Bejorot 9

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.

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.

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.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ חֲמוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן טָלֶה אֶחָד לַכֹּהֵן, זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — מַפְרִישׁ טָלֶה אֶחָד לְעַצְמוֹ.

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.

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.

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.

אַחַת בִּיכְּרָה, וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה, וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן טָלֶה אֶחָד לַכֹּהֵן; זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — מַפְרִישׁ טָלֶה אֶחָד לְעַצְמוֹ.

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.

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.

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.

גְּמָ׳ מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי — הָאָמַר אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם!

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּכְתִיב ״הַזְּכָרִים לַה׳״.

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.

וְלִיגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ! הָא מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״הַזְּכָרִים״.

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.

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׳״.

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.”

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, דְּלָא מוֹקֵי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי — הַיְינוּ דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּאֶחָד״, אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי — לִיתְנֵי ״וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּאֶחָד״!

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.

וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חֲמוֹרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים, וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּאֶחָד, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הַזְּכָרִים לַה׳״.

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.”

וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיב הַאי, בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף הוּא דִּכְתִיב! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הַזְּכָרִים לַה׳״, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

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.

וְרַבָּנַן, לֵימָא קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן מִקְצָת רֶחֶם מַקְדֵּישׁ? דְּאִי כּוּלֵּיהּ רֶחֶם מַקְדֵּישׁ — נְהִי דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם, חֲצִיצָה מִיהָא אִיכָּא!

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.

אָמַר רַב: מִין בְּמִינוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ.

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.

זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — מַפְרִישׁ טָלֶה כּוּ׳. וְכֵיוָן דִּלְעַצְמוֹ הוּא, לְמָה לִי לְאַפְרוֹשֵׁי? לְאַפְקוֹעֵי לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

§ 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.

אַלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מַפְקַע לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ, אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

וַהֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁהִקְפִּידָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה בְּכֶסֶף צוֹרִי, וּתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמֵזִיד — קִידֵּשׁ!

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.

בְּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר נָמֵי מִיקַּדְּשָׁא, כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אִשָּׁה יוֹדַעַת שֶׁאֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מִתְחַלֵּל עַל יָדָהּ, וְעוֹלָה וְאוֹכַלְתּוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.

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.

הָכָא נָמֵי, אִשָּׁה יוֹדַעַת דְּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר אִיסּוּרָא אִית בֵּיהּ, וּפָרְקָא לֵיהּ בְּשֶׂה, וּמַקְדְּשָׁא בְּהָךְ דְּבֵינֵי וּבֵינֵי.

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.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַאי טַעְמֵאּ? אָמַר עוּלָּא: יֵשׁ לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁפִּדְיוֹנוֹ מוּתָּר וְהוּא אָסוּר?

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.

וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, דְּפִדְיוֹנָהּ מוּתָּר, וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה!

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.

שְׁבִיעִית נָמֵי פִּדְיוֹנָהּ אָסוּר, דְּאָמַר מָר: הָאַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן אָסוּר.

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.

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.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכוֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ״ — אֲבָל אַתָּה עוֹבֵד בִּבְכוֹר אָדָם, ״לֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ״ — אֲבָל אַתָּה גּוֹזֵז בְּכוֹר חֲמוֹר.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וּלְעִנְיַן גִּזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר.

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״צֹאנֶךָ״ וְ״שׁוֹרֶךָ״, אַטּוּ ״צֹאנֶךָ״. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, ״שׁוֹרֶךָ״ וְ״צֹאנֶךָ״ לְמָה לִי? קַשְׁיָא.

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.

אָמַר רַבָּה: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה, שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר.

§ 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.

מַאי טַעְמָא? גָּמַר ״עֲרִיפָה״ ״עֲרִיפָה״ מֵעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לֵיהּ דְּתַנְיָא: הָעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, וְצִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב — כּוּלָּן מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּן אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין, וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין, הוֹאִיל וְהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.

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.

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.

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.