## Bekhorot Daf 9b

###### Bekhorot 9b:1
[Bekhorot 9b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:2
[Bekhorot 9b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:2)

אָמַר רַב: מִין בְּמִינוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:3
[Bekhorot 9b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Bekhorot 9b:4
[Bekhorot 9b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 9b:5
[Bekhorot 9b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:5)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bekhorot 9b:6
[Bekhorot 9b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:6)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:7
[Bekhorot 9b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:8
[Bekhorot 9b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:11
[Bekhorot 9b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:11)

וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, דְּפִדְיוֹנָהּ מוּתָּר, וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:12
[Bekhorot 9b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 9b:14
[Bekhorot 9b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:14)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:15
[Bekhorot 9b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:15)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bekhorot 9b:16
[Bekhorot 9b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:16)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bekhorot 9b:17
[Bekhorot 9b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:17)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:18
[Bekhorot 9b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:18)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 9b:19
[Bekhorot 9b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:20
[Bekhorot 9b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:20)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:21
[Bekhorot 9b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:21)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:22
[Bekhorot 9b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:22)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 9b:23
[Bekhorot 9b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/9b:23)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.