Bechorot Daf 9 (בכורות דף ט׳)
Daf: 9 | Amudim: 9a – 9b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (9a)
Segment 1
TYPE: אגדתא
The finale of the Athens cycle: R’ Yehoshua draws water at the House of the Swallowed and restores the captives’ arrogance with their native soil
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי מָטֵי לְבֵי בְלִיעֵי, מְלָא כּוּזָא דְּמַיָּא מִבֵּי בְלִיעֵי. כַּד אֲתוֹ, אוֹקְמִינְהוּ קַמֵּי קֵיסָר. חֲזָנְהוּ דַּהֲווֹ מְעַנִּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי לָאו נִינְהוּ. שְׁקַל מֵעַפְרַיְיהוּ וּשְׁדָא עִילָּוַיְיהוּ, אַקְשׁוֹ לְאַפֵּי מַלְכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל דְּבָעֵית עֲבֵיד בְּהוּ.
English Translation:
When they reached the House of the Swallowed, a location in the sea where the water absorbs everything in its vicinity, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya filled up a small jug of water from the House of the Swallowed. When they arrived, he presented the sages of Athens before the emperor. The emperor saw that the sages of Athens were suffering due to their having been taken captive. He said to Rabbi Yehoshua: These individuals cannot be the sages of Athens, because those sages are strong and arrogant. Rabbi Yehoshua took some of the dirt that he had taken from Athens and threw it upon them. When they smelled the scent of their own soil they began to act like themselves again, and they spoke with arrogance before the king. Upon hearing them, the emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua: You may do with them whatever you wish.
קלאוד על הדף:
This closes the extended aggadic narrative of R’ Yehoshua ben Chananya and the Sages of Athens that has run through the preceding dapim. Two details carry the weight: the jug of water from בי בליעי, drawn quietly on the return voyage and held in reserve, and the handful of Athenian dirt that R’ Yehoshua had also taken. The soil works as a kind of restorative — smelling their own earth, the captives recover the arrogance that had defined them, which is precisely what R’ Yehoshua needs, since the emperor will not authorize action against broken men. The narrative logic is exact: R’ Yehoshua does not argue the Athenians into insolence, he simply returns them to themselves, and their own nature supplies the pretext.
Key Terms:
- בֵּי בְלִיעֵי = the House of the Swallowed — a place in the sea whose water absorbs whatever comes near it
- כּוּזָא = a small jug or flask
- אַקְשׁוֹ לְאַפֵּי מַלְכָּא = they hardened their faces before the king, i.e. spoke insolently
Segment 2
TYPE: אגדתא
The swallowing-water destroys the Athenian sages, and the cycle ends
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַיְיתִינְהוּ מַיָּא דְּאַיְיתִי מִבֵּי בְלִיעֵי, שְׁדִינְהוּ בְּתִיגְדָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַלְיוּהּ לְהוּ וְאֵיזִילוּ לְכוּ. מְלוֹ וּשְׁדוֹ בֵּיהּ קַמָּאֵי קַמָּאֵי, וּבְלַע לְהוּ, מְלוֹ עַד דְּשָׁמֵיט כַּתְפַּיְיהוּ, וּבְלוֹ לְהוּ וַאֲזוּל.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehoshua brought the water that he had brought from the House of the Swallowed and poured it into a utensil [betigada]. He said to the sages: Fill it up and go on your way. They filled and poured one by one, i.e., they filled the utensil by pouring in water numerous times, and each time the utensil swallowed up the water. They continued to fill it until their shoulders became disjointed. In this manner, the sages of Athens were defeated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The punishment is built from the Athenians’ own premise. Throughout the cycle they have posed impossible tasks to R’ Yehoshua and expected him to be defeated by them; here he sets them an impossible task and frames it as an offer of freedom. The vessel drinks every measure poured into it because the water itself is the swallowing water — the task is not difficult but structurally unfinishable, and they labor at it until their shoulders are wrenched from their sockets. With this the Gemara’s long aggadic excursus closes and the masechet returns, abruptly, to the mishnayot of peter chamor.
Key Terms:
- תִּיגְדָּא = a vessel or trough into which the water was poured
- דְּשָׁמֵיט כַּתְפַּיְיהוּ = until their shoulders became dislocated
- קַמָּאֵי קַמָּאֵי = one after another, each measure in turn
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
The third mishna of the perek: a first-bearing donkey that delivers twin males, and the male-and-female case governed by burden of proof
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ חֲמוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן טָלֶה אֶחָד לַכֹּהֵן, זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — מַפְרִישׁ טָלֶה אֶחָד לְעַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of a female donkey that had not previously given birth and now gave birth to two male offspring, as there is no doubt that one of them is firstborn, its owner gives one lamb to the priest in redemption of that firstborn. If it gave birth to a male and a female and it is not known which was born first, he designates one lamb as firstborn in case the male was born first. Nevertheless, since it is merely a monetary debt to the priest, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, in this case the priest. Due to that uncertainty, the priest can offer no proof and the owner keeps the lamb for himself.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna opens the perek’s treatment of doubt. Twin males present no doubt as to obligation — one of the two certainly opened the womb — but the Rabbanan hold אי אפשר לצמצם, that exact simultaneity is impossible, so only one of them carries firstborn status and only one seh is owed. The male-and-female case is entirely different: here it is genuinely unknown whether the obligation ever arose, and because the kohen’s claim on a peter chamor is a monetary debt rather than an item of inherent sanctity, the rule המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה applies. The kohen is the claimant, he cannot prove his case, and the owner keeps the designated lamb — a ruling whose mechanics the Gemara will interrogate on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר = the firstborn male donkey, redeemed with a seh given to a kohen
- בִּיכְּרָה = had previously given birth, and so is no longer capable of bearing a firstborn
- מַפְרִישׁ = he designates or sets aside — here, without handing it over
- הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה = the burden of proof falls on the one seeking to extract money from another
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
Two first-bearing donkeys: the permutations of two males, male and female, and the cases where the kohen receives nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁתֵּי חֲמוֹרָיו שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרוּ וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵי טְלָאִים לַכֹּהֵן. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבָה — נוֹתֵן טָלֶה אֶחָד לַכֹּהֵן. שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וְזָכָר, אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּשְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת — אֵין לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
If an individual has two donkeys, and both of his two donkeys had not previously given birth and they now gave birth to two males, one each, the owner gives two lambs to the priest. If they together gave birth to a male and a female or to two males and a female, he gives one lamb to the priest, as one of the males is certainly a firstborn. If they together gave birth to two females and a male or to two males and two females, the priest receives nothing, as perhaps the two firstborn were females.
קלאוד על הדף:
With two donkeys, each capable of bearing a firstborn, the mishna works the combinatorics. Two males means two certain obligations and two lambs. A male and a female, or two males and a female, yields one certainty — at least one of the males must have opened its mother’s womb — and therefore one lamb. But two females and a male, or two males and two females, produces no certainty at all: it is possible that each donkey’s firstborn was the female, leaving the males as later offspring, and since every claim is a safek the kohen receives nothing. The pattern to watch is that the mishna pays out only on certainties and never on probabilities.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי חֲמוֹרָיו = his two donkeys, each of which had not previously given birth
- אֵין לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם = the kohen receives nothing, because no obligation is certain
- סָפֵק = a doubt — here, a doubt as to whether the obligation ever arose
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
One donkey that had already given birth and one that had not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַחַת בִּיכְּרָה, וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה, וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן טָלֶה אֶחָד לַכֹּהֵן; זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — מַפְרִישׁ טָלֶה אֶחָד לְעַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
If one of his donkeys had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth and they now together gave birth to two males, the owner gives one lamb to the priest as redemption for the firstborn male. If they together gave birth to a male and a female he designates one lamb for himself, as it is uncertain whether or not the male was a firstborn and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.
קלאוד על הדף:
Where only one of the two donkeys is eligible to bear a firstborn, two males still yield one certain obligation, since one of them must be the eligible donkey’s offspring and, being male, must be a peter chamor. A male and a female, however, reverts to safek — the male may belong to the donkey that had already given birth, or the eligible donkey may have borne the female — and so the owner designates a lamb and keeps it under the same burden-of-proof principle. The mishna is building a consistent rule: certainty pays, doubt is designated but retained.
Key Terms:
- אַחַת בִּיכְּרָה = one donkey that had already given birth, and whose offspring can no longer be a firstborn
- טָלֶה = a lamb; here, the seh given or designated in redemption
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
The derivation from ופטר חמור תפדה בשה and the full definition of the redeeming seh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה״, מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן הָעִזִּים, זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, גָּדוֹל וְקָטָן, תָּמִים וּבַעַל מוּם, פּוֹדֶה בּוֹ פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה, נִכְנָס לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר, וְאִם מֵת — נֶהֱנִין בּוֹ.
English Translation:
From where is it derived that the firstborn of a donkey is redeemed with a lamb? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And you shall redeem the firstborn of a donkey with a lamb [seh]” (Exodus 34:20). The owner may give a lamb either from sheep or from goats; from males or females, from older or younger animals, and from unblemished or blemished animals. If the priest returns the lamb to the owner, he may redeem firstborn donkeys with it many times. In a case where he designates a lamb due to uncertainty and keeps it for himself, it is his in every sense. Consequently, it enters the pen in order to be tithed with the other non-sacred animals (see Leviticus 27:32), and if it dies, one may derive benefit from its carcass.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna closes with the source and its scope. The word שה is read broadly: sheep or goat, male or female, mature or young, unblemished or blemished — none of the disqualifications that govern korbanot apply here, because the seh is not offered on the altar but transferred to a kohen. It may therefore be reused indefinitely, redeeming one donkey after another as it passes back into the owner’s hands. The final clause is the crucial one for the coming sugya: the safek lamb designated and kept is fully chullin — it enters the pen to be counted for ma’aser beheima, and benefit may be taken from its carcass if it dies — which tells us that the act of designation has done real halachic work.
Key Terms:
- שֶׂה = a member of the flock — sheep or goat — used to redeem the firstborn donkey
- נִכְנָס לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר = it enters the pen to be counted for ma’aser beheima, the animal tithe, proving it is ordinary property
- בַּעַל מוּם = blemished — a disqualification for korbanot, but not for this redemption
- נֶהֱנִין בּוֹ = one may derive benefit from it, even from its carcass
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא / קושיא
R’ Yirmeya: the mishna cannot be R’ Yosei HaGelili, who holds אפשר לצמצם
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי — הָאָמַר אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם!
English Translation:
GEMARA: With regard to the first clause of the mishna the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that if a female donkey that had never given birth before gives birth to twin males, the owner gives only one lamb to the priest? Rabbi Yirmeya says: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, doesn’t he say in a later mishna (17a) with regard to a kosher animal that gave birth to two males and both their heads emerged as one, that it is possible that both births coincided precisely, and therefore both of the twins are given to the priest? According to his opinion, in the case here as well, two lambs should be given to the priest. The mishna clearly follows the opinion of the Rabbis that only one of the two is considered a firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s opening move is a מאן תנא, an attempt to identify the mishna’s author by locating a tanna whose position it contradicts. R’ Yosei HaGelili holds אפשר לצמצם — that two events can coincide with perfect exactness — and rules in the mishna on 17a that when twin heads emerge together both offspring are given to the kohen. Our mishna, which pays out one lamb for twin males without qualification, appears to exclude that possibility entirely, so R’ Yirmeya concludes it must follow the Rabbanan, who hold אי אפשר לצמצם and therefore that one twin always preceded the other.
Key Terms:
- מַאן תַּנָּא = who is the tanna — the Gemara’s standard request to identify a mishna’s author
- אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם = it is possible to be exactly precise, i.e. two events can coincide to the instant
- אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם = exact simultaneity is impossible; one always preceded the other, even imperceptibly
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye: the mishna may be R’ Yosei HaGelili, since the plural הזכרים לה׳ is written only of the kosher firstborn
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּכְתִיב ״הַזְּכָרִים לַה׳״.
English Translation:
Abaye says: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and it is different there with regard to a kosher animal, as it is written: “Every firstborn that you have of animals, the males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12), i.e., the word “males” is written in the plural. This indicates that if they emerged simultaneously they both have firstborn status. By contrast, with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey, only one has firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye refuses to concede the mishna to the Rabbanan and offers a textual distinction instead. R’ Yosei HaGelili’s ruling that both twins go to the kohen rests on a verse — הַזְּכָרִים לַה׳, the males shall be the Lord’s, in the plural — and that verse is written about the firstborn of a kosher animal, which carries קדושת הגוף. No such plural is written about the donkey. On Abaye’s reading, then, R’ Yosei HaGelili can hold אפשר לצמצם universally and still agree that only one seh is owed for twin donkeys, because the mechanism that lets two animals both be firstborn is a scriptural allowance, not a logical consequence.
Key Terms:
- הַזְּכָרִים לַה׳ = the males shall be the Lord’s (Shemot 13:12) — the plural on which R’ Yosei HaGelili relies
- קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף = inherent sanctity of the body, as against monetary sanctity; the kosher firstborn has it, the donkey does not
- אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא = you may even say — a standard formula for rescuing an attribution the Gemara had proposed to reject
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not derive the donkey from the kosher firstborn? The definite article restricts the rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ! הָא מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״הַזְּכָרִים״.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But let him derive from the halakha of a firstborn kosher animal that the halakha of a firstborn donkey is the same. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One restricted this principle to the case of a firstborn kosher animal, where it is written: “The males shall be the Lord’s.” The word “the” indicates that two males can be considered firstborn only in the case of a firstborn kosher animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The natural objection to Abaye is that the two firstborn laws are routinely read together, so the plural should extend from the ox to the donkey. The Gemara answers with a reading of the definite article: הַזְּכָרִים with the heh, rather than simply זכרים, is a restrictive formulation — these males and no others. The verse both grants the possibility of two simultaneous firstborn and confines that grant to the case in which it is written. This is a characteristic move: the same word that creates a rule is read as also fencing it in.
Key Terms:
- וְלִיגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ = let him derive from it — the objection that the donkey should learn from the kosher firstborn
- מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One restricted, i.e. Scripture itself limited the scope of the rule
Segment 10
TYPE: איכא דאמרי
An alternate version of the same exchange between the anonymous challenge and Abaye
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי — הָאָמַר אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּכְתִיב ״הַזְּכָרִים לַה׳״.
English Translation:
Some say there is another version of this discussion: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as if it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, doesn’t he say it is possible that both births coincide precisely, and if they were born simultaneously both are considered firstborn? Abaye says: You may even say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and it is different there, as it is written: “The males shall be the Lord’s.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records an איכא דאמרי, a second transmission of the discussion. The substance is identical — the challenge that the mishna is not R’ Yosei HaGelili, and Abaye’s rescue through הזכרים לה׳ — but the framing differs: in this version the opening proposal is anonymous rather than being attributed to R’ Yirmeya. Such variants matter because the identity of the proposer can affect how forcefully a later refutation lands, and the Gemara is about to refute Abaye decisively in both versions.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי = some say — a marker introducing an alternate version of a transmitted discussion
- לֵימָא = let us say — a formula introducing a tentative identification of a mishna’s author
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
First refutation of Abaye: the mishna should then have specified that the heads emerged together
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, דְּלָא מוֹקֵי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי — הַיְינוּ דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּאֶחָד״, אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי — לִיתְנֵי ״וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּאֶחָד״!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Yirmeya, who does not interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, that is the reason that it does not teach: And both of their heads emerged as one, as stated in the mishna where the ruling of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is taught; according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, this is impossible. But according to Abaye, who holds that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and such an occurrence is possible, let the mishna teach: And both of their heads emerged as one, indicating that in this case even Rabbi Yosei HaGelili agrees only one lamb is given to the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first attack on Abaye is an argument from the mishna’s silence. In the parallel mishna on 17a, where R’ Yosei HaGelili’s position is at issue, the text explicitly says ויצאו שני ראשיהן כאחד — and both their heads emerged as one — because the ruling turns on that scenario. If our mishna were R’ Yosei HaGelili, as Abaye claims, it would need the same specification to make clear that even in the simultaneous case only one lamb is due. Its absence is exactly what R’ Yirmeya’s reading predicts: for the Rabbanan the scenario is impossible, so there is nothing to specify.
Key Terms:
- וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּאֶחָד = and both their heads emerged as one — the technical phrase for perfectly simultaneous birth
- בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted — introducing the position that the argument does fit, before the one it does not
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita in which R’ Yosei HaGelili applies הזכרים לה׳ to a donkey
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חֲמוֹרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים, וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּאֶחָד, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הַזְּכָרִים לַה׳״.
English Translation:
Furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: If one’s donkey had not previously given birth and now gave birth to two males, and both of their heads emerged as one, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Both of them are given to the priest, as it is stated: “The males shall be the Lord’s.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The second attack is decisive because it is documentary rather than inferential. A baraita records R’ Yosei HaGelili ruling on precisely the case Abaye said the verse could not reach — a donkey that had not given birth bearing two males whose heads emerged as one — and giving both to the kohen, citing הזכרים לה׳ as his source. Abaye had built his entire rescue on the claim that this verse governs only the kosher firstborn. The tanna himself says otherwise.
Key Terms:
- וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא = and furthermore, it is taught — introducing a baraita as a second and stronger objection
- שְׁנֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֵן = both of them go to the kohen, i.e. two lambs are owed
Segment 13
TYPE: תיובתא
The conclusive refutation: תיובתא דאביי, תיובתא
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיב הַאי, בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף הוּא דִּכְתִיב! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הַזְּכָרִים לַה׳״, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: But when this verse is written, isn’t it written with regard to a firstborn kosher animal, which has inherent sanctity, unlike a firstborn donkey? Rather, because it is stated with regard to a kosher animal: “The males shall be the Lord’s,” this serves as the basis for the halakha with regard to the firstborn of a non-kosher animal that both males can be considered firstborn. If so, the refutation of the opinion of Abaye is in fact a conclusive refutation, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, not that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara spells out why the baraita is fatal. The verse הזכרים לה׳ is undeniably written about the kosher firstborn, which has קדושת הגוף, and yet R’ Yosei HaGelili deploys it to determine the law of the non-kosher firstborn. That is the very extension Abaye denied was possible. The doubled formula תיובתא דאביי, תיובתא marks a conclusive refutation — not a difficulty to be held in suspension but a position the Gemara abandons — and the mishna is settled as the Rabbanan, who hold אי אפשר לצמצם.
Key Terms:
- תְּיוּבְתָּא = a conclusive refutation; when doubled, the Gemara records the position as definitively rejected
- בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף הוּא דִּכְתִיב = it is written with regard to inherent sanctity, i.e. about the kosher firstborn alone
Amud Bet (9b)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
If one head truly emerged first, is the other head not an interposition? Do the Rabbanan hold מקצת רחם מקדיש?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, לֵימָא קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן מִקְצָת רֶחֶם מַקְדֵּישׁ? דְּאִי כּוּלֵּיהּ רֶחֶם מַקְדֵּישׁ — נְהִי דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם, חֲצִיצָה מִיהָא אִיכָּא!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis, let us say the Rabbis hold that even a portion of the mouth of the womb sanctifies a firstborn despite the offspring never having touched the entire area. As, if only the entire mouth of the womb sanctifies the firstborn, then in a case where the heads emerged as one, granted that it is impossible for both births to coincide precisely and one certainly emerged first, but in any event there is an interposition, i.e., the head of the other fetus, between each fetus and the mouth of the womb.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that the mishna is the Rabbanan, the Gemara probes what their position commits them to. Firstborn status is conferred by opening the womb, and the natural reading is that the offspring must pass the entire mouth of the womb. But in the twin case, granted that one head emerged marginally first, that head did not touch the whole circumference — the other head was in the way. If full contact were required, neither twin would qualify, and yet the mishna awards a lamb. The Gemara therefore suggests the Rabbanan must hold מקצת רחם מקדיש, that partial contact suffices.
Key Terms:
- מִקְצָת רֶחֶם מַקְדֵּישׁ = a portion of the womb sanctifies — partial contact confers firstborn status
- חֲצִיצָה = an interposition; a barrier preventing direct contact
- נְהִי = granted that — conceding one point in order to press another
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav: מין במינו אינו חוצץ — a thing does not interpose against its own kind
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: מִין בְּמִינוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that Rav says: No proof may be drawn from here that a portion of the womb sanctifies a firstborn, as a substance that is in contact with the same type of substance does not interpose. Therefore, each fetus is still considered to be touching the entire womb.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav blocks the inference without conceding the premise. The principle מין במינו אינו חוצץ, familiar from the laws of tevilah and of the avodah, holds that a substance placed between two things of its own kind is not treated as a barrier at all. A fetus is no חציצה against a fetus. The Rabbanan can therefore continue to hold that the entire womb-mouth sanctifies, and no conclusion about מקצת רחם can be drawn from this mishna.
Key Terms:
- מִין בְּמִינוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ = a substance does not interpose against its own kind
- כּוּלֵּיהּ רֶחֶם מַקְדֵּישׁ = the entire womb sanctifies — the alternative to מקצת רחם
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Why designate a lamb at all in the male-and-female case? לאפקועי לאיסוריה
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — מַפְרִישׁ טָלֶה כּוּ׳. וְכֵיוָן דִּלְעַצְמוֹ הוּא, לְמָה לִי לְאַפְרוֹשֵׁי? לְאַפְקוֹעֵי לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if a female donkey that had not yet given birth gives birth to a male and a female, and there is uncertainty with regard to which was born first, the owner designates a lamb in case the male was born first, which he keeps for himself. The Gemara asks: But since he keeps it for himself, why do I need him to designate it? The Gemara answers: It is necessary in order to abrogate its forbidden status.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to a puzzle in the mishna’s ruling. If the owner keeps the designated lamb — if no one receives it and nothing changes hands — what has the designation accomplished? The answer is that it has accomplished the essential thing: it has stripped the donkey of its forbidden status. Redemption of a peter chamor is not primarily a payment to the kohen; it is an act that releases the animal. Even a safek redemption, retained by the owner, performs that release.
Key Terms:
- לְאַפְקוֹעֵי לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ = to abrogate its forbidden status, i.e. to release the donkey from the prohibition
- לְעַצְמוֹ = for himself — he sets the lamb aside but does not hand it to the kohen
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
The mishna therefore follows R’ Yehuda, who holds a peter chamor is assur b’hana’ah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מַפְקַע לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ, אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: Apparently, since prior to the designation the sanctity is not yet abrogated, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the donkey at that stage. If so, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: It is prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer has a consequence the Gemara immediately draws out. If designation is needed to abrogate a prohibition, then before designation a prohibition exists — an unredeemed peter chamor is אסור בהנאה. That is not a universal position. A baraita records the machloket squarely: R’ Yehuda forbids benefit from an unredeemed firstborn donkey, R’ Shimon permits it. Our mishna is therefore R’ Yehuda, and the remainder of the amud is given over to reconstructing the reasoning of each side.
Key Terms:
- אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה = forbidden to derive benefit from, a category stricter than a mere prohibition on eating
- מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי = whose opinion is our mishna — the Gemara identifying an anonymous ruling with a named tanna
- מַתִּיר = permits
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא / שקלא וטריא
Ulla on R’ Yehuda: is there anything requiring redemption that is permitted? The firstborn son refutes, and the claim is refined
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר עוּלָּא: יֵשׁ לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ פְּדִיָּיה וּמוּתָּר? וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי בְּכוֹר אָדָם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ פְּדִיָּיה וּמוּתָּר! אֶלָּא, יֵשׁ לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁהִקְפִּידָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה בְּשֶׂה וּמוּתָּר?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Ulla says: Do you have an item that requires redemption and it is nevertheless permitted to derive benefit from it? The Gemara challenges: And is there no such item? But doesn’t a woman’s firstborn son require redemption with five shekels, and it is nevertheless permitted to derive benefit from him? Rather, this is what Ulla means: Do you have an item about which the Torah was particular and requires that it be redeemed specifically with a lamb, and yet it is still permitted prior to redemption?
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla frames R’ Yehuda’s reasoning as a rhetorical principle: redemption presupposes something to be released from, so an item that requires pidyon must be forbidden until it is redeemed. The Gemara immediately produces a counterexample that every reader knows — the firstborn son, who requires redemption with five sela’im and from whom benefit is plainly permitted throughout. Ulla’s claim is therefore narrowed: the principle applies not to redemption generally but to an item the Torah insisted be redeemed with a particular medium, a שה. This narrowing survives one more round of pressure before it settles.
Key Terms:
- עוּלָּא = an Eretz Yisrael amora whose formulations of tannaitic reasoning the Gemara frequently cites
- פְּדִיָּיה = redemption
- בְּכוֹר אָדָם = a woman’s firstborn son, redeemed with five sela’im at pidyon haben
- הִקְפִּידָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה = the Torah was particular about it, i.e. insisted on a specific medium of redemption
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Nechemya redeemed with boiled vegetables — so the refinement shifts to redemption below full value
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי הִקְפִּידָה?! וְהָא רַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף פָּרֵיק לֵיהּ בְּשִׁילְקֵי בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ! בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ לָא קָאָמְרִינַן, כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן שֶׁלֹּא בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: יֵשׁ לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁהִקְפִּידָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה לְאַפְקוֹעֵי לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ בְּשֶׂה?
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: And is the Torah particular about redeeming a firstborn donkey specifically with a lamb? But didn’t Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, redeem a firstborn donkey with boiled vegetables that were worth its full value? The Gemara answers: Ulla is not saying, i.e., referring to, a case where the donkey is redeemed at its full value. Rather, when we say the Torah is particular that the donkey be redeemed with a lamb, the reference is to redeeming it not at its full value, and this is what Ulla is saying: Do you have an item about which the Torah was particular so as to require abrogating its forbidden status specifically with a lamb, if the lamb is worth less than the donkey? Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda holds that deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is practical and comes from an amora’s own conduct: Rav Nechemya b. Rav Yosef redeemed a firstborn donkey with שילקי, boiled vegetables, worth the donkey’s full value. If any item of equivalent value works, the Torah is not particular about the seh at all. The Gemara’s resolution is elegant: at full value the redemption is simply an exchange of worth, and anything will serve. The Torah’s insistence on a seh governs the case of redemption below full value — the concession that a cheap lamb may release an expensive donkey. And a concession of that kind is intelligible only if there is a genuine איסור requiring release, which is precisely R’ Yehuda’s point.
Key Terms:
- שִׁילְקֵי = boiled vegetables
- בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ = at its full value
- שֶׁלֹּא בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ = not at its full value, i.e. with an item worth less than the donkey
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
A contradiction from ma’aser sheni: R’ Yehuda holds a betrothal with it is effective
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁהִקְפִּידָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה בְּכֶסֶף צוֹרִי, וּתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמֵזִיד — קִידֵּשׁ!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But this contradicts Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling with regard to second-tithe produce, concerning which the Torah was particular about its being redeemed only with a minted coin, and we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one betrothed a woman with second-tithe produce, if he did so intentionally, he has betrothed her. Apparently, he maintains that deriving benefit from second-tithe produce is not prohibited prior to redemption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests R’ Yehuda’s principle against his own ruling elsewhere. Ma’aser sheni is an item about which the Torah was certainly particular as to the medium of redemption — כסף צורי, minted Tyrian coin — and yet R’ Yehuda rules that one who deliberately betroths a woman with ma’aser sheni has effected a valid betrothal. A valid betrothal requires that the man give something of benefit. If ma’aser sheni were forbidden in benefit prior to redemption, the kiddushin should be void, and R’ Yehuda’s principle should have forced him to say so.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי = the second tithe, eaten in Jerusalem or redeemed onto coin
- כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי = Tyrian silver, i.e. genuine minted coinage, required for the redemption of ma’aser sheni
- בְּמֵזִיד — קִידֵּשׁ = if he acted intentionally, the betrothal takes effect
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
R’ Elazar: the woman is betrothed by the benefit she will eventually receive in Jerusalem
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר נָמֵי מִיקַּדְּשָׁא, כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אִשָּׁה יוֹדַעַת שֶׁאֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מִתְחַלֵּל עַל יָדָהּ, וְעוֹלָה וְאוֹכַלְתּוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: That is not proof, as according to Rabbi Yehuda, if a man betrothed a woman with a firstborn donkey, she is also betrothed. This applies even if deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar says: The reason a woman is betrothed with second-tithe produce is that she knows that second-tithe produce is not desacralized by her betrothal. Rather, it remains prohibited, and she will subsequently ascend and consume it in Jerusalem, where consumption of second-tithe produce is permitted. She is therefore betrothed with the benefit of that future consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Elazar’s explanation removes the contradiction by relocating the benefit. The woman is not betrothed by present use of the ma’aser sheni — she knows perfectly well that her betrothal does not desacralize it. She is betrothed by what she will do with it: ascend to Jerusalem and eat it there, where its consumption is permitted. The kiddushin is effected by a deferred but genuine benefit, so the ruling tells us nothing about whether ma’aser sheni is presently forbidden.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר = an amora of Eretz Yisrael, frequently cited on the mechanics of kiddushin
- מִתְחַלֵּל = desacralized, transferred out of its consecrated status
- עוֹלָה וְאוֹכַלְתּוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם = she goes up and eats it in Jerusalem — the deferred benefit that effects the betrothal
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
The same analysis applied to the peter chamor: she is betrothed with the difference in value
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא נָמֵי, אִשָּׁה יוֹדַעַת דְּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר אִיסּוּרָא אִית בֵּיהּ, וּפָרְקָא לֵיהּ בְּשֶׂה, וּמַקְדְּשָׁא בְּהָךְ דְּבֵינֵי וּבֵינֵי.
English Translation:
Here too, where one betroths a woman with a firstborn donkey, the betrothal is effective despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the animal. This is because a woman knows that a firstborn donkey has a forbidden status and she will therefore redeem it with a lamb. And she is betrothed with that amount, i.e., of the difference between the value of the donkey and the value of the lamb, as the value of the lamb is lower.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now applies R’ Elazar’s structure to the donkey, and the result is that R’ Yehuda can hold both positions consistently. A woman who accepts a firstborn donkey as kiddushin knows it carries an issur and knows she will redeem it with a seh. Since the Torah permits redemption below value, she will acquire a donkey worth considerably more than the lamb she gives up, and it is that margin — בהך דביני וביני, the amount in between — that constitutes her benefit and effects the betrothal. The prohibition on present benefit is fully preserved.
Key Terms:
- דְּבֵינֵי וּבֵינֵי = the amount in between — the margin between the donkey’s value and the cheaper lamb’s
- מַקְדְּשָׁא = she is betrothed
- פָּרְקָא לֵיהּ בְּשֶׂה = she redeems it with a seh
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Ulla on R’ Shimon: is there anything whose redemption-item is permitted while the item itself is forbidden?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַאי טַעְמֵאּ? אָמַר עוּלָּא: יֵשׁ לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁפִּדְיוֹנוֹ מוּתָּר וְהוּא אָסוּר?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason he holds it is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey prior to its redemption? The Gemara answers that Ulla says: Do you have an item whereby its redemption, i.e., the item with which it is redeemed, is permitted, but the item itself is forbidden? Here too, since the lamb that is given to the priest is permitted, the donkey that it redeems should have been permitted as well prior to the redemption.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla now supplies the counter-principle. R’ Shimon reasons from the structure of the redemption itself: the seh that passes to the kohen is entirely permitted — ordinary chullin in his hands, with no restriction of any kind. An item that emerges from a redemption unencumbered suggests that what it redeemed was never encumbered either. On this reading the seh is not a ransom paid to release a captive animal but a transfer of the kohen’s due, and the donkey was permitted all along.
Key Terms:
- פִּדְיוֹנוֹ = its redemption — here meaning the item with which the redemption is effected
- מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ = what is his reason — the Gemara’s request for the logic behind a stated position
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Shevi’it produce appears to be a counterexample: its redemption money is permitted while the produce is forbidden at bi’ur
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, דְּפִדְיוֹנָהּ מוּתָּר, וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is there not such a case? But isn’t there the case of selling produce from the Sabbatical Year? As its redemption, i.e., the money received in exchange for the produce, is permitted. But deriving benefit from the produce itself is prohibited after that type of produce is unavailable in the fields, as at that time it must be removed from the house as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is drawn from the laws of the Sabbatical year. Produce of shevi’it may be sold, and the money received carries kedushat shevi’it but is not forbidden in benefit. The produce itself, however, becomes forbidden once ביעור arrives — the moment that species is no longer available in the field and what remains in the house must be removed. Here, then, is exactly the configuration R’ Shimon said could not exist: a permitted redemption-item alongside a forbidden principal.
Key Terms:
- שְׁבִיעִית = produce of the Sabbatical year, which carries kedushat shevi’it
- בִּיעוּר = removal; the point at which a species is gone from the field and what remains in the house must be disposed of
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
האחרון אחרון אסור — the sanctity migrates to each successive item, so shevi’it’s redemption is forbidden too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁבִיעִית נָמֵי פִּדְיוֹנָהּ אָסוּר, דְּאָמַר מָר: הָאַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן אָסוּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: With regard to the produce of the Sabbatical Year as well, its redemption is forbidden, as the Master says: If one purchased meat with produce of the Sabbatical Year, both the produce and the meat must be removed during the Sabbatical Year after the point when produce of that kind no longer remains in the field. If one purchased wine in exchange for the meat, the meat’s consecrated status is negated and the wine assumes consecrated status. This process continues until the very last item purchased assumes the consecrated status of the produce of the Sabbatical Year, and the actual produce itself remains consecrated and forbidden following the time of removal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara dissolves the counterexample by describing how shevi’it exchanges actually work. When one buys meat with shevi’it produce, the meat absorbs the sanctity; when wine is then bought with that meat, the meat is released and the wine takes it on. The sanctity travels forward and rests on the last acquisition — האחרון אחרון אסור — while the original produce, uniquely, never loses its own status. So the shevi’it redemption-item is not permitted at all, and R’ Shimon’s principle stands.
Key Terms:
- הָאַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן אָסוּר = the last one, the last one is forbidden — the sanctity rests on the most recent item acquired
- אָמַר מָר = the Master said — a formula citing an established teaching
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא / אוקימתא
An alternative basis for the machloket: the baraita on לא תעבד בבכור שורך ולא תגז בכור צאנך, per R’ Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּהַאי קְרָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכוֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ״ — אֲבָל אַתָּה עוֹבֵד בְּשֶׁלְּךָ וּבְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, ״וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ״ — אֲבָל אַתָּה גּוֹזֵז שֶׁלְּךָ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara offers an additional basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon: And if you wish, say that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to the following verse, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against shearing and working a firstborn kosher animal that the Torah states: “You shall do no work with the firstborn of your ox” (Deuteronomy 15:19), but you may perform labor with a firstborn animal that is both your own and also that of others, i.e., an animal owned in partnership with a gentile. Although firstborn status applies to the Jew’s share in the animal and he must give the value of his share to a priest, nevertheless, it has no sanctity and deriving benefit from it is permitted. The verse continues: “Nor shear the firstborn of your flock,” but you may shear a firstborn animal that is yours and that is also that of others. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers a second and entirely different account of what divides the two tannaim — not a clash of principles but a disagreement over how to read a verse. Devarim 15:19 forbids working the firstborn ox and shearing the firstborn of the flock, and in both clauses the possessive is emphatic: your ox, your flock. R’ Yehuda reads both possessives as excluding an animal co-owned with a gentile. Such an animal, on his view, is subject to bechora — the Jew’s share must be given over — but carries no sanctity, so working and shearing it are permitted.
Key Terms:
- שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי = partnership with a gentile in the ownership of an animal
- גִּזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה = shearing and labor — the two prohibitions attaching to the kosher firstborn
- וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא = and if you wish, say — introducing an alternative account of a dispute
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא
R’ Shimon reads the same possessives as excluding the human firstborn and the firstborn donkey
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכוֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ״ — אֲבָל אַתָּה עוֹבֵד בִּבְכוֹר אָדָם, ״לֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ״ — אֲבָל אַתָּה גּוֹזֵז בְּכוֹר חֲמוֹר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon says the verse should be interpreted as follows: “You shall do no work with the firstborn of your ox,” but you may do work with a woman’s firstborn son, as no prohibition exists with regard to deriving benefit from the labor of a firstborn boy even before he is redeemed. “Nor shear the firstborn of your flock,” but you may shear a firstborn donkey, as deriving benefit from it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda, who does not interpret the verse in this manner, holds that it is prohibited to shear and derive benefit from a firstborn donkey as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Shimon reads the two exclusions as pointing outward to two other categories of firstborn entirely. Your ox, but you may work a firstborn son — no one imagines a father is restricted in benefiting from his unredeemed child’s labor. Your flock, but you may shear a firstborn donkey — and this is the clause that carries the halachic weight, because if the donkey may be sheared then benefit from it is permitted, which is precisely R’ Shimon’s position. R’ Yehuda, having spent both possessives on the gentile partnership, has no verse excluding the donkey and therefore forbids it.
Key Terms:
- בְּכוֹר אָדָם = a firstborn son, from whose labor benefit is permitted even before pidyon
- בְּכוֹר חֲמוֹר = a firstborn donkey
- לֹא תָגֹז = you shall not shear
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
Two objections to R’ Yehuda: why two phrases for one exclusion, and should the human firstborn then be forbidden?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁלְּךָ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים לְמָה לִי? וְתוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בְּכוֹר אָדָם נָמֵי נֵימָא דַּאֲסִיר!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that is the reason that two verses, i.e., phrases, are written, one that excludes a woman’s firstborn son from the prohibition against deriving benefit and another that excludes a firstborn donkey. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, why do I need two verses to exclude a firstborn animal that is yours and that is also that of others, i.e., owned jointly by a Jew and a gentile, from the prohibition against deriving benefit from the firstborn? And furthermore, according to Rabbi Yehuda, shall we say that deriving benefit from a woman’s firstborn son should also be forbidden, since it was not excluded by any verse?
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Shimon’s reading has an obvious economy — two exclusionary phrases yielding two distinct exclusions — and R’ Yehuda’s does not. Why would the Torah write the same limitation twice? Worse, R’ Yehuda has left the firstborn son unexcluded by any verse, which on his own reasoning should render benefit from him forbidden. That conclusion is unacceptable, so the Gemara must revise its account of what R’ Yehuda actually holds.
Key Terms:
- תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי = two verses, i.e. two scriptural phrases
- לְמַעוֹטֵי = to exclude, to limit the scope of a prohibition
- וְתוּ = and furthermore — introducing a second objection
Segment 16
TYPE: אוקימתא
The revised account: both agree שורך excludes the human firstborn; the dispute is over צאנך
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״שׁוֹרֶךָ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּכוֹר אָדָם הוּא דַּאֲתָא, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּ״צֹאנֶךָ״. דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה, וְכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵי בְּגִזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה.
English Translation:
Rather, everyone agrees that the term “your ox” comes to exclude a woman’s firstborn son, from whom it is permitted to derive benefit. When they disagree, it is with regard to the term “your flock.” As Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says that an animal that is owned in partnership with a gentile is obligated in a firstborn, i.e., subject to the requirement that its owner count its offspring as a firstborn, and therefore the verse was necessary to permit shearing and using the animal for labor.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara redistributes the exclusions. Everyone agrees that שורך releases the firstborn son from the prohibition — that was never in dispute. The argument concerns צאנך alone, and it turns out to depend on a position R’ Yehuda holds elsewhere: that an animal co-owned with a gentile is obligated in bechora. Because he holds that, he needs a verse to permit shearing and working such an animal, and צאנך is the verse that supplies it. His reading is not redundant; it is forced by his own prior commitment.
Key Terms:
- דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא = everyone agrees
- חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה = obligated in the firstborn, i.e. its offspring is subject to the laws of bechora
- לְטַעְמֵיהּ = consistent with his own reasoning elsewhere
Segment 17
TYPE: אוקימתא
R’ Shimon holds שותפות גוי is exempt, freeing צאנך to exclude the peter chamor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וּלְעִנְיַן גִּזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Shimon holds that an animal owned in partnership with a gentile is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn, and therefore with regard to shearing and labor, no verse was necessary. Rather, the verse was necessary to exclude the case of a firstborn donkey from the prohibition against shearing and working the firstborn animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Shimon’s reading is likewise forced by a position he holds elsewhere, but in the opposite direction. Since he maintains that an animal owned in partnership with a gentile is exempt from bechora altogether, no verse is needed to permit shearing or working it — the question never arises. צאנך is therefore available for another purpose, and R’ Shimon spends it on the firstborn donkey. The apparent exegetical disagreement resolves into a substantive one about gentile partnership.
Key Terms:
- פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה = exempt from the firstborn obligation
- לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא = no verse was necessary
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
A final objection to R’ Shimon, left unresolved: קשיא
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״צֹאנֶךָ״ וְ״שׁוֹרֶךָ״, אַטּוּ ״צֹאנֶךָ״. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, ״שׁוֹרֶךָ״ וְ״צֹאנֶךָ״ לְמָה לִי? קַשְׁיָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this is the reason that the term “your flock” is written, and not simply the word flock. It excludes sheep that are owned in partnership with a gentile. And with regard to the term “your ox,” the word ox alone is sufficient to exclude a woman’s firstborn son from the prohibition; and the verse employed the term “your ox” because of the term “your flock,” so that the two would be stylistically similar. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who derives from the term “your flock” that a firstborn donkey is not included, writing the terms flock and donkey alone would suffice. Why do I need the terms “your ox” and “your flock”? The Gemara concludes: This is difficult.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses one last point of exegetical economy. R’ Yehuda can account for both possessives — צאנך does real work excluding the gentile partnership, and שורך was written in the possessive merely to match it stylistically. R’ Shimon cannot make the same defense: if he derives the donkey from צאנך and the firstborn son from שורך, the possessive suffixes themselves remain unexplained, since the bare nouns would have sufficed. The Gemara does not answer, recording קשיא — a difficulty that stands. Note the distinction from תיובתא earlier on 9a: קשיא registers an unresolved problem without rejecting the position.
Key Terms:
- קַשְׁיָא = it is difficult — an unresolved objection that does not, however, overturn the position
- אַטּוּ = on account of, because of — here, one term written to match another stylistically
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Rabba: even R’ Shimon concedes that after arifa the carcass is forbidden
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה, שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר.
English Translation:
§ Rabba says: And Rabbi Shimon concedes that even if it is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey that was not redeemed, following the breaking of its neck in fulfillment of the verse: “And you shall redeem every firstborn donkey with a lamb, and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck” (Exodus 13:13), it is forbidden to derive benefit from its carcass.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba introduces the sugya’s final movement by limiting R’ Shimon’s leniency. The Torah gives the owner a choice — redeem the donkey with a seh, or break its neck — and Rabba holds that R’ Shimon’s permission attaches only to the living, unredeemed animal. Once the owner has taken the second path and performed עריפה, the carcass is אסור בהנאה. The leniency is about an animal awaiting resolution, not about one whose owner has refused to redeem it.
Key Terms:
- רַבָּה = a Babylonian amora of the third generation, head of the yeshiva at Pumbedita
- עֲרִיפָה = breaking the neck from behind — the alternative to redemption for an unredeemed firstborn donkey
- וּמוֹדֶה = and he concedes — marking the limit of a lenient position
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
The source: a gezeira shava between עריפה here and at the eglah arufah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? גָּמַר ״עֲרִיפָה״ ״עֲרִיפָה״ מֵעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה.
English Translation:
What is the reason for this ruling? He derives this halakha by a verbal analogy between the expression: “Breaking the neck,” stated here, and the expression: “Breaking the neck,” stated in the case of the heifer whose neck is broken by the Elders of the city due to a unresolved murder (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9). Just as it is forbidden to derive benefit from the heifer after its neck is broken, so too is it prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey that was not redeemed following the breaking of its neck.
קלאוד על הדף:
The derivation is a gezeira shava, a verbal analogy between identical terms in two contexts. The Torah uses the root ערף both for the unredeemed firstborn donkey (Shemot 13:13) and for the calf whose neck is broken in the valley when a murder victim is found and the killer is unknown (Devarim 21:1-9). The eglah arufah is unambiguously אסורה בהנאה after the act. The shared term transfers that consequence to the donkey, and because a gezeira shava operates as a scriptural given rather than as an inference from reason, even R’ Shimon must accept it.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה = a verbal analogy transferring law between two passages sharing a term
- עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה = the calf whose neck is broken over an unsolved murder, forbidden in benefit thereafter
- גָּמַר = he derives, he learns by tradition
Segment 21
TYPE: ברייתא
Rava’s support: the baraita listing forbidden items that are nonetheless susceptible to tum’at ochlin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לֵיהּ דְּתַנְיָא: הָעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, וְצִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב — כּוּלָּן מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין.
English Translation:
Rava said: From where do I say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 3:12): The fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla], and diverse kinds in a vineyard, and the flesh of an ox that was to be stoned for killing or copulating with a person but was slaughtered instead, and that of a heifer whose neck was to be broken but was slaughtered instead, and of the birds offered by a leper (see Leviticus 14:4–7), and of a firstborn donkey whose neck was broken, and meat cooked together with milk, are all susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, despite the fact that their consumption is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava sets out to prove that Rabba’s attribution to R’ Shimon is correct, and he does it by way of a seemingly unrelated baraita from Tosefta Uktzin about טומאת אוכלין, the ritual impurity that attaches to food. The tanna kamma lists seven forbidden items — orla, kilei hakerem, the ox condemned to stoning, the eglah arufah, the leper’s birds, the firstborn donkey whose neck was broken, and meat cooked in milk — and rules that all of them are susceptible to food impurity despite being forbidden. For the tanna kamma, the halachic category of food is determined by physical edibility, not by permission.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין = the ritual impurity of food, which attaches only to what halacha classifies as food
- עׇרְלָה = fruit of a tree in its first three years, forbidden in benefit
- כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם = forbidden mixtures in a vineyard
- שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל = an ox condemned to stoning, forbidden in benefit
- צִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע = the birds of the leper’s purification rite
Segment 22
TYPE: ברייתא
R’ Shimon exempts all of them, conceding only basar b’chalav because it had a שעת הכושר
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּן אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין, וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין, הוֹאִיל וְהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon says: All of them are not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since they are all items from which deriving benefit is prohibited and are therefore not considered food. And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to meat cooked together with milk that it is susceptible to the impurity of food, since both the meat and the milk had a period of susceptibility to contracting impurity before they were cooked together.
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Shimon reverses the tanna kamma across the board: an item forbidden in benefit is not food, because it cannot lawfully be fed to anyone, and so it cannot contract food impurity. His single concession is instructive. Meat and milk were each perfectly permitted before they were cooked together, and that prior window — שעת הכושר, a period of fitness — is enough to fix their status as food permanently. Susceptibility, once acquired, is not lost when the item later becomes forbidden.
Key Terms:
- שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר = a period of fitness — a window in which the item was permitted, fixing its status as food
- בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב = meat cooked together with milk, forbidden in benefit
- אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין = they are not susceptible to impurity
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
R’ Yochanan supplies R’ Shimon’s source: אוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב: ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים — קָרוּי אוֹכֶל, שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים — אֵינוֹ קָרוּי אוֹכֶל.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited is not susceptible to the impurity of food? It is as it is written: “All food therein that may be eaten [ha’okhel asher ye’akhel], that on which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). The use of the Hebrew root alef, khaf, lamed twice in this phrase indicates that specifically food that you are able to feed to others, i.e., gentiles, is called food with regard to susceptibility to the impurity of food. But food that you are not able to feed to others is not called food. Therefore, an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited and which one is consequently forbidden to feed to gentiles is not considered food in this context.
קלאוד על הדף:
R’ Asi in the name of R’ Yochanan grounds R’ Shimon’s position in the doubled verb of Vayikra 11:34 — מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל, all food that may be eaten. The repetition of the root is read as a qualification: food that you are able to feed to others counts as food for these purposes; food that you may not feed to anyone does not. Since an item אסור בהנאה may not be given even to a gentile, it falls outside the definition. The relevance to Rava’s argument is decisive: R’ Shimon placed the peter chamor on the exempt list, which means he regards it as forbidden in benefit — and since he elsewhere permits the living animal, the listing must refer to the post-arifa carcass, exactly as Rabba said.
Key Terms:
- מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל = from all food that may be eaten (Vayikra 11:34) — the doubled root generating the qualification
- קָרוּי אוֹכֶל = is called food, i.e. falls within the halachic category
- רַבִּי אַסִּי = an amora who transmits many of R’ Yochanan’s teachings to Bavel