## Bekhorot Daf 32b

###### Bekhorot 32b:1
[Bekhorot 32b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:1)

יִגָּאֵל״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַחֲרָמִים — תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְמַעֲשֵׂר. אֵימָא תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִבְכוֹר? מַעֲשֵׂר גְּאוּלָּה כְּמוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes, why do I** need it? **If it is not** referring **to** the **matter of dedications,** as can be inferred from the *baraita*, **apply it to the matter of** the animal **tithe** offering, teaching that it may not be sold. The Gemara raises a difficulty: One can **say** that instead of applying it to the animal tithe offering, **apply it to the matter of a firstborn** offering. The Gemara rejects this possibility: The prohibition against selling extends to the animal **tithe** offering, concerning which the expression of **redemption** is written, **just like** dedications, which is not so concerning the firstborn offering.


###### Bekhorot 32b:2
[Bekhorot 32b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:2)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דְּמַעֲשֵׂר — לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לֹא יִגָּאֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ashi says** that the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is not derived from dedications, but rather from the case of the animal tithe offering itself. The phrase **“It may not be redeemed,”** written **with regard to** the animal **tithe** offering, is to be understood as meaning: **It may not be sold. Rav Ashi** further **says: From where do I say this? As it is written: “Then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:33).


###### Bekhorot 32b:3
[Bekhorot 32b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:3)

אֵימָתַי עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה — מֵחַיִּים, אֵימָתַי אֵינוֹ נִגְאָל — מֵחַיִּים, הָא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה — נִגְאָל, הָא בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi elaborates: **When** does the animal tithe offering **render** a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as **a substitute?** Only **when** the animal tithe offering is **alive.** Similarly, **when may** the animal tithe offering **not be redeemed** by its owner? Only **when** it is **alive,** which indicates that **it may be redeemed after** its **slaughter.** But when redeeming a sanctified animal, **it requires standing and valuation,** i.e., it has to be set standing before a priest for him to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). How, then, can the animal tithe offering be redeemed after having been slaughtered?


###### Bekhorot 32b:4
[Bekhorot 32b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:4)

אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ — לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi continues: **Rather, conclude from** this verse that the phrase **“it may not be redeemed”** is not referring to redemption. Rather, it **is** actually to be understood as: **It may not be sold.** Accordingly, the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is in effect only while it is alive, as is the *halakha* with regard to a substitute; but once it is slaughtered, it may be sold.


###### Bekhorot 32b:5
[Bekhorot 32b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:5)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **This works out well according to the one who says** that animals **consecrated** to be sacrificed on the **altar** that were disqualified due to a blemish **were included in** the requirement of **standing and valuation. But according to the one who says** that animals **consecrated to** be sacrificed on the **altar** that were disqualified due to a blemish **were not included in** the requirement of **standing and valuation, what is there to say?** According to this opinion, the phrase “It may not be redeemed” can be interpreted literally, in contrast to Rav Ashi’s claim.


###### Bekhorot 32b:6
[Bekhorot 32b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:6)

אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: מִי אִיכָּא דְּמֵחַיִּים לָא מִיפְּרִיק, וּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה מִיפְּרִיק? אַלְּמָה לָא מֵחַיִּים דְּאַלִּימָא קְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ — לָא מִיפְּרִיק, לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דְּאַקֵּיל לֵיהּ קְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ — מִיפְּרִיק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **This is what we said,** i.e., this is what we meant. The phrase “It may not be redeemed” cannot be understood literally, as **is there** ever an instance **where** an animal **may not be redeemed when alive, and** yet it **may be redeemed after** its **slaughter?** Since such a scenario is impossible, the verse must be referring to the prohibition against selling. The Gemara asks: But **why** can it **not** be said that an animal may be redeemed only after its slaughter? One can claim that **when** the animal is **alive, since its sanctity is strong,** it is logical to say that it **may not be redeemed.** Conversely, **after** its **slaughter, when its sanctity is weak,** it is logical to claim that **it may be redeemed.** If so, the phrase can be understood literally.


###### Bekhorot 32b:7
[Bekhorot 32b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:7)

וְלָא כֹּל דְּכֵן הוּא? וּמָה מֵחַיִּים דְּאַלִּים לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ — לָא מִיפְּרִיק, לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָא אַלִּים לְמִיתְפָּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ — מִיפְּרִיק? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ — לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention: **But isn’t** the opposite claim, that a slaughtered animal tithe offering may not be redeemed, based on **an *a fortiori*** inference: **If, when** the animal tithe offering is **alive and** its sanctity **is strong** enough **to transfer** that sanctity to **its redemption** money, just as it renders a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, nevertheless **it may not be redeemed,** then **after** its **slaughter, when** its sanctity **is not strong** enough **to transfer** that sanctity to **its redemption** money, as at this stage it cannot render a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, should it be able to **be redeemed?** In other words, the fact that substitution can be effected only with a living animal indicates that a strong sanctity is more easily transferable to another item than a weak sanctity. **Rather, conclude from this** that the phrase **“It may not be redeemed” is** actually to be understood as meaning that **it may not be sold.**


###### Bekhorot 32b:8
[Bekhorot 32b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:8)

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״! אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אִיזְדַּבּוֹנֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִזְדַּבַּן, דְּקָא עָבֵיד עוֹבָדִין דְּחוֹל, אֲבָל אִיפְּרוֹקֵי — מִיפְּרִיק, דְּהָא עָיְילִי דָּמָיו לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. לְהָכִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, דְּלָא אִיזְדַּבּוֹנֵי מִיזְדַּבַּן וְלָא אִיפְּרוֹקֵי מִיפְּרִיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** if so, **let the Merciful One write** explicitly: **It may not be sold.** The Gemara answers: **Had the Merciful One written: It may not be sold, I would say** that the animal tithe offering only **may not be sold, as one** who does so **performs an act** of **a non-sacred** item, by treating the consecrated animal in the same manner as a non-sacred animal and transferring its value to non-sacred money. **But** I would say that **it may be redeemed, as** in this manner **its value becomes consecrated. Therefore,** in order to counter this notion, **the Merciful One writes: “It may not be redeemed,”** which teaches both **that** the animal tithe offering **may not be sold and** that it **may not be redeemed.**


###### Bekhorot 32b:9
[Bekhorot 32b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִמָּנֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל עִם הַכֹּהֵן לַבְּכוֹר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Beit Shammai say: An Israelite cannot be counted with the priest to** partake of a blemished **firstborn. And Beit Hillel deem** it **permitted** for him to partake of it, **and** they deem it permitted **even** for **a gentile** to partake of a blemished firstborn.


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

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּכוֹר אֵין נִמְנִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא חֲבוּרָה שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כֹּהֲנִים, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ זָרִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַתִּיר אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn offering. The Gemara says: **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna? It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of a blemished **firstborn** offering, **only a group** constituted **entirely of priests may be counted to** partake of **it;** this is **the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say:** The group may **even** be constituted of **non-priests. Rabbi Akiva** says that Beit Hillel **deem** it **permitted even** for **a gentile** to partake of a blemished firstborn. Evidently, Beit Hillel’s opinion in the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s explanation in this *baraita*.


###### Bekhorot 32b:11
[Bekhorot 32b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32b:11)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? דִּכְתִיב ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ וְגוֹ׳״, מָה הָתָם כֹּהֲנִים — אִין, יִשְׂרָאֵל — לָא, אַף הָכָא כֹּהֲנִים — אִין, יִשְׂרָאֵל — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason of Beit Shammai? As it is written** in a verse discussing the firstborn offering, addressed to Aaron and his sons: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy …**and their flesh shall be yours,** as the wave breast and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). **Just as there,** with regard to the breast and the thigh, **priests may** partake of it but **an Israelite,** i.e., a non-priest, may **not,** as the verse states: “You shall eat in a pure place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with you” (Leviticus 10:14), **so too here,** with regard to the firstborn offering, only **priests may** partake of it, but **an Israelite** may **not.**