 32b, Segment 1 (the verse “it shall be neither sold nor redeemed” (Leviticus 27:28) as the source of the analogy; Rava: the phrase cannot mean anything for charamim themselves; the baraita: in the owner’s house they are like hekdesh in every respect, given to the priest they are like chullin in every respect)

Rambam — Hilchot Arachin vaCharamin 6:4

Hebrew:

מַה בֵּין חֶרְמֵי כֹּהֲנִים לְחֶרְמֵי שָׁמַיִם. שֶׁחֶרְמֵי שָׁמַיִם הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְנִפְדִּין בְּשָׁוְיֵיהֶן וְיִפְּלוּ הַדָּמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְיֵצְאוּ הַנְּכָסִים לְחֻלִּין. וְחֶרְמֵי כֹּהֲנִים אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא נִתָּנִין לַכֹּהֲנִים כִּתְרוּמָה. וְעַל חֵרֶם כֹּהֲנִים הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא כז כח) “לֹא יִמָּכֵר וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל”. לֹא יִמָּכֵר לְאַחֵר וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל לַבְּעָלִים:

English:

What is the difference between dedication offerings designated for priests and those dedicated to Heaven? Dedication offerings to Heaven become consecrated property and must be redeemed for their worth. The payment is given for the sake of improvements to the Temple and then the possessions become ordinary property. Dedication offerings designated for the priests, by contrast, can never be redeemed. Instead, they are given to the priests like terumah. Concerning dedication offerings designated for the priests, [Leviticus 27:28] states: ‘It shall neither be sold, nor redeemed,’ i.e., it shall neither be sold to another person, nor redeemed by the owner.

Connection: “לא ימכר ולא יגאל” is the verse at the heart of Segment 8, where sale and redemption appear together, the pairing that the gezeirah shavah transfers to maaser. The Rambam’s explanation, “not sold to another and not redeemed by the owner,” shows how the two prohibitions bite only during the period before the property reaches the priest. That is the opening for Rava’s argument: once given to the priest, the property is his, and he may sell it as he pleases.

Rambam — Hilchot Arachin vaCharamin 6:5

Hebrew:

וְאֶחָד הַמַּחֲרִים קַרְקַע אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִתָּנִין לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהֶחֱרִים חֶרְמֵי כֹּהֲנִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּבֵית הַבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הֵן הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז כח) “כָּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה’”. נְתָנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחֻלִּין לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח יד) “כָּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ יִהְיֶה”:

English:

Whether a person designates land or movable property as a dedication offering, it is given to a priest in the watch serving at the time that the dedication offering was designated. As long as a dedication offering for the priests is in the homes of the owner, it is like consecrated property in all regards, as [Leviticus 27:28] states: ‘All dedication offerings are consecrated as holy unto God.’ Once it is given to the priests, it is considered as ordinary property, as [Numbers 18:14] states: ‘All of the dedication offerings from the Jewish people will be yours.’

Connection: The second half of this halakha is the baraita of Segment 25 nearly word for word: “כל זמן שהן בבית הבעלים הרי הן הקדש לכל דבריהם… נתנו לכהן הרי הן כחולין לכל דבריהם,” with the same two verses (“כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה’” and “כל חרם בישראל לך יהיה”). Rava’s inference (32b, Segment 1) follows directly: with the owner it is plainly hekdesh and cannot be redeemed, with the priest it is ordinary and may be sold, so the words “it shall not be redeemed” add nothing to charamim and must be applied to maaser.

The Mistaken Ninth and Eleventh: Maaser’s Special Stringency

Source in Daf: 32a, Segment 11 (the refutation of learning charamim from maaser: maaser is more stringent, since its sanctity extends to the ninth and the eleventh)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 8:1

Hebrew:

הַמַּכְנִּיס צֹאן לַדִּיר וְהִתְחִילוּ לָצֵאת אַחַת אַחַת וְהוּא מוֹנֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְטָעָה בַּמִּנְיָן וְקָרָא לַשְּׁמִינִי אוֹ לְשֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עֲשִׂירִי אוֹ שֶׁקָּרָא לַשְּׁנֵים עָשָׂר אוֹ שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ עֲשִׂירִי לֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ. אֲבָל אִם קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי אוֹ לָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ. וְדָבָר זֶה הֲלָכָה מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה נִשְׁמַע שֶׁהַטָּעוּת מִתְקַדְּשׁוֹת לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְשֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁלִּפְנֵיהֶם וְשֶׁלְּאַחֲרֵיהֶם. אֲפִלּוּ קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי וְלַעֲשִׂירִי תְּשִׁיעִי וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי בֵּין בְּטָעוּת בֵּין בְּכַוָּנָה שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מֻקְדָּשִׁים:

English:

The following laws apply when a person brought sheep into a corral, they began to depart one by one with him counting them as we explained, and he erred in numbering them, and called the eighth lamb or a lesser number, the tenth. In such a situation and, similarly, if he called the twelfth or a greater number, the tenth, those animals are not consecrated. If, however, he called the ninth or the eleventh, the tenth, they become consecrated. This matter is a halachah, [communicated by the Oral Tradition: that an error when tithing causes one greater than the tenth or one lesser than the tenth to be consecrated, but not those greater or lesser than they. Even if one called the ninth, the tenth, the tenth, the ninth, and the eleventh, the tenth, whether in error or intentionally, all three are consecrated.

Connection: This is the stringency the Gemara cites as its refutation (פירכא) in Segment 11. Calling the ninth or the eleventh “tenth” sanctifies it, a law the Rambam calls “הלכה מפי הקבלה.” No other form of consecration works this way, which is why the Gemara held that charamim could not be derived from maaser: maaser carries a power that charamim lack.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 8:2

Hebrew:

וְהֵיאַךְ דִּינָם. הַתְּשִׁיעִי אֵינוֹ קָרֵב אֶלָּא נֶאֱכָל בְּמוּמוֹ. וְהָעֲשִׂירִי מַעֲשֵׂר. וְהָאַחַד עָשָׂר יִקָּרֵב שְׁלָמִים וְטָעוּן נְסָכִים כִּשְׁלָמִים וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עַצְמוֹ כִּתְמוּרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַמּוֹנֶה הוּא בַּעַל הַבְּהֵמוֹת אֲבָל הָעוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְעַשֵּׂר לוֹ וְטָעָה בֵּין בַּתְּשִׁיעִי בֵּין בָּאַחַד עָשָׂר אֵין מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא הָעֲשִׂירִי הַוַּדַּאי בִּלְבַד. שֶׁלֹּא עֲשָׂאָהוּ שָׁלִיחַ לִטְעוֹת וּלְהַפְסִיד אֶלָּא לְקַדֵּשׁ כָּרָאוּי:

English:

What are the laws that apply to them? The ninth is not sacrificed. Instead, it should be eaten after it becomes blemished. The tenth is the tithe offering and the eleventh should be offered as a peace offering. Accompanying offerings are required to be brought with it. Its holiness may not be transferred to another animal, because it is considered as an animal to which holiness has been transferred itself. When does the above apply? When the person counting was the owner of the animals. When, however, a person appoints an agent to tithe for him and the agent errs with regard to the ninth or the eleventh, only the true tenth one is consecrated, for he was not appointed as an agent to err and to cause him a loss, only to consecrate the animals in the appropriate manner.

Connection: The Rambam spells out the fate of the extra animals: the ninth is eaten once blemished, and the eleventh is offered as a shelamim. The qualification that an agent’s error sanctifies only the true tenth shows that this sanctity is tied to the owner’s own act of counting. For our sugya, the point is simply that the law exists, and it makes maaser a “stringent” source that a lighter category cannot be derived from.

Standing and Valuation: Why a Slaughtered Offering Cannot Be Redeemed

Source in Daf: 32b, Segments 3 and 5 (Rav Ashi: slaughtered offerings cannot be redeemed, since redemption requires standing and valuation, “and he shall stand the animal… and the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11-12); the challenge that this holds only for the view that altar-offerings were included in standing and valuation)

Rambam — Hilchot Arachin vaCharamin 5:12

Hebrew:

כָּל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין טְהוֹרָה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַבַּיִת בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶן מוּם אוֹ תְּמִימָה הָרְאוּיָה לִקָּרֵב כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ צְרִיכָה הַעֲמָדָה בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז יא) “וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה”. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּעָרֵךְ וְתִפָּדֶה אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּתָה אֶלָּא תִּקָּבֵר. אֲבָל אִם הִקְדִּישׁ שְׁחוּטָה אוֹ נְבֵלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּפָּדֶה כִּשְׁאָר מִטַּלְטְלִין:

English:

Whenever a person consecrates an animal in its lifetime - whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one, whether it was consecrated for the sake of the Temple treasury, it was consecrated to be offered on the altar and it became blemished, or it is an unblemished animal which is fit to be offered as a sacrifice as will be explained, it must be stood [before the court] for evaluation, as implied by the phrase: “You shall have the animal stand [before the priest…]” Therefore, if the animal died before it is evaluated and redeemed, it should not be redeemed. Instead, it should be buried. If, however, a person consecrated a slaughtered animal or an animal carcass for the sake of improvements to the Temple, it should be redeemed like other movable property.

Connection: The Rambam rules explicitly that the requirement of standing and valuation applies “בין קדשי הבית בין קדשי מזבח שנפל בהן מום,” that is, according to the view Rav Ashi’s argument assumes in 32b, Segment 3, and which the Gemara’s objection in Segment 5 calls into question. The consequence he draws, “if the animal died before it was valued and redeemed, it is not redeemed after its death, but buried,” is the principle behind Rav Ashi’s reasoning: a consecrated animal that can no longer be stood before the priest can no longer be redeemed. Hence a slaughtered maaser could never be “redeemed,” and the verse’s implied permission after slaughter must mean sale. The final clause marks the contrast: something consecrated when already dead, for the Temple treasury, is redeemed like ordinary movables, since standing was never part of its sanctity.

May an Israelite or a Gentile Eat from a Blemished Firstborn?

Source in Daf: 32b, Segments 9-11 (the mishna: Beit Shammai say an Israelite may not be counted with a priest for a firstborn, and Beit Hillel permit, even a gentile; the baraita: the mishna follows Rabbi Akiva’s report of Beit Hillel; Beit Shammai’s reason from “their meat shall be yours, like the breast of waving and the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18))

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 1:3

Hebrew:

בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם בֵּין שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּמוּמוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל בּוֹ מוּם אַחַר שֶׁהָיָה תָמִים הֲרֵי הוּא לַכֹּהֵן אִם רָצָה אוֹכְלוֹ בְּכָל מָקוֹם אוֹ מוֹכְרוֹ אוֹ מַאֲכִילוֹ לְמִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה אֲפִלּוּ לְנָכְרִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חֻלִּין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו כא) “וְכִי יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם פִּסֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר” וְגוֹ’ (דברים טו כב) “הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יַחְדָּו יֹאכֲלֶנּוּ כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל” וַהֲרֵי הוּא נִכְסֵי כֹּהֵן:

English:

When a firstborn kosher animal is blemished - whether it was born blemished or contracted a blemish after being born unblemished - it should be given to a priest. If he desires, he may eat it anywhere, or sell it or feed to whoever he desires, even a gentile, because it is ordinary property, as Deuteronomy 15:21-22 states: “If it has a blemish - lameness or blindness… the pure and the impure shall partake of it, like a deer or a hart.” It is the priest’s private property.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Beit Hillel in Rabbi Akiva’s version: the priest may feed a blemished firstborn “to whoever he desires, even a gentile” (“אפילו לנכרי”), the exact clause the Gemara used to identify the mishna’s author (Segment 10). His reason, “because it is ordinary property” (“מפני שהוא חולין… והרי הוא נכסי כהן”), is the heart of Beit Hillel’s position and the answer to Beit Shammai’s comparison to the breast and thigh (Segment 11): once blemished, the firstborn is not a priestly portion of an offering but the priest’s own meat. The verse he cites, “the pure and the impure shall eat it alike, like the deer and the hart” (Deuteronomy 15:22), is the kind of reasoning Beit Hillel develop in their kal vachomer at the start of daf 33.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 306:5

Hebrew:

הבכור בזמן הזה ישהנו עד שיפול בו מום ושוחטו על פי מומחה ואוכלו [בכל מקום] ומאכילו אפילו לעובד כוכבים [או לכלבים ] (הגהות מרדכי פ’ האשה שהלכה):

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

The firstborn in the present time: he should keep it until a blemish befalls it, slaughter it on the word of an expert, and eat it [in any place], and he may feed it even to a gentile [or to dogs] (Hagahot Mordechai, chapter HaIsha SheHalcha).

Connection: The ruling of Beit Hillel according to Rabbi Akiva is practical law today. A firstborn of a kosher animal is still holy and still goes to a priest; it must be kept until a blemish appears and an expert permits it, and then the priest may share it freely, “even with a gentile.” The bracketed addition, “or to dogs” (sourced to the Hagahot Mordechai), takes the principle to its end: the blemished firstborn has no sanctity left that restricts who eats it, the very point on which Beit Hillel parted from Beit Shammai.

Summary of Rulings

Most of these Temple-era laws, maaser beheima, charamim and the redemption of consecrated animals, are preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt. The laws of the firstborn, by contrast, are in force today: a priest who receives a blemished firstborn may sell it and may share it with anyone, as the Shulchan Aruch rules.