Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 28, 2019 | 讻状讙 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 11

What is the minimum value that one can redeem a donkey with? How is the law of redemption of a firstborn donkey different that regular hekdesh? Is one obligated to tithe produce that one purchased from a non-Jew after it was put it a pile? If one asks an am haaretz, Samaritan or non-Jew to watch their produce, does one need to be concerned that they swapped it with their own produce? If so, what would one need to do?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘讛砖讙 讬讚 讻转讬讘

is written with regard to affordability, i.e., a case where one vows to give the valuation of an individual to the Temple but does not have sufficient funds to fulfill his vow. In such a case, he must pay at least a shekel. It does not apply to other matters.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讟专讜讝讗 讘专 讚谞拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讜拽讟谉

Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that one may redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb that is worth even less than a shekel. And how much must the lamb be worth? Rav Yosef says: Even a lean lamb [patruza] that is worth only a ma鈥檃 [danka] may be used. Rava says: We learn in the mishna (9a) as well that the owner may give either a big or a small lamb, which supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 ruling.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 驻讟专讜讝讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that even a lean lamb worth one ma鈥檃 may be used? The baraita states that the lamb may be worth any amount. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that if the lamb is of such little value one may not redeem with it, Rav Yosef states that one may redeem with it. Alternatively, it could be claimed that a lean lamb may not be used for redemption due to its physical state. Therefore, Rav Yosef teaches us that one may redeem a firstborn donkey even with such a lamb.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬转讘 诇讻讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 注讬谉 讬驻讛 讘住诇注 注讬谉 专注讛 讘砖拽诇 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讘专讙讬讗

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had a firstborn donkey. He sent it before Rabbi Tarfon, and said to him: How much do I need to give a priest for its redemption, i.e., how much must the lamb used for its redemption be worth? Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Didn鈥檛 the Sages say: One who has a generous disposition redeems his firstborn donkey with a lamb worth a sela, one who has a miserly disposition redeems his donkey with a lamb worth a shekel, and one who has an intermediate disposition redeems his donkey with a lamb worth a ragya?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘专讙讬讗 讜讻诪讛 转诇转讗 讝讜讝讬 专讙讬诇 讛讻讗 讜专讙讬诇 讛讻讗

Rava said: The halakha is that one must redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb that is worth at least a ragya. The Gemara asks: And how much is the value of a ragya? The Gemara answers: A ragya is worth three dinars, and is called a ragya because it is close to [ragil] here and close to there, i.e., its value is between that of a sela, which is worth fours dinars, and a shekel, which is worth two dinars.

拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讘讗 诇讬诪诇讱 讻讗谉 讘注讜砖讛 诪注爪诪讜

The Gemara comments: The contradiction between this halakha, that one must give a lamb worth three dinars, and the halakha stated by Rav Na岣an, that one may give a lamb of any monetary value, poses a difficulty. The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, as here the reference is to one who comes to consult; he is told to give a lamb worth three dinars. There, the reference is to one who acts on his own, i.e., one who redeems his donkey without consultation, in which case he has fulfilled his obligation even if the lamb is worth only a ma鈥檃.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讛 诇驻讚讜转讜 驻讜讚讛讜 讘砖讜讬讜 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讛拽驻讬讚讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 讘砖讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Reish Lakish says: One who has a firstborn donkey but does not have a lamb with which to redeem it may redeem the donkey with a sum of money equal to the donkey鈥檚 value and give it to a priest. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn鈥檛 he say that the Torah is particular that the donkey be redeemed with a lamb (see 9a)? Rather, clearly it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

专讘 讗讞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara comments: Rav A岣 teaches it in this way, that the statement of Reish Lakish was made in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Ravina found this difficult, as wherever there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

And furthermore, the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The mishna on 9a states that in a case where the firstborn status of a donkey is uncertain, the owner must redeem it with a lamb to abrogate its forbidden status, and he may then keep the lamb. The Gemara on 9b explains that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that a firstborn donkey is forbidden before its redemption. And you say that Reish Lakish rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞诪讜专 诪谉 讛讛拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讘砖讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 讘砖讬诇拽讬 讘砖讜讬讜

Ravina concludes: Rather, the statement of Reish Lakish is correct even if you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as the halakha of a firstborn donkey should not be more stringent than that of consecrated items. One who redeems a consecrated animal from its consecrated status redeems it with any movable property that is worth its value. And the Torah did not state that one must redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb in order to be stringent with the owner, but in order to be lenient with the owner such that he is not obligated to redeem it at its value, as a lamb is worth less than a donkey. The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an, son of Rav Yosef, redeemed a firstborn donkey with boiled vegetables that were worth its value.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛驻讜讚讛 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 驻讚讬讜谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇驻讜讚讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rav Sheizevi says that Rav Huna says: In the case of one who redeems the firstborn donkey of another, his object of redemption, i.e., the firstborn donkey, is redeemed, despite the fact that the owner did not redeem it. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does his object of redemption belong to the one who redeems it, or perhaps his object of redemption belongs to the owner?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛

The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon you should not raise the dilemma, since he says that prior to the redemption it is permitted for the owner to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey by using it for labor or renting it out. Therefore, it is the property of the owner, and giving a lamb to the priest does not change this status. When you raise the dilemma, it should be according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey prior to its redemption. If so, it does not belong to the owner initially, and only redeeming the donkey with the lamb allows him to take possession of it.

诇讛拽讚砖 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讛讜 讘讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬 诇讗 讚诪讬 诇讛拽讚砖

Consequently, one can ask whether the firstborn donkey is compared to consecrated property; and the Merciful One says with regard to redeeming consecrated property: 鈥淎nd he will give the money and it will be assured to him鈥 (see Leviticus 27:19), which indicates that the one who gives the redemption money acquires the item even if he did not consecrate it initially. Or perhaps since the owner may redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb that is worth less than the donkey, he owns the difference between the price of the donkey and the price of the lamb, and therefore it is not similar to consecrated property, where the one who consecrated it does not retain any ownership of the item.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转讗 砖诪注 讛讙讜谞讘 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讬砖 诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉

Rav Na岣an said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: In the case of one who steals the firstborn donkey of another before it is redeemed and he is then caught, he pays the payment of double the principal to the owner (see Exodus 22:3). And even though the owner does not have rights to the donkey now, he does have rights to it afterward, i.e., after the redemption.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Whose opinion does this follow? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, why does the owner not have rights to it now? Rabbi Shimon holds that it is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey even before its redemption. Rather, it is obvious that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems it prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey prior to its redemption.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讛拽讚砖 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讙谞讘 诪讘讬转 讛讗讬砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 诪讘讬转 讛拽讚砖 讜转讜 诇讗 诪讬讚讬

And if it enters your mind that we compare it to consecrated property, then why must the thief pay double the principal? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state with regard to the double payment of a thief: 鈥淎nd it be stolen from the man鈥檚 house鈥 (Exodus 22:6), indicating: But not when it is stolen from the Temple treasury? In such a case the thief does not pay double. Evidently, a firstborn donkey does not have the status of consecrated property, and if another person redeemed it, it still belongs to the owner. The Gemara concludes: And nothing more remains to be said about this issue, as this is a clear proof.

讗讞转 讘讬讻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讘讬讻专讛 [讻讜壮] 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

搂 The mishna states that if a person owned two donkeys, and one had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth, and they gave birth to a male and a female, and it is not clear which donkey gave birth to the male and which to the female, he designates one lamb as redemption due to the uncertainty, as perhaps the one that had not previously given birth was the one that gave birth to the male. The mishna also states that this lamb is tithed with the other non-sacred animals. With regard to this point, the Gemara states that the Sages taught in a baraita: In what case did the Sages say that this lamb enters the pen in order to be tithed?

讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讘讗 诇讬讚 讻讛谉 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讛诇拽讜讞 讜砖谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 注砖专讛 住驻拽 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 注砖专讛 砖讬讬谉 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

You cannot say that this is referring to a case where the lamb had already entered the possession of a priest, as we learned in a mishna (55b): An animal that was purchased by a person or that was given to him as a present is exempt from animal tithe, and this lamb was given as a present to the priest. Rather, it is referring to an Israelite who has ten donkeys in his house whose firstborn status is uncertain, who designates ten lambs for them in order to redeem them due to the uncertainty, and he tithes those lambs as well, and they are his.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 注砖专讛 住驻拽 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 注砖专讛 砖讬讬谉 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

The Gemara comments that this baraita supports the statement of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: An Israelite who has in his house ten donkeys whose firstborn status is uncertain designates ten lambs to redeem them, and tithes the lambs, separating one as a tithe, and they all belong to him, as a priest cannot prove that he is entitled to any of the ten.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 注砖专讛 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讜讚讗讬谉 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖谞驻诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 讜讗讜转讜 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讬砖专讗诇

And in addition, Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: In the case of an Israelite who has ten certain firstborn donkeys in his house that were bequeathed to him from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest and was therefore exempt from the redemption of firstborn donkeys, but that mother鈥檚 father who was a priest had the donkeys bequeathed to him from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was an Israelite, the donkeys initially required redemption, and the priest should have redeemed them with lambs, though it was permitted for him to keep the lambs for himself.

诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 注砖专讛 砖讬讬谉 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

Therefore, his grandson, who inherits these donkeys and is an Israelite, designates ten lambs for them and tithes them and they are his, as if his grandfather had designated the lambs himself and bequeathed them to him.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讟讘诇讬诐 诪诪讜专讞讬谉 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖谞驻诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 讜讗讜转讜 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

And likewise, Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: In the case of an Israelite who has smoothed piles of untithed produce in his house, from which one is obligated to separate teruma for the priests and tithes for the Levites, and it is produce that was bequeathed to him from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest, and that mother鈥檚 father who was a priest previously had it bequeathed to him from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was an Israelite, he separates teruma and tithes from the produce and it is his, just as if his grandfather who was a priest had tithed the produce, acquired the tithe, and bequeathed it to him as an inheritance.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪驻专讬砖 讜拽讗讬

The Gemara comments that both rulings of Rav Na岣an, i.e., the one concerning firstborn donkeys and the one concerning untithed produce, are necessary. Because had he taught us only the first case, i.e., that of the firstborn donkeys, one could claim that perhaps only in that case the Israelite grandson may keep the lambs; it is considered as if his grandfather who was a priest designated the lambs and acquired them because they stand separated. An act of separation would have been unnecessary, as the priest could have simply declared that his own lambs were serving to redeem the donkeys.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪转谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讻诪讬 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

But here, with regard to the untithed produce, one must separate the teruma and declare it as such in order for the priest to acquire it. Therefore, perhaps gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled that were not separated are treated as if they were not separated, even if they were already in the possession of a priest. If so, say that it is not considered as if his grandfather who was a priest acquired the teruma.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜专讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛 讚讛讗 诪谞讞 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讛 诪注诇诪讗 讘注讬 讗转讜讬讬 讜诪驻专讬砖 讜拽讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had Rav Na岣an taught us only here, with regard to untithed produce, that it is treated as if his grandfather who was a priest separated the teruma and acquired it, one might claim that this is only because it is possible to tithe the produce from itself, as both the untithed produce and the teruma that will be separated from it lie together. But there, with regard to a firstborn donkey, since one needs to bring a lamb from elsewhere to redeem it, say that the principle that the lamb stands separated and does not require additional separation is not applied. Therefore, it is necessary for both cases to be stated.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讜拽讞 讟讘诇讬诐

搂 The Gemara discusses a variation of the previous case. Rabbi Shmuel bar Natan says that Rabbi 岣nina says: With regard to one who purchases untithed produce

诪诪讜专讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

that is gathered in smoothed piles, from a gentile, he tithes the piles but they are his, as he is not required to give the teruma to a priest or the tithes to a Levite.

讚诪专讞讬谞讛讜 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪专讞讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讚讙谞讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讚讙谉 讙讜讬

The Gemara asks: Who smoothed the piles? If we say that a gentile smoothed them, doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淵our grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17, 18:4), with regard to teruma and tithes, indicating that only grain whose processing is completed by a Jew is subject to the rules of teruma and tithes, but not the grain of a gentile?

讗诇讗 讚诪专讞讬谞讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪专砖讜转 讙讜讬 诪注砖专谉 讚讗讬谉 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚 诪注砖专 讜讛谉 砖诇讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗转讬谞讗 诪讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗讬砖转注讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛

Rather, clearly a Jew smoothed them while they were in the possession of the gentile before purchasing them. Therefore, he tithes them, as a gentile has no capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael that would cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce. But the tithes are still the Jew鈥檚, as he says to the priest: I have come to own this produce on the basis of the rights of a man with whom you cannot engage in litigation, i.e., a gentile, from whom I bought the produce. Since he is not obligated to give teruma or tithes to the priest, I am not required to give them either.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讗爪诇 讛讻讜转讬 讜讗爪诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讞讝拽转谉 诇诪注砖专 讜诇砖讘讬注讬转

搂 The Gemara cites an additional discussion involving this issue: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Demai 3:4) that with regard to one who deposits his produce with a Samaritan or with one who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am ha鈥檃retz], when they return it to him, the produce retains its presumptive status with regard to the halakhot of tithe and produce of the Sabbatical Year, both of which must be removed from one鈥檚 property. The Samaritan or am ha鈥檃retz is not suspected of having exchanged the deposited produce with untithed produce or produce of the Sabbatical Year.

讗爪诇 讛讙讜讬 讻驻讬专讜转讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讚诪讗讬

But in the case of one who deposits his produce with a gentile, the produce returned to him is treated as the produce of the gentile, as he presumably exchanged it with his own. Rabbi Shimon says: It is treated as doubtfully tithed produce [demai], as it is uncertain whether the gentile exchanged the produce or not.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讛驻专讬砖 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讬转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讜讚讗讬 讞诇驻讬谞讛讜 讜讘注讬 诪讬转谞谞讛讜 诇讻讛谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讚诪讗讬

The mishna continues: Rabbi Elazar says: Everyone agrees that one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes from the produce that the gentile returned to him. When they disagree it is with regard to giving it to the priest following the separation. The first tanna holds that the gentile certainly exchanged the produce, and therefore the owner needs to give the teruma to the priest. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the produce is treated as demai, so in order to receive teruma, the priest must bring proof that the produce requires tithing.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇谉 讗讬 讞诇驻讬谞讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讞诇驻讬谞讛讜 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讞诇驻讬谞讛讜 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘讬谞讛讜 诇讻讛谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讜拽讞 讟讘诇讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 诪诪讜专讞讬谉 诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha of Rabbi Elazar. Abaye said to him: The reason that Rabbi Shimon disagrees is that we are uncertain whether the gentile exchanged it or whether he did not exchange it. But if he definitely exchanged it, everyone agrees that he is required to give the teruma and tithes to a priest. Why? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shmuel say that Rabbi 岣nina says: In the case of one who purchases untithed produce from a gentile that is gathered in smoothed piles, i.e., it was completely processed, he tithes and separates teruma from the piles of produce but they are his, and he is not required to give the teruma to a priest?

讚诇诪讗 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专

Rav Dimi said to him: Perhaps here, in the mishna that indicates that he must give the teruma to a priest, it is referring to teruma gedola, i.e., the teruma that is separated from the produce before tithes, whereas there, Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 statement that he separates tithes from them but they are his is referring to the teruma that is separated from the tithe.

讗讝讻专转谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 讟讘诇讬诐 诪诪讜专讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇 讛诇讜讬诐 转讚讘专 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讬讛诐 讻讬 转拽讞讜 诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讘诇讬诐 砖讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 诪讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转讛 诪驻专讬砖 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讟讘诇讬诐 砖讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讗讬 讗转讛 诪驻专讬砖 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谞讛 诇讻讛谉

Abaye said to him: You reminded me of a statement that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: From where is it derived that one who purchases from a gentile untithed produce that is gathered in smoothed piles is exempt from separating the teruma of the tithe? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall speak to the Levites, and say to them: When you take the tithe from the children of Israel鈥hen you shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26). It can be inferred from here that concerning untithed produce that you purchase from the children of Israel, you separate teruma of the tithe from it and give the teruma of the tithe to a priest, but concerning untithed produce that you purchase from a gentile, you do not separate teruma of the tithe from it and give it to a priest.

讜讗诐 诪转 谞讛谞讬诐 讘讜 讚诪讬转 讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 讘讬 讻讛谉 讜谞讛谞讛 讘讜 讻讛谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚诪讬转 讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讜谞讛谞讛 讘讜 讻讛谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to the lamb that is used to redeem the firstborn donkey: And if it dies, one may derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Where did it die? If we say that it died in the house of the priest, and the mishna means that the priest may derive benefit from it, isn鈥檛 it obvious? The lamb is his property. Rather, perhaps the mishna means that it died in the house of the owner before it was given to the priest, and teaches that the priest may derive benefit from it. Isn鈥檛 this also obvious?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 诇讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讝讻讛 讘讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪注讬讚谞讗 讚讗驻专砖讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讻讛谉 拽讗讬

The Gemara responds: It might enter your mind to say that as long as the lamb has not reached the possession of the priest, the priest has not acquired it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that from the time that the Israelite separated it, it stands in the possession of the priest.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 11

讘讛砖讙 讬讚 讻转讬讘

is written with regard to affordability, i.e., a case where one vows to give the valuation of an individual to the Temple but does not have sufficient funds to fulfill his vow. In such a case, he must pay at least a shekel. It does not apply to other matters.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讟专讜讝讗 讘专 讚谞拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讜拽讟谉

Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that one may redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb that is worth even less than a shekel. And how much must the lamb be worth? Rav Yosef says: Even a lean lamb [patruza] that is worth only a ma鈥檃 [danka] may be used. Rava says: We learn in the mishna (9a) as well that the owner may give either a big or a small lamb, which supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 ruling.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 驻讟专讜讝讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that even a lean lamb worth one ma鈥檃 may be used? The baraita states that the lamb may be worth any amount. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that if the lamb is of such little value one may not redeem with it, Rav Yosef states that one may redeem with it. Alternatively, it could be claimed that a lean lamb may not be used for redemption due to its physical state. Therefore, Rav Yosef teaches us that one may redeem a firstborn donkey even with such a lamb.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬转讘 诇讻讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 注讬谉 讬驻讛 讘住诇注 注讬谉 专注讛 讘砖拽诇 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讘专讙讬讗

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had a firstborn donkey. He sent it before Rabbi Tarfon, and said to him: How much do I need to give a priest for its redemption, i.e., how much must the lamb used for its redemption be worth? Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Didn鈥檛 the Sages say: One who has a generous disposition redeems his firstborn donkey with a lamb worth a sela, one who has a miserly disposition redeems his donkey with a lamb worth a shekel, and one who has an intermediate disposition redeems his donkey with a lamb worth a ragya?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘专讙讬讗 讜讻诪讛 转诇转讗 讝讜讝讬 专讙讬诇 讛讻讗 讜专讙讬诇 讛讻讗

Rava said: The halakha is that one must redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb that is worth at least a ragya. The Gemara asks: And how much is the value of a ragya? The Gemara answers: A ragya is worth three dinars, and is called a ragya because it is close to [ragil] here and close to there, i.e., its value is between that of a sela, which is worth fours dinars, and a shekel, which is worth two dinars.

拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讘讗 诇讬诪诇讱 讻讗谉 讘注讜砖讛 诪注爪诪讜

The Gemara comments: The contradiction between this halakha, that one must give a lamb worth three dinars, and the halakha stated by Rav Na岣an, that one may give a lamb of any monetary value, poses a difficulty. The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, as here the reference is to one who comes to consult; he is told to give a lamb worth three dinars. There, the reference is to one who acts on his own, i.e., one who redeems his donkey without consultation, in which case he has fulfilled his obligation even if the lamb is worth only a ma鈥檃.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讛 诇驻讚讜转讜 驻讜讚讛讜 讘砖讜讬讜 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讛拽驻讬讚讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 讘砖讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Reish Lakish says: One who has a firstborn donkey but does not have a lamb with which to redeem it may redeem the donkey with a sum of money equal to the donkey鈥檚 value and give it to a priest. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn鈥檛 he say that the Torah is particular that the donkey be redeemed with a lamb (see 9a)? Rather, clearly it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

专讘 讗讞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara comments: Rav A岣 teaches it in this way, that the statement of Reish Lakish was made in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Ravina found this difficult, as wherever there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

And furthermore, the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The mishna on 9a states that in a case where the firstborn status of a donkey is uncertain, the owner must redeem it with a lamb to abrogate its forbidden status, and he may then keep the lamb. The Gemara on 9b explains that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that a firstborn donkey is forbidden before its redemption. And you say that Reish Lakish rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞诪讜专 诪谉 讛讛拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讘砖讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 讘砖讬诇拽讬 讘砖讜讬讜

Ravina concludes: Rather, the statement of Reish Lakish is correct even if you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as the halakha of a firstborn donkey should not be more stringent than that of consecrated items. One who redeems a consecrated animal from its consecrated status redeems it with any movable property that is worth its value. And the Torah did not state that one must redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb in order to be stringent with the owner, but in order to be lenient with the owner such that he is not obligated to redeem it at its value, as a lamb is worth less than a donkey. The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an, son of Rav Yosef, redeemed a firstborn donkey with boiled vegetables that were worth its value.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛驻讜讚讛 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 驻讚讬讜谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇驻讜讚讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rav Sheizevi says that Rav Huna says: In the case of one who redeems the firstborn donkey of another, his object of redemption, i.e., the firstborn donkey, is redeemed, despite the fact that the owner did not redeem it. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does his object of redemption belong to the one who redeems it, or perhaps his object of redemption belongs to the owner?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛

The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon you should not raise the dilemma, since he says that prior to the redemption it is permitted for the owner to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey by using it for labor or renting it out. Therefore, it is the property of the owner, and giving a lamb to the priest does not change this status. When you raise the dilemma, it should be according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey prior to its redemption. If so, it does not belong to the owner initially, and only redeeming the donkey with the lamb allows him to take possession of it.

诇讛拽讚砖 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讛讜 讘讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬 诇讗 讚诪讬 诇讛拽讚砖

Consequently, one can ask whether the firstborn donkey is compared to consecrated property; and the Merciful One says with regard to redeeming consecrated property: 鈥淎nd he will give the money and it will be assured to him鈥 (see Leviticus 27:19), which indicates that the one who gives the redemption money acquires the item even if he did not consecrate it initially. Or perhaps since the owner may redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb that is worth less than the donkey, he owns the difference between the price of the donkey and the price of the lamb, and therefore it is not similar to consecrated property, where the one who consecrated it does not retain any ownership of the item.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转讗 砖诪注 讛讙讜谞讘 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讬砖 诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉

Rav Na岣an said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: In the case of one who steals the firstborn donkey of another before it is redeemed and he is then caught, he pays the payment of double the principal to the owner (see Exodus 22:3). And even though the owner does not have rights to the donkey now, he does have rights to it afterward, i.e., after the redemption.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Whose opinion does this follow? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, why does the owner not have rights to it now? Rabbi Shimon holds that it is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey even before its redemption. Rather, it is obvious that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems it prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey prior to its redemption.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讛拽讚砖 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讙谞讘 诪讘讬转 讛讗讬砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 诪讘讬转 讛拽讚砖 讜转讜 诇讗 诪讬讚讬

And if it enters your mind that we compare it to consecrated property, then why must the thief pay double the principal? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state with regard to the double payment of a thief: 鈥淎nd it be stolen from the man鈥檚 house鈥 (Exodus 22:6), indicating: But not when it is stolen from the Temple treasury? In such a case the thief does not pay double. Evidently, a firstborn donkey does not have the status of consecrated property, and if another person redeemed it, it still belongs to the owner. The Gemara concludes: And nothing more remains to be said about this issue, as this is a clear proof.

讗讞转 讘讬讻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讘讬讻专讛 [讻讜壮] 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

搂 The mishna states that if a person owned two donkeys, and one had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth, and they gave birth to a male and a female, and it is not clear which donkey gave birth to the male and which to the female, he designates one lamb as redemption due to the uncertainty, as perhaps the one that had not previously given birth was the one that gave birth to the male. The mishna also states that this lamb is tithed with the other non-sacred animals. With regard to this point, the Gemara states that the Sages taught in a baraita: In what case did the Sages say that this lamb enters the pen in order to be tithed?

讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讘讗 诇讬讚 讻讛谉 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讛诇拽讜讞 讜砖谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 注砖专讛 住驻拽 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 注砖专讛 砖讬讬谉 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

You cannot say that this is referring to a case where the lamb had already entered the possession of a priest, as we learned in a mishna (55b): An animal that was purchased by a person or that was given to him as a present is exempt from animal tithe, and this lamb was given as a present to the priest. Rather, it is referring to an Israelite who has ten donkeys in his house whose firstborn status is uncertain, who designates ten lambs for them in order to redeem them due to the uncertainty, and he tithes those lambs as well, and they are his.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 注砖专讛 住驻拽 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 注砖专讛 砖讬讬谉 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

The Gemara comments that this baraita supports the statement of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: An Israelite who has in his house ten donkeys whose firstborn status is uncertain designates ten lambs to redeem them, and tithes the lambs, separating one as a tithe, and they all belong to him, as a priest cannot prove that he is entitled to any of the ten.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 注砖专讛 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 讜讚讗讬谉 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖谞驻诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 讜讗讜转讜 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讬砖专讗诇

And in addition, Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: In the case of an Israelite who has ten certain firstborn donkeys in his house that were bequeathed to him from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest and was therefore exempt from the redemption of firstborn donkeys, but that mother鈥檚 father who was a priest had the donkeys bequeathed to him from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was an Israelite, the donkeys initially required redemption, and the priest should have redeemed them with lambs, though it was permitted for him to keep the lambs for himself.

诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 注砖专讛 砖讬讬谉 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

Therefore, his grandson, who inherits these donkeys and is an Israelite, designates ten lambs for them and tithes them and they are his, as if his grandfather had designated the lambs himself and bequeathed them to him.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讟讘诇讬诐 诪诪讜专讞讬谉 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖谞驻诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 讜讗讜转讜 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讻讛谉 谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

And likewise, Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: In the case of an Israelite who has smoothed piles of untithed produce in his house, from which one is obligated to separate teruma for the priests and tithes for the Levites, and it is produce that was bequeathed to him from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was a priest, and that mother鈥檚 father who was a priest previously had it bequeathed to him from the household of his mother鈥檚 father, who was an Israelite, he separates teruma and tithes from the produce and it is his, just as if his grandfather who was a priest had tithed the produce, acquired the tithe, and bequeathed it to him as an inheritance.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪驻专讬砖 讜拽讗讬

The Gemara comments that both rulings of Rav Na岣an, i.e., the one concerning firstborn donkeys and the one concerning untithed produce, are necessary. Because had he taught us only the first case, i.e., that of the firstborn donkeys, one could claim that perhaps only in that case the Israelite grandson may keep the lambs; it is considered as if his grandfather who was a priest designated the lambs and acquired them because they stand separated. An act of separation would have been unnecessary, as the priest could have simply declared that his own lambs were serving to redeem the donkeys.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪转谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讻诪讬 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

But here, with regard to the untithed produce, one must separate the teruma and declare it as such in order for the priest to acquire it. Therefore, perhaps gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled that were not separated are treated as if they were not separated, even if they were already in the possession of a priest. If so, say that it is not considered as if his grandfather who was a priest acquired the teruma.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜专讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛 讚讛讗 诪谞讞 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讛 诪注诇诪讗 讘注讬 讗转讜讬讬 讜诪驻专讬砖 讜拽讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had Rav Na岣an taught us only here, with regard to untithed produce, that it is treated as if his grandfather who was a priest separated the teruma and acquired it, one might claim that this is only because it is possible to tithe the produce from itself, as both the untithed produce and the teruma that will be separated from it lie together. But there, with regard to a firstborn donkey, since one needs to bring a lamb from elsewhere to redeem it, say that the principle that the lamb stands separated and does not require additional separation is not applied. Therefore, it is necessary for both cases to be stated.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讜拽讞 讟讘诇讬诐

搂 The Gemara discusses a variation of the previous case. Rabbi Shmuel bar Natan says that Rabbi 岣nina says: With regard to one who purchases untithed produce

诪诪讜专讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

that is gathered in smoothed piles, from a gentile, he tithes the piles but they are his, as he is not required to give the teruma to a priest or the tithes to a Levite.

讚诪专讞讬谞讛讜 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪专讞讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讚讙谞讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讚讙谉 讙讜讬

The Gemara asks: Who smoothed the piles? If we say that a gentile smoothed them, doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淵our grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17, 18:4), with regard to teruma and tithes, indicating that only grain whose processing is completed by a Jew is subject to the rules of teruma and tithes, but not the grain of a gentile?

讗诇讗 讚诪专讞讬谞讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪专砖讜转 讙讜讬 诪注砖专谉 讚讗讬谉 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚 诪注砖专 讜讛谉 砖诇讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗转讬谞讗 诪讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗讬砖转注讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛

Rather, clearly a Jew smoothed them while they were in the possession of the gentile before purchasing them. Therefore, he tithes them, as a gentile has no capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael that would cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce. But the tithes are still the Jew鈥檚, as he says to the priest: I have come to own this produce on the basis of the rights of a man with whom you cannot engage in litigation, i.e., a gentile, from whom I bought the produce. Since he is not obligated to give teruma or tithes to the priest, I am not required to give them either.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讗爪诇 讛讻讜转讬 讜讗爪诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讞讝拽转谉 诇诪注砖专 讜诇砖讘讬注讬转

搂 The Gemara cites an additional discussion involving this issue: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Demai 3:4) that with regard to one who deposits his produce with a Samaritan or with one who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am ha鈥檃retz], when they return it to him, the produce retains its presumptive status with regard to the halakhot of tithe and produce of the Sabbatical Year, both of which must be removed from one鈥檚 property. The Samaritan or am ha鈥檃retz is not suspected of having exchanged the deposited produce with untithed produce or produce of the Sabbatical Year.

讗爪诇 讛讙讜讬 讻驻讬专讜转讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讚诪讗讬

But in the case of one who deposits his produce with a gentile, the produce returned to him is treated as the produce of the gentile, as he presumably exchanged it with his own. Rabbi Shimon says: It is treated as doubtfully tithed produce [demai], as it is uncertain whether the gentile exchanged the produce or not.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讛驻专讬砖 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讬转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讜讚讗讬 讞诇驻讬谞讛讜 讜讘注讬 诪讬转谞谞讛讜 诇讻讛谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讚诪讗讬

The mishna continues: Rabbi Elazar says: Everyone agrees that one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes from the produce that the gentile returned to him. When they disagree it is with regard to giving it to the priest following the separation. The first tanna holds that the gentile certainly exchanged the produce, and therefore the owner needs to give the teruma to the priest. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the produce is treated as demai, so in order to receive teruma, the priest must bring proof that the produce requires tithing.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇谉 讗讬 讞诇驻讬谞讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讞诇驻讬谞讛讜 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讞诇驻讬谞讛讜 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘讬谞讛讜 诇讻讛谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讜拽讞 讟讘诇讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 诪诪讜专讞讬谉 诪注砖专谉 讜讛谉 砖诇讜

Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha of Rabbi Elazar. Abaye said to him: The reason that Rabbi Shimon disagrees is that we are uncertain whether the gentile exchanged it or whether he did not exchange it. But if he definitely exchanged it, everyone agrees that he is required to give the teruma and tithes to a priest. Why? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shmuel say that Rabbi 岣nina says: In the case of one who purchases untithed produce from a gentile that is gathered in smoothed piles, i.e., it was completely processed, he tithes and separates teruma from the piles of produce but they are his, and he is not required to give the teruma to a priest?

讚诇诪讗 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻讗谉 讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专

Rav Dimi said to him: Perhaps here, in the mishna that indicates that he must give the teruma to a priest, it is referring to teruma gedola, i.e., the teruma that is separated from the produce before tithes, whereas there, Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 statement that he separates tithes from them but they are his is referring to the teruma that is separated from the tithe.

讗讝讻专转谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 讟讘诇讬诐 诪诪讜专讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇 讛诇讜讬诐 转讚讘专 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讬讛诐 讻讬 转拽讞讜 诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讘诇讬诐 砖讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 诪讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转讛 诪驻专讬砖 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讟讘诇讬诐 砖讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讗讬 讗转讛 诪驻专讬砖 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谞讛 诇讻讛谉

Abaye said to him: You reminded me of a statement that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: From where is it derived that one who purchases from a gentile untithed produce that is gathered in smoothed piles is exempt from separating the teruma of the tithe? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall speak to the Levites, and say to them: When you take the tithe from the children of Israel鈥hen you shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26). It can be inferred from here that concerning untithed produce that you purchase from the children of Israel, you separate teruma of the tithe from it and give the teruma of the tithe to a priest, but concerning untithed produce that you purchase from a gentile, you do not separate teruma of the tithe from it and give it to a priest.

讜讗诐 诪转 谞讛谞讬诐 讘讜 讚诪讬转 讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 讘讬 讻讛谉 讜谞讛谞讛 讘讜 讻讛谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚诪讬转 讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讜谞讛谞讛 讘讜 讻讛谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to the lamb that is used to redeem the firstborn donkey: And if it dies, one may derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Where did it die? If we say that it died in the house of the priest, and the mishna means that the priest may derive benefit from it, isn鈥檛 it obvious? The lamb is his property. Rather, perhaps the mishna means that it died in the house of the owner before it was given to the priest, and teaches that the priest may derive benefit from it. Isn鈥檛 this also obvious?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 诇讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讝讻讛 讘讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪注讬讚谞讗 讚讗驻专砖讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讻讛谉 拽讗讬

The Gemara responds: It might enter your mind to say that as long as the lamb has not reached the possession of the priest, the priest has not acquired it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that from the time that the Israelite separated it, it stands in the possession of the priest.

Scroll To Top