## Bekhorot Daf 13b

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

מָה ״עֲמִיתֶךָ״ בְּאַחַת, אַף גּוֹי נָמֵי בְּאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as** property is acquired from **your counterpart through** only **one** act of acquisition, i.e., pulling, **so too,** property is acquired from **a gentile through** only **one** act of acquisition, i.e., payment of money.


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

אָמְרִי: וּלְאָמֵימָר דְּאָמַר מְשִׁיכָה בְּגוֹי קוֹנָה, הָנִיחָא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת, מְשִׁיכָה לֹא, אַהֲנִי ״לַעֲמִיתֶךָ״ — לַעֲמִיתֶךָ בְּכֶסֶף, לְגוֹי בִּמְשִׁיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said: And according to** the opinion of **Ameimar, who says** that **pulling effects acquisition in** the case of **a gentile, this works out well if he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: By Torah law, money effects acquisition,** but **pulling** does **not.** If Ameimar accepts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, then it can be derived from the phrase **“of your counterpart”** that transactions **with your counterpart,** i.e., a Jew, are effected **through** payment of **money,** whereas transactions **with a gentile** are effected **by pulling.**


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

אֶלָּא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר: מְשִׁיכָה מְפוֹרֶשֶׁת מִן הַתּוֹרָה, לַעֲמִיתֶךָ בִּמְשִׁיכָה, וּלְגוֹי בִּמְשִׁיכָה, ״לַעֲמִיתֶךָ״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if** Ameimar **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Reish Lakish, who says:** The act of acquisition of **pulling is explicit in the Torah,** then the *halakha* is that transactions **with your counterpart** are effected **by pulling, and** transactions **with a gentile** are also effected **by pulling.** Accordingly, **why do I** need the phrase **“of your counterpart”?**


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

אָמְרִי: לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אַתָּה מַחְזִיר אוֹנָאָה, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר אוֹנָאָה לְגוֹי. לְגוֹי — מֵ״אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו״ נָפְקָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in explanation: The phrase “of your counterpart” does not teach a *halakha* with regard to the method of acquisition. Rather, it is referring to the latter part of the verse: “And if you make a sale to your counterpart, or buy of your counterpart’s hand, a man shall not exploit his brother” (Leviticus 25:14). The verse is derived as follows: **You** must **return** the sum of **exploitation to your counterpart, but you do not** need to **return** the sum of **exploitation to a gentile.** The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The exemption from returning the sum of exploitation **to a gentile is derived from** the latter part of the verse alone: **“A man shall not exploit his brother.”** A gentile is not included in the category of “his brother.” Accordingly, the phrase “of your counterpart” remains extraneous.


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

חַד בְּגוֹי, וְחַד בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא חַד — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְגוֹי הוּא דְּאֵין לוֹ אוֹנָאָה, אֲבָל הֶקְדֵּשׁ — יֵשׁ לוֹ אוֹנָאָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **One** phrase is required **to** exclude **a gentile, and one** serves **to** exclude **consecrated** property. **And** both derivations **are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written** only **one** exclusionary phrase, **I would say: It is** with regard to transactions **with a gentile that one is not** subject to the prohibition of **exploitation; but** with regard to transactions involving **consecrated** property, **one is** subject to the prohibition of **exploitation.** Therefore, the other derivation **teaches us** that one is not subject to the prohibition of exploitation with regard to transactions involving consecrated property either.


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

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵילוֹ אָסוּר — הַיְינוּ דְּאִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵי אוֹנָאָה, אֶלָּא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵילוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי מוּתָּר, אוֹנָאָה מִיבַּעְיָא? אָמְרִי: אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵילוֹ מוּתָּר — עַל כּוּרְחָיךְ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara remarks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that **his robbery,** i.e., robbing a gentile, is **prohibited,** as **this is** the reason **that a verse is necessary to permit** keeping the sum of the **exploitation** obtained from a gentile. **But if** Ameimar **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that **his robbery is permitted, is it necessary** to state that one may keep the sum of the **exploitation** obtained from a gentile? The Gemara accepts this reasoning: The Sages **said: If** Ameimar **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that **his robbery is permitted, perforce he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yoḥanan that money effects acquisition by Torah law, and therefore the difficulty does not arise.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: הַלּוֹקֵחַ גְּרוּטָאוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִם, וּמָצָא בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יַחֲזִיר, וְאִם מִשֶּׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יוֹלִיךְ הֲנָאָה לְיָם הַמֶּלַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion that property is acquired from a gentile by monetary payment. It is taught in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who buys broken vessels [*gerutaot*]** made of gold or silver **from the gentiles and finds among them** an object of **idol worship, if he pulled** the object of idol worship, thereby performing an act of acquisition, **before he gave** the **money** to the gentile, **he may return** the object of idol worship to the gentile. But **if he pulled** it **after he gave** the **money** to the gentile, he may not return it. Since the idol’s status was not revoked, he must **take** it and cast it **into the Dead Sea.**


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

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת, מְשִׁיכָה לְמָה לִּי? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לָדוּן בְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִי הָכִי, מָעוֹת לְמָה לִי? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת, אִי מָשֵׁיךְ — אִין, וְאִי לָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: **And if you say** that payment of **money acquires** items from gentiles, **why do I** need **pulling** in order to effect the Jew’s acquisition of the idol? The Gemara answers: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where** the gentile **accepted upon himself to** have this transaction **adjudicated by Jewish law.** The Gemara raises an objection: **If so, why do I** need the payment of **money** in order to effect the Jew’s acquisition of the idol? Pulling alone should be enough, in accordance with *halakha*. The Gemara explains that **this is what** the *baraita* **means: Even though** the Jew **gave money** to the gentile, the *halakha* still depends on the act of pulling: **If he pulled** the broken vessels, **yes,** he has acquired them, **and if not,** he has **not** acquired them.


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

אִי הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רֵישָׁא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא מִקָּח טָעוּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: רֵישָׁא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא מִקָּח טָעוּת, סֵיפָא לֵיכָּא מִקָּח טָעוּת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** then **the first clause** of the *baraita* is **difficult,** as it states: If he pulled the object of idol worship before he gave the money to the gentile, he may return the object of idol worship to the gentile. Evidently, pulling alone does not effect acquisition. **Abaye said** in explanation: The *halakha* in **the first clause** is ruled as it is **because there is a mistaken transaction,** as the Jew did not wish to purchase the idol. **Rava said to** Abaye: You maintain that the *halakha* of **the first clause** is ruled as it is **because there is a mistaken transaction.** Is that to say that in **the latter clause there is no mistaken transaction?** After all, the Jew does not wish to purchase the idol in either case.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא מִקָּח טָעוּת, רֵישָׁא דְּלָא יָהֵיב זוּזֵי — לָא מִיחְזֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל, סֵיפָא דְּיָהֵיב זוּזֵי — מִיחְזֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** The purchase in **the first clause and** the purchase in **the latter clause** are both **a mistaken transaction, but** in the case presented in **the first clause, where** the Jew **did not pay** him the **dinars, it does not appear as** though there is an object of **idol worship in the possession of a Jew,** and so he may return it. By contrast, in **the latter clause, where** the Jew **did pay him the dinars, it appears as** though there is an object of **idol worship in the possession of a Jew,** and therefore he must cast away the object rather than return it.


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

וְאַבַּיֵּי אָמַר לָךְ: רֵישָׁא מִקָּח טָעוּת, דְּלָא יָדַע, דְּהָא לָא יְהַיב לֵיהּ זוּזֵי. סֵיפָא לָאו מִקָּח טָעוּת הוּא, דְּכֵיוָן דִּיהַיב זוּזֵי, כִּי קָא מָשֵׁיךְ — אִיבְּעִי לְעַיּוֹנֵי וַהֲדַר מִימְשָׁךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** could have **said to you: The first clause** involves **a mistaken transaction, as he did not know** that the idol was included, **as he did not give him the dinars** and therefore had not yet inspected the property being purchased. Conversely, **the latter clause is not** a case of **a mistaken transaction, as since he** already **gave the dinars** to the seller, **when he** came to **pull it, he should have inspected** the property **and then pulled it.** Since the Jew did not bother to inspect the property even after paying, the transaction is valid.


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

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִדְּרֵישָׁא מְשִׁיכָה אֵינָהּ קוֹנָה, סֵיפָא נָמֵי מְשִׁיכָה אֵינָהּ קוֹנָה, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״מָשַׁךְ״, תְּנָא סֵיפָא נָמֵי ״מָשַׁךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites two more interpretations of the *baraita*. **Rav Ashi says:** The *baraita* is in fact discussing a case where the transaction was subject to gentile law, according to which only monetary payment effects acquisition, and as for the aforementioned difficulty raised to the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya from the latter clause: If so, why do I need pulling in order to effect the Jew’s acquisition of the idol; pulling is not in fact required. Rather, **from** the fact that in **the first clause, pulling does not effect acquisition,** in **the latter clause too, pulling does not effect acquisition. But since the first clause taught** the word: **Pulled,** in order to teach that this method is ineffective, **the latter clause also taught** the word: **Pulled,** despite the fact that its mention is unnecessary.


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

רָבִינָא אָמַר: מִדְּסֵיפָא מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה, וְרֵישָׁא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם לֹא נָתַן וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ — יַחְזוֹר. מַאי יַחְזוֹר? יַחְזוֹר בִּדְבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** The *baraita* is discussing a case where it was agreed that the transaction would be subject to Jewish law. **From** the fact that in **the latter clause, pulling effects acquisition,** in **the first clause too, pulling effects acquisition. And** as for the difficulty with regard to **the first clause,** which states that the Jew may return the item even though he already pulled it, **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: If** the buyer **did not give** the money to the gentile **and** also **did not pull** the item, **he returns** the item to the seller. The Gemara adds: **What** does the term: **Returns,** mean in this context? It means that the Jew **returns,** i.e., reneges, **on** his **verbal** commitment. In other words, he is not required to complete the purchase despite the fact he initially agreed to do so.


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

קָסָבַר: דְּבָרִים יֵשׁ בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי — יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, דְּקָיְימִי בְּדִבּוּרַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִגּוֹיִם, דְּאִינְהוּ לָא קָיְימִי בְּדִבּוּרַיְיהוּ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: It was necessary for the *tanna* to teach this explicitly, as **he holds:** Reneging on **a verbal** commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition **constitutes an act of bad faith** between two parties. **And** he holds that **this statement** applies only to a case where **a Jew** purchases an item **from** another **Jew, as they** are assumed to **uphold their verbal** commitments. **But** in a case of **a Jew** who purchases an item **from gentiles, as they** are **not** assumed **to uphold their verbal** commitments, reneging on one’s word does **not** constitute an act of bad faith between the parties, since neither party relies upon the commitment of the other in the first place.