## Bekhorot Daf 13a

###### Bekhorot 13a:1
[Bekhorot 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:1)

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet says:** The mitzva of redeeming a firstborn donkey takes effect immediately after it is born, as is stated in the first *baraita*. The second *baraita*, which states that it applies only after thirty days, means **to say that** until that time, **one does not transgress** a prohibition if he has not yet performed the redemption. After thirty days, though, one transgresses a prohibition if he still has not redeemed his firstborn donkey.


###### Bekhorot 13a:2
[Bekhorot 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:2)

מֵתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מִצְוָתוֹ כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — אוֹ פּוֹדֵהוּ אוֹ עוֹרְפוֹ. מַאי לָאו מִצְוָה לְשַׁהוֹתוֹ כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם? לָא, מִצְוָה לִפְדּוֹתוֹ כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection** to Rav Sheshet from a *baraita*: **The mitzva of** a firstborn donkey applies **throughout** the period of **thirty days** from its birth; **from that** point **forward he must either redeem it** immediately **or break its neck. What,** does it **not** mean that there is **a mitzva to wait** to redeem **it** until **all thirty days** have passed? The Gemara answers: **No,** it means that there is **a mitzva to redeem it throughout** the period of **thirty days,** and after that point one has transgressed a prohibition.


###### Bekhorot 13a:3
[Bekhorot 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:3)

אִי הָכִי, ״מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ אוֹ פּוֹדֵהוּ אוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּמַקֵּשׁי, הָא רַבָּנַן דְּלָא מַקְּשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** it **should have** stated: **From that** point **forward, either he redeems it or he transgresses** a prohibition, rather than stating: From that point forward he must either redeem it or break its neck. **Rather, Rava says:** The contradiction between the two *baraitot* is **not difficult,** as **this** *baraita*, which states that the redemption is performed after thirty days, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, who compares** the redemption of a firstborn donkey to the redemption of a woman’s firstborn son, where it is stated: “From a month old shall you redeem them” (Numbers 18:16). **That** *baraita*, which states that one must perform the mitzva immediately, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, who do not compare** the two mitzvot of redemption.


###### Bekhorot 13a:4
[Bekhorot 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** לֹא רָצָה לִפְדּוֹתוֹ — עוֹרְפוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו וְקוֹבְרוֹ. מִצְוַת הַפְּדִיָּיה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת עֲרִיפָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַעֲרַפְתּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one did not wish to redeem** the firstborn donkey, **he breaks its neck from behind and buries it. The mitzva of redeeming** the firstborn donkey **takes precedence over the mitzva of breaking the neck, as it is stated: “If you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck”** (Exodus 13:13).


###### Bekhorot 13a:5
[Bekhorot 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:5)

מִצְוַת יְעִידָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת הַפְּדִיָּיה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְעָדָהּ וְהֶפְדָּהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna proceeds to enumerate other mitzvot in which one option takes precedence over another. **The mitzva of designating** a Hebrew maidservant to be betrothed to her master **takes precedence over the mitzva of redeeming** the maidservant from her master with money, **as it is stated:** “If she does not please her master, **who has not betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed”** (Exodus 21:8).


###### Bekhorot 13a:6
[Bekhorot 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:6)

מִצְוַת הַיִּיבּוּם קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְכַּוְּונִין לְשֵׁם מִצְוָה, וְעַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוְּונִין לְשֵׁם מִצְוָה, אָמְרוּ: מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת יִבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The mitzva of levirate marriage takes precedence over the mitzva of *ḥalitza*,** which dissolves the levirate bond, as it is stated: “And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife” (Deuteronomy 25:7). The mishna adds: This was the case **initially, when** people **would intend** that their performance of levirate marriage be **for the sake of the mitzva. But now that they do not intend** that their performance of levirate marriage be **for the sake of the mitzva,** but rather for reasons such as the beauty of the *yevama* or for financial gain, the Sages **said** that **the mitzva of *ḥalitza* takes precedence over the mitzva of levirate marriage.**


###### Bekhorot 13a:7
[Bekhorot 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:7)

מִצְוַת הַגְּאוּלָּה בָּאָדוֹן, הוּא קוֹדֵם לְכׇל אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם לֹא יִגָּאֵל וְנִמְכַּר בְּעֶרְכֶּךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to a non-kosher animal that was consecrated to the Temple, **the mitzva of redemption by the owner** who consecrated it **takes precedence over** redemption by **any** other **person, as it is stated:** “And if it is of a non-kosher animal…**and if it is not redeemed, it shall be sold according to your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:27).


###### Bekhorot 13a:8
[Bekhorot 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:8)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ עוּבַּר חֲמוֹרוֹ.**


###### Bekhorot 13a:9
[Bekhorot 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:9)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַלּוֹקֵחַ עוּבַּר פָּרָתוֹ** שֶׁל נׇכְרִי, וְהַמּוֹכֵר לוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי, וְהַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף לוֹ, וְהַמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהַנּוֹתֵן לוֹ בְּקַבָּלָה — פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל״, אֲבָל לֹא בַּאֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who purchases the fetus of a cow** that **belongs to a gentile; one who sells** the fetus of his cow **to** a gentile, **even though one is not permitted** to sell a large animal to a gentile; **one who enters into a partnership with** a gentile with regard to a cow or its fetus; **one who receives** a cow **from** a gentile to tend to it in exchange for partnership in its offspring; **and one who gives** his cow to a gentile **in receivership,** so that the gentile owns a share of the cow’s offspring; in all of these cases, one is **exempt from** the obligation of redeeming **the firstborn** offspring, **as it is stated:** “I sanctified to Me all the firstborn **in Israel,** both man and animal” (Numbers 3:13), indicating that the mitzva is incumbent upon the Jewish people, **but not upon others.** If the firstborn belongs even partially to a gentile, the sanctity of firstborn does not apply to it.


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

הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם חַיָּיבִים, שֶׁלֹּא נִפְטְרוּ מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִפִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן וּמִפֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **The priests and the Levites are obligated** in the mitzva, i.e., their animals have firstborn sanctity, **as they were not exempted from** the mitzva of the male **firstborn of a kosher animal; rather,** they were exempted only **from redemption of the** firstborn **son and from** the redemption of **the firstborn donkey.**


###### Bekhorot 13a:11
[Bekhorot 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי עוּבַּר חֲמוֹרוֹ בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי עוּבַּר פָּרָתוֹ? לִיתְנֵי בְּרֵישָׁא עוּבַּר פָּרָתוֹ, דִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף הוּא, וַהֲדַר לִיתְנֵי עוּבַּר חֲמוֹרוֹ, דִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The first chapter of this tractate began with the *halakhot* pertaining to a firstborn donkey. The Gemara asks: **Why does** the *tanna* **specifically teach** the *halakhot* of **the fetus of his donkey first, and** only **then teach** the *halakhot* of **the fetus of his cow? Let him first teach** the *halakhot* of **the fetus of his cow, as it is** a case of **inherent sanctity,** i.e., the animal cannot be redeemed and is sacrificed upon the altar, **and let him then teach** the *halakhot* of **the fetus of his donkey, as it is** a case of **sanctity** that inheres in its **value.**


###### Bekhorot 13a:12
[Bekhorot 13a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:12)

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, אַיְּידֵי דַּחֲבִיבָא לֵיהּ, כִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, אַיְּידֵי דְּזוּטְרָן מִילֵּיהּ דִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, פָּסֵיק וְשָׁדֵי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said in the West,** Eretz Yisrael: **If you wish, say** that the *halakhot* of a firstborn donkey were taught first **since** they are **dear to** the *tanna*, **in accordance with** the statement of **Rabbi Ḥanina** (5b) that donkeys helped the Jews when they departed from Egypt, as the Jews loaded their gold and silver on donkeys. **And if you wish, say** that these *halakhot* were taught first **since the matters** pertaining to **a non-kosher animal are** relatively **few,** and therefore the *tanna* **completes** its treatment **and sets it** aside.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת לְגוֹי בִּבְהֶמְתּוֹ בְּדִינֵיהֶם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָשַׁךְ — קָנָה, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה. וְגוֹי שֶׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּבְהֶמְתּוֹ בְּדִינֵיהֶם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָשַׁךְ — קָנָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the mishna’s discussion of sales involving Jews and gentiles, **Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani says** that **Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya:** In the case of **a Jew who gave money to a gentile to** buy the gentile’s **animal** from him **according to their laws,** as explained further on, **even though** the Jew **did not pull** the animal in the manner of a formal acquisition, as required by *halakha*, **he has** legally **acquired** it, **and** the Jewish owner **is obligated** to give the animal’s **firstborn** offspring to a priest. **And** in the case of **a gentile who gave money to a Jew to** buy the Jew’s **animal** from him **according to their laws, even though** the gentile **did not pull** the animal **he has acquired** it, **and** the Jew **is** therefore **exempt from** giving the animal’s **firstborn** offspring to a priest.


###### Bekhorot 13a:14
[Bekhorot 13a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:14)

אָמַר מָר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת לְגוֹי בְּדִינֵיהֶם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָשַׁךְ — קָנָה וְחַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said:** In the case of **a Jew who gave money to a gentile** to buy the gentile’s animal from him **according to their laws, even though he did not pull** the animal **he has** legally **acquired** it, **and** the Jew **is obligated** to give the animal’s **firstborn** offspring to a priest.


###### Bekhorot 13a:15
[Bekhorot 13a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:15)

מַאי ״בְּדִינֵיהֶם״? אִי נֵימָא בְּדִינֵיהֶם דְּגוּפֵיהּ, דְּאָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר: אִם גּוּפֵיהּ קָנֵי לֵיהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכֶסֶף, דִּכְתִיב ״לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחוּזָּה״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is meant by: **According to their laws? If we say** that it is referring **to the laws** relating **to** the purchase of a gentile’s **person** as a slave, i.e., the *halakhot* of purchasing gentiles themselves rather than the methods by which gentiles can acquire property, this must be based on the assumption that the *halakha* with regard to the purchase of a gentile’s animal **is derived by** the following ***a fortiori*** inference: **If** a gentile’s **person is acquired by a Jew** as a Canaanite slave **through** payment of **money, as it is written:** “And you may make them an inheritance for your children after you, **to hold for an ancestral possession”** (Leviticus 25:46), the same *halakha* should apply to acquiring a gentile’s property.


###### Bekhorot 13a:16
[Bekhorot 13a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:16)

הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַאֲחוּזָּה, מָה אֲחוּזָּה נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה, אַף עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי נִקְנֶה בְּכֶסֶף. מָמוֹנוֹ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **The verse** thereby **compares** a gentile slave **to an ancestral possession,** i.e., land: **Just as an ancestral possession is acquired by** the transfer **of money, or with a bill of sale, or through taking possession, so too, a Canaanite slave is acquired by** the transfer of **money.** If this is the *halakha* with regard to a gentile’s person, **is it not all the more so** reasonable that a gentile’s **property** is acquired through the transfer of money?


###### Bekhorot 13a:17
[Bekhorot 13a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:17)

אִם כֵּן, אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה נָמֵי! וְעוֹד, יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יוֹכִיחַו, דְּגוּפֵיהּ קָנֵי לֵיהּ בְּכֶסֶף, מָמוֹנוֹ בִּמְשִׁיכָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **If so,** then according to *halakha* it should be possible to acquire a gentile’s property **even with a bill of sale or by taking possession,** which is not so. The Gemara adds: **And furthermore,** the *halakha* pertaining to **a Jew** purchasing goods **from a Jew proves** that the entire premise of the *a fortiori* inference is false, **as he acquires** a Jew’s **person with money** alone, but he acquires **his property** only **by pulling.** It is therefore evident that the ability to acquire one’s person with money does not indicate that his property can be purchased in the same manner.


###### Bekhorot 13a:18
[Bekhorot 13a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:18)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּדִינֵיהֶם שֶׁפָּסְקָה לָהֶם תּוֹרָה, ״אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ״ — מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ הוּא דְּבִמְשִׁיכָה, הָא מִיַּד גּוֹי בְּכֶסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye says** that the term: Their laws, is referring to **their laws that the Torah prescribed for their** methods of purchase, by stating: **“Or buy of your counterpart’s hand”** (Leviticus 25:14), which teaches that **it is** only **from the hand of your counterpart,** i.e., a Jew, **that** property **is** acquired **by** the formal act of acquisition of **pulling.** This indicates that acquiring property **from the hand of a gentile** is accomplished **through** payment of **money.**


###### Bekhorot 13a:19
[Bekhorot 13a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:19)

וְאֵימָא: מִיַּד גּוֹי — כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא! אָמְרִי: לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא — אִם גּוּפוֹ קוֹנֶה, מָמוֹנוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But** one can **say** that it should be inferred from the verse that one **cannot** purchase anything **at all from the hand of a gentile.** The Sages **said** in response: That **cannot enter your mind,** as there **is an *a fortiori*** inference which indicates otherwise: **If** a Jew can **purchase** a gentile’s **person** as a slave, is it **not all the more so** reasonable that he can purchase a gentile’s **property?**


###### Bekhorot 13a:20
[Bekhorot 13a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:20)

וְאֵימָא: מִיַּד גּוֹי — עַד דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי! אָמְרִי: וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? גּוּפוֹ בְּאַחַת, מָמוֹנוֹ בִּשְׁתַּיִם?! וְאֵימָא: אוֹ בְּהָא אוֹ בְּהָא, דּוּמְיָא דַּ״עֲמִיתֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection: **But** one can **say** that the verse teaches that whereas a Jew’s property is acquired through pulling, property purchased **from the hand of a gentile** is not acquired **until two** formal acts of acquisition have been performed, both pulling and payment of money. The Sages **said** in response: **Isn’t it** indicated otherwise by **an *a fortiori*** inference: If **his person** is acquired **through** only **one** act of acquisition, could it be that **his property** must be acquired **through two** acts? The Gemara further suggests: **But** one can **say** that it is derived from the verse that one can acquire property from a gentile **either** through **this** method of pulling **or** through **that** method of money. The Gemara explains: The *halakha* derived from the phrase “of your counterpart” must be **similar to** an acquisition from **your counterpart:**


###### Bekhorot 13a:21
[Bekhorot 13a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:21)

מָה ״עֲמִיתֶךָ״ בַּחֲדָא, אַף גּוֹי נָמֵי בַּחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as** from the hand of **your counterpart** it is **with one** act, with pulling, **so too,** from the hand of **a gentile,** it is **also with one** act, **with money.**


###### Bekhorot 13a:22
[Bekhorot 13a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:22)

אָמַר מָר: וְגוֹי שֶׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּבְהֶמְתּוֹ בְּדִינֵיהֶן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָשַׁךְ — קָנָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה. מַאי בְּדִינֵיהֶן? אִילֵּימָא בְּדִינֵיהֶן דְּגוּפֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר: אִם גּוּפוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָנֵי לֵיהּ בְּכֶסֶף, דִּכְתִיב ״מִכֶּסֶף מִקְנָתוֹ״, מָמוֹנוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the statement of Rabbi Oshaya. **The Master said: And a gentile who gave money to a Jew to** buy the Jew’s **animal** from him **according to their laws, even though** the gentile **did not pull** the animal **he has acquired** it, **and** the Jew **is** therefore **exempt from** giving the animal’s **firstborn** offspring to a priest. **The Gemara clarifies: What is** the meaning of **according to their laws? If we say** that it means: **According to their laws of the person** of the Jew himself, i.e., the manner in which he purchases the person of a Jew with money, and it is reasonable to say so, **as it may be derived** through **an *a fortiori*** inference: **If** a gentile **acquires the body of a Jew with money, as it is written** in that regard: **“From the money of his purchase”** (Leviticus 25:51), then with regard to the **property** of a Jew, is it **not all the more so** reasonable that the gentile can acquire it with money?


###### Bekhorot 13a:23
[Bekhorot 13a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:23)

יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יוֹכִיחַו, דְּגוּפוֹ קָנֵי בְּכֶסֶף, מָמוֹנוֹ בִּמְשִׁיכָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּדִינֵיהֶם שֶׁפָּסְקָה לָהֶם תּוֹרָה, ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ״ — לַעֲמִיתֶךָ בִּמְשִׁיכָה, הָא לְגוֹי בְּכֶסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This can be rejected, as the acquisition of **a Jew from a Jew will prove** that the inference is not valid, as the **person** of a Hebrew slave **one acquires with money, while the property** of a Jew can be acquired only **by pulling. Rather, Abaye said:** That which it states, that a gentile purchases an animal with money **according to their laws,** means: With the acts of acquisition **that the Torah prescribed** to gentiles, the manner in which they acquire items from Jews, i.e., with money, as it is stated: **“And if you sell a sale item to your counterpart”** (Leviticus 25:14), from which it may be inferred: **To your counterpart,** i.e., a Jew, property **is** acquired **by pulling,** but property **from the hand of a gentile** is acquired **with money.**


###### Bekhorot 13a:24
[Bekhorot 13a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:24)

וְאֵימָא: לְגוֹי כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא! אָמְרִי: לָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? אִם גּוּפוֹ קָנָה, מָמוֹנוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **But say** that the inference should be: **To a gentile, not at all,** i.e., neither with money nor with pulling can a gentile acquire an item from a Jew. The Sages **said** in response: **But isn’t it an *a fortiori*** inference to the contrary: **If** a gentile can **purchase** a Jew’s **person** as a slave, then is it **not all the more so** reasonable that he can purchase the Jew’s **property?**


###### Bekhorot 13a:25
[Bekhorot 13a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:25)

אֵימָא: לְגוֹי עַד דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי! לָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? גּוּפוֹ בְּאֶחָד, מָמוֹנוֹ בִּשְׁתַּיִם?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Say** and infer as follows: To your counterpart you sell with pulling, **but to a gentile** you do not sell **until two** formal acts of acquisition have been performed: Pulling and money. The Sages **said** in response: **But isn’t it an *a fortiori*** inference to the contrary: If the **person** of a Jew is acquired **with one** act of acquisition, is it reasonable that **his property** is acquired **with two** acts?


###### Bekhorot 13a:26
[Bekhorot 13a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/13a:26)

וְאֵימָא: אוֹ בְּהָא אוֹ בְּהָא, דּוּמְיָא דַּ״עֲמִיתֶךָ״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **But say** that a gentile acquires property from a Jew **either with this** act of pulling **or with that** act of **paying** money. The Gemara explains: The acquisition of the gentile must be **similar to** the acquisition of **your counterpart,** from which it is derived: