## Bekhorot Daf 10b

###### Bekhorot 10b:1
[Bekhorot 10b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:1)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ לְהִתְלַמֵּד בּוֹ, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּנִימוֹס וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here, we are dealing with** a case **where he slaughtered** the firstborn donkey in order **to teach himself** how to properly slaughter an animal, and not in order to eat it. In this case, Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree whether the prohibition against a Jew’s consuming it serves as intent that it be treated as food. **And** they disagree **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute between Nimos and Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Bekhorot 10b:2
[Bekhorot 10b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:2)

דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: סָח לִי נִימוֹס, אָחִיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הַגַּרְסִי, שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָעוֹרֵב לְהִתְלַמֵּד בּוֹ — דָּמוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: דַּם שְׁחִיטָה לְעוֹלָם מַכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei says: Nimos, the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi,** once **related to me that** in the case of **one who slaughters a crow** in order **to teach himself** how to slaughter a bird properly, **its blood renders** other foods susceptible to impurity, as blood is one of the seven liquids that is capable of rendering foods susceptible to impurity. **Rabbi Eliezer says:** The **blood** that comes from the **slaughter** of an animal **always renders** food susceptible to impurity.


###### Bekhorot 10b:3
[Bekhorot 10b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:3)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אֶלָּא לָאו אִיסּוּרוֹ חִישּׁוּבוֹ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t this** statement of **Rabbi Eliezer** identical to the statement of **the first *tanna*,** i.e., Nimos? Both hold that the blood of slaughter renders food susceptible to impurity. **Rather, isn’t** the difference **between them** with regard to whether concerning the crow **its prohibition** serves as **its intent** that it should be used as food?


###### Bekhorot 10b:4
[Bekhorot 10b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:4)

תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: דָּמוֹ מַכְשִׁיר לְעָלְמָא, אֲבָל לְגוּפֵיהּ בָּעֵי מַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, **the first *tanna* holds** that the prohibition against consuming a crow does not render it a food. Therefore, **its blood renders** foods **in general** susceptible to impurity, **but to** render the crow **itself** a food, **intent** to eat it is also **required,** as people do not generally consume the meat of crows.


###### Bekhorot 10b:5
[Bekhorot 10b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:5)

וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְמֵימַר: דַּם שְׁחִיטָה לְעוֹלָם מַכְשִׁיר, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְגוּפֵיהּ נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵי מַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say** that **the blood of slaughter always renders** other foods susceptible to impurity, **and even with regard to** the crow **itself, intent** to consume it is **not required,** as he holds that its prohibition serves as intent to consume it. Likewise, Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree with regard to a firstborn donkey in a case where it is slaughtered only in order to teach oneself how to slaughter properly. According to Rabbi Shimon, intent to eat it is required in order to render it susceptible to the impurity of food, while according to the Rabbis the prohibition to eat it in this case serves as intent for it to be used as food.


###### Bekhorot 10b:6
[Bekhorot 10b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:6)

מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם — דְּשָׁאנֵי עוֹרֵב, הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ סִימָנֵי טׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **From where** is it inferred that the dispute between Nimos and Rabbi Eliezer is with regard to this issue? **Perhaps the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer there** is **that a crow is different, since it has** some **indicators of a kosher** bird, and is therefore considered food. By contrast, with regard to a donkey, which has no indicators of a kosher animal, slaughtering it in order to learn how to slaughter properly does not render it food.


###### Bekhorot 10b:7
[Bekhorot 10b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:7)

וּמְנָלַן דְּסִימָנֵי טׇהֳרָה מִילְּתָא הִיא? דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ דְּהַהִיא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה טַעַם? הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ סִימָנֵי טׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents support for this explanation: **And from where do we** derive **that indicators of a kosher** animal **are** considered a significant **matter** concerning the impurity of food? **As** a *baraita* **teaches with regard to** the mishna cited on 10a that **Rabbi Shimon says: What is the reason** that the meat of the camel, hare, rock-badger, and pig are automatically susceptible to impurity of food without any other conditions? It is **because they have** some **indicators of kosher** animals.


###### Bekhorot 10b:8
[Bekhorot 10b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:8)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִי מִשּׁוּם סִימָנֵי טׇהֳרָה, מַאי אִירְיָא לְהִתְלַמֵּד? אֲפִילּוּ לְהִתְעַסֵּק נָמֵי! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וּמִשּׁוּם נִימוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **if** the meat of the crow is susceptible to the impurity of food **because of** its **kosher indicators, why** do Rabbi Eliezer and Nimos **specifically** disagree in the case where it was slaughtered in order **to teach oneself** how to slaughter properly? **Even** if the one who slaughtered it **acted unawares,** Rabbi Eliezer should hold that its flesh should be suceptible to impurity. The response would be that **yes, this is indeed so** according to Rabbi Eliezer, **and** they disagreed in this case only **because of** the opinion of **Nimos,** who holds that even where one slaughtered the crow intentionally, if he slaughtered it in order to teach himself how to slaughter properly the crow is not susceptible to impurity.


###### Bekhorot 10b:9
[Bekhorot 10b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: לֹא רָצָה לִפְדּוֹתוֹ — עוֹרְפוֹ בְּקוֹפִיץ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו וְקוֹבְרוֹ, וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita* **to** the opinion of Rabba, who holds that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon it is prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey following the breaking of its neck: If one **does not want to redeem** his firstborn donkey with a lamb, **he breaks** the donkey’s **neck from behind with a cleaver and buries** the donkey, **and it is prohibited to** derive **benefit** from the donkey; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon deems** it **permitted** for one to derive benefit from the donkey.


###### Bekhorot 10b:10
[Bekhorot 10b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:10)

אֵימָא: וּמֵחַיִּים אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Say** the *baraita* means: **And while** the donkey is still **alive** it is **prohibited to** derive **benefit** from it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. **And Rabbi Shimon deems** it **permitted.** Perhaps Rabbi Shimon agrees that following the breaking of its neck, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.


###### Bekhorot 10b:11
[Bekhorot 10b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:11)

וְהָא מִדְּסֵיפָא מֵחַיִּים הָוֵי, רֵישָׁא לָאו מֵחַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But from** the fact **that the latter clause** of the *baraita* **is** referring to the prohibition to derive benefit **while** the donkey is **alive** it is apparent that **the first clause,** due to which this objection was raised, is **not** referring to deriving benefit **while** it is still **alive.**


###### Bekhorot 10b:12
[Bekhorot 10b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:12)

דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לֹא יְמִיתֶנּוּ, לֹא בְּקָנֶה וְלֹא בְּמַגָּל וְלֹא בְּקַרְדּוֹם וְלֹא בִּמְגֵירָה, וְלֹא יַכְנִיסֶנּוּ לַחֶדֶר וְיִנְעוֹל דֶּלֶת לְפָנָיו בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּמוּת, וְאָסוּר בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As the latter clause teaches: One may not kill** the firstborn donkey **with a reed, nor with a sickle, nor with an ax, nor with a saw; nor may one put it in a room and close the door so that it will die** from starvation. These are not the manners of killing the animal mandated by the Torah, which requires one to break its neck. **And shearing** the donkey **or** using it for **labor is prohibited;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon deems** it **permitted** to shear it and to perform labor with it. Since the latter clause mentions the prohibition against shearing and working the animal, which applies only when the animal is still alive, the first clause must be referring to a case where the animal was already dead.


###### Bekhorot 10b:13
[Bekhorot 10b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:13)

רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא מֵחַיִּים, רֵישָׁא — בַּהֲנָאַת דָּמָיו, סֵיפָא — בַּהֲנָאַת גּוּפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **The first clause and the latter clause** are both referring to a case where the animal is **alive,** but **the first clause** is referring **to** the prohibition against deriving **benefit** from **its value** by renting or selling it, while **the latter clause** is referring **to** deriving **benefit** from the animal **itself** by shearing it or performing labor with it.


###### Bekhorot 10b:14
[Bekhorot 10b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:14)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא הֲנָאַת דָּמָיו — בְּהָהוּא קָא שָׁרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֲבָל בַּהֲנָאַת גּוּפוֹ אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְאִי תְּנָא בַּהֲנָאַת גּוּפוֹ — בְּהָהִיא קָאָסַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲבָל בַּהֲנָאַת דָּמָיו אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **necessary** to state the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in both cases, **as had** the *tanna* **taught** only the case of deriving **benefit** from **its value** one would think that **in that** case **Rabbi Shimon deems** deriving benefit **permitted; but in** the case of deriving **benefit** from the donkey **itself, say** that Rabbi Shimon **concedes to Rabbi Yehuda** that it is forbidden. **And had** the *tanna* **taught** only the case of deriving **benefit** from the animal **itself** one would think that **in that** case **Rabbi Yehuda deems** deriving benefit **forbidden; but in** the case of deriving **benefit** from **its value, say** that he **concedes to Rabbi Shimon.** Therefore, it is **necessary** to teach the dispute in both instances.


###### Bekhorot 10b:15
[Bekhorot 10b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:15)

וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an additional *amora* who agrees with Rabba: **And similarly, Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says: Rabbi Shimon concedes that after breaking** the donkey’s **neck it is prohibited** to derive benefit from it.


###### Bekhorot 10b:16
[Bekhorot 10b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:16)

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וַעֲרַפְתּוֹ״, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן עֲרִיפָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֲרִיפָה, מָה לְהַלָּן אָסוּר — אַף כָּאן אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say it? As it is taught** in a *baraita* that the Torah states: “And if you do not redeem it, **then you shall break its neck”** (Exodus 13:13). The expression of **breaking the neck is stated here, and** the expression of **breaking the neck is stated there** with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken (see Deuteronomy 21:4). **Just as there,** in the case of the heifer whose neck is broken, it is **prohibited** to derive benefit from it following the ceremony, **so too here, it is prohibited** to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey following the breaking of its neck.


###### Bekhorot 10b:17
[Bekhorot 10b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:17)

מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — מֵחַיִּים מֵיסָר אָסַר! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Who is** the *tanna* cited in this *baraita*? **If we say** that it is **Rabbi Yehuda,** that is difficult, as he holds that it is already **prohibited** to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey **while** it is still **alive.** Why, then, would the verse need to forbid it again following the breaking of its neck? **Rather, is it not** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** indicating that he concedes that deriving benefit from the donkey is prohibited following the breaking of its neck?


###### Bekhorot 10b:18
[Bekhorot 10b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: סָפְרָא חַבְרָיךְ תַּרְגּוּמַהּ: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עֲרִיפָה בִּמְקוֹם פְּדִיָּיה עוֹמֶדֶת, מָה פְּדִיָּיה מַתֶּרֶת — אַף עֲרִיפָה מַתֶּרֶת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said to** Rav Naḥman: **Safra, your colleague, interpreted it** as follows: **Actually, Rabbi Yehuda** is the *tanna* cited, **and it was necessary** for the verse to prohibit deriving benefit after the donkey’s death as well, as it might **enter your mind to say** that **breaking the neck stands in place of redeeming** the donkey, as it is stated: “And if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). Therefore, it could be claimed that **just as redemption permits** one to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey, **so too, breaking the neck permits** one to derive benefit from it. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that breaking the neck does not permit one to derive benefit from it.


###### Bekhorot 10b:19
[Bekhorot 10b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:19)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? מִדְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: הוּא הִפְסִיד מָמוֹנוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן, לְפִיכָךְ יוּפְסַד מָמוֹנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say** that Rabbi Shimon holds it is prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey following the breaking of its neck? I say it **from that which Levi teaches** in a *baraita* with regard to the reason the Torah commands that the donkey’s neck be broken: **He,** the owner, **caused a loss of the money of a priest** by not giving him a lamb in exchange for the donkey. **Therefore, his money shall** also **be lost.**


###### Bekhorot 10b:20
[Bekhorot 10b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:20)

מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הָא מַיפְסַד וְקָאֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Whose** opinion is followed in this *baraita*? **If we say** it is the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** the donkey’s monetary value **is already lost,** as it was already prohibited to derive benefit from it while it was alive. **Rather, is it not** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon?** This indicates that breaking the neck of the donkey renders deriving benefit from it prohibited.


###### Bekhorot 10b:21
[Bekhorot 10b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:21)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If you wish, say** the *baraita* follows the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and if you wish, say** instead that it follows the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** even if he holds that it is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey after its neck is broken.


###### Bekhorot 10b:22
[Bekhorot 10b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:22)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַפְּסֵידָא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If you wish, say** the *baraita* follows the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** and it is referring to **the loss of** the difference **between** the value of the donkey while it is alive **and** the value of the lamb given as redemption to the priest, which is less than that of the donkey. This value, which the owner would have gained had he redeemed the donkey, is lost once the donkey is not redeemed.


###### Bekhorot 10b:23
[Bekhorot 10b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:23)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לִפְחַת מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that it is the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** and although he permits deriving benefit from the donkey after the breaking of its neck, there is nevertheless **a depreciation** of value caused by the **death** of the animal, as a dead donkey is worth less than a live one.


###### Bekhorot 10b:24
[Bekhorot 10b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:24)

וְכֵן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאִי תֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֲמַר: עֲדַיִין הִיא מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Reish Lakish similarly says** that **Rabbi Shimon concedes that** deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey **after** the **breaking of** its **neck is prohibited,** in accordance with the statements of Rabba and Rav Naḥman. **But Rabbi Yoḥanan, and some say Rabbi Elazar, says:** The matter **is still** subject to **dispute,** i.e., Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda even after the death of the firstborn donkey, and permits deriving benefit from it even then.


###### Bekhorot 10b:25
[Bekhorot 10b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:25)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אַהָא: ״הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת״. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are those who teach that which Rav Naḥman** said concerning the opinion of Rabbi Shimon **with regard to this,** i.e., the mishna in *Kiddushin* (56b): In the case of **one who betroths** a woman **with a firstborn donkey,** the woman **is not betrothed,** as it is prohibited to derive benefit from the donkey. **Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** as he holds that one is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey. **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says:** It is referring to a case of betrothal **after** the **breaking of the** donkey’s **neck, and all agree,** even Rabbi Shimon, that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it at that stage.


###### Bekhorot 10b:26
[Bekhorot 10b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:26)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — תִּיקְדַּשׁ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ, אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — תִּיקְדַּשׁ בְּהָךְ דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that the discussion with regard to the mishna proceeded as follows: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this?** Ostensibly, it is **neither** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda nor** that of **Rabbi Shimon. If** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who permits deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey, the woman **should be betrothed with the entire** value. **If** it follows the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, she should be betrothed with that difference** between the value of the donkey after being redeemed, which remains hers, **and** the value of the lamb that must be given to the priest in exchange for the donkey.


###### Bekhorot 10b:27
[Bekhorot 10b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:27)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֶלָּא שֶׁקֶל, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — תִּפְדֶּה מִיָּד, תִּפְדֶּה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין פְּדִיָּיה פְּחוּתָה מִשֶּׁקֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Avuh says** that **Rav says: Actually,** it follows the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and** is referring to a case **where** the firstborn donkey **is worth only a shekel,** the same value as a lamb suitable for redemption, in which case there is no difference between the value of the donkey and that of the lamb. **And** Rabbi Yehuda **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda** that one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb that is less than the value of a shekel, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: When the Torah states: **“You shall redeem,”** with regard to a firstborn donkey, it teaches that **you shall redeem** it **immediately,** and **you shall redeem** it for **any amount. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: There is no redemption** for **less than a shekel.**


###### Bekhorot 10b:28
[Bekhorot 10b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:28)

אָמַר מָר: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — תִּפְדֶּה מִיָּד, תִּפְדֶּה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*: **The Master said** that the verse: **“You shall redeem,”** teaches that **you shall redeem** it **immediately,** and **you shall redeem** it for **any amount.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious?** Why is it necessary to derive these *halakhot* from the verse?


###### Bekhorot 10b:29
[Bekhorot 10b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:29)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ לִבְכוֹר אָדָם, מָה בְּכוֹר אָדָם אַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ, הַאי נָמֵי אַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **was necessary,** as it might **enter your mind to say** that **since** the mitzva of redeeming a firstborn donkey **is juxtaposed with** that of redeeming a woman’s **firstborn son** in the verse: “Yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15), it should be inferred that **just as** a woman’s **firstborn son** is redeemed **after** the baby is **thirty** days old **and** involves giving the monetary value of **five** *sela* to a priest, as stated in the next verse: “And their redemption-money, from a month old you shall redeem them, it shall be, according to your valuation, five shekels of silver” (Numbers 18:16), **this** firstborn donkey **too** should be redeemed **after** it is **thirty** days old, **and** a lamb whose value is at least **five** *sela* should be given to the priest.


###### Bekhorot 10b:30
[Bekhorot 10b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:30)

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — מִיָּד, ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — כׇּל שֶׁהוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us: “You shall redeem,”** indicating that the redemption of the donkey must be done **immediately** after its birth, and that **you shall redeem** it for **any amount.**


###### Bekhorot 10b:31
[Bekhorot 10b:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:31)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין פְּדִיָּיה פְּחוּתָה מִשֶּׁקֶל. מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי מַקֵּישׁ לִבְכוֹר אָדָם — חָמֵשׁ לִיבְעֵי, וְאִי לָא מַקֵּישׁ — שֶׁקֶל מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* also states that **Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: There is no redemption** for **less than a shekel.** The Gemara asks: **Whichever** way **you** look at it, this statement is difficult: **If** Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds that the verse **compares** a firstborn donkey **to** a woman’s **firstborn son, he should require** a lamb worth **five** *sela*, **and if** the verse **does not compare** them, **from where** does Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda derive that a lamb worth **a shekel** is necessary?


###### Bekhorot 10b:32
[Bekhorot 10b:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:32)

לְעוֹלָם לָא מַקֵּישׁ, אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְכׇל עֶרְכְּךָ יִהְיֶה בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ״, כׇּל עֲרָכִין שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲרִיךְ לֹא יְהוּ פְּחוּתִין מִשֶּׁקֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the verse **does not compare** them, and the reason a lamb worth a shekel is required is due to that which **Rava says: The verse states** with regard to redemption of consecrated property: **“And all your valuations shall be with the shekel of the Sanctuary”** (Leviticus 27:25), which indicates that **all valuations that you assess should not be less than** the value of **a shekel.**


###### Bekhorot 10b:33
[Bekhorot 10b:33](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/10b:33)

וְרַבָּנַן: הַהוּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis** who disagree with him hold that **that** verse