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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 13, 2019 | 讞壮 讘讗讬讬专 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 26

讛讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖专讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 转谞讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 转诐 拽专讬 诇讬讛

But in the case of a blemished firstborn, use of its wool is permitted, even though an expert did not deem the animal permitted for slaughter. This contradicts the statement of Rabbi Asi. The Gemara answers: It is possible that the tanna of that baraita calls the animal unblemished wherever an expert did not yet deem the firstborn permitted for slaughter, even if it was physically blemished.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛转讜诇砖 爪诪专 诪讘讻讜专 转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讜砖讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖转诇砖 诪诪谞讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘讝讛 讛转讬专 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讗诇讗 讘砖注专 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞砖专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讜 讘讝讛 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

The Gemara remarks: Let us say that the interpretation of Reish Lakish is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as the baraita states: With regard to one who plucks the wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though it later developed a blemish and the owner slaughtered it, use of the wool is prohibited. In the case of a blemished firstborn from which one plucked wool, and it subsequently died, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems the wool permitted and the Rabbis deem it prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda said: It was not with regard to that case that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool permitted. Rather, it was in a case of the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal and one placed the hair in a compartment, and thereafter one slaughtered the animal. In that case Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted, and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讛 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 讘讬讬讞讜讚 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讬谞讬讞谞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 砖诪讗 讬砖 转拽讜讛 砖讞讟讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 诪转 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says: My father, 岣lafta, concedes to Akavya ben Mahalalel in this case of a slaughtered firstborn that use of the wool is permitted. Indeed [aval], the Rabbis said explicitly: One places it in a compartment, as perhaps there is a hope that use of the wool will ultimately be permitted, since if he slaughters the animal all agree that use of the wool is permitted. But if the animal dies by other means, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted and the Rabbis deem it prohibited.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is the explanation of their dispute, the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, as both hold that use of the wool of a slaughtered blemished firstborn is permitted and the dispute between Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis applies to a case where the animal dies by other means. Rather, is it not correct to say the dispute between them concerns the requirement that an expert deem the animal permitted for slaughter?

讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛

The Gemara elaborates: As the first tanna holds: If an expert deemed the animal permitted before its wool was shed, then yes, use of the wool is permitted after the animal has been slaughtered; but if not, then use of the wool is not permitted. And Rabbi Yosei comes to say that even in a case where an expert did not deem the firstborn permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed, use of the wool is still permitted. If so, the interpretation of Reish Lakish is the subject of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei: The first tanna agrees with that opinion and Rabbi Yosei rejects it.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讗 讜砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讚讘专 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪转 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇砖讞讟讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪转 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚注拽讘讬讗

Rava said: No, the interpretation of Reish Lakish is not the subject of their dispute, as everyone agrees that if an expert deemed the animal permitted before its wool was shed, then yes, use of the wool is permitted, but if an expert did not deem the animal permitted beforehand then the use of its wool is not permitted. And there are three disputes concerning this matter, as the first tanna holds: Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis disagree with regard to a case where the firstborn died, and the same is true, i.e., they disagree, in a case where he slaughtered it. And the reason that the first tanna states they disagree specifically in a case where it died is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya, i.e., that he deems use of the wool permitted even if the animal was not slaughtered.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘诪转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讞讟讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讘砖讞讟讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪转

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: With regard to a firstborn that died, all, i.e., Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis, agree that use of the wool is prohibited, and when they disagree it is with regard to a case where the owner slaughtered the animal. And Rabbi Yosei comes to say: Where he slaughtered it, all agree that use of the wool is permitted, and when they disagree it is with regard to a case where the animal died.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转谞谉 讘讘讞讬专转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 砖注专 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞砖专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讜 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since we learned a mishna in our preferred tractate in accordance with his opinion. As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 5:6): In the case of the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal and one placed the hair in a compartment, and thereafter he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited even after the animal鈥檚 death.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚转谞谉 爪诪专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讘讻讜专 讗转 砖谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 讗住讜专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The mishna is also precisely formulated so that this conclusion can be inferred, as we learned in the latter clause of the mishna: With regard to wool that was not completely shed which is dangling from a firstborn animal, that which appears to be part of the fleece is permitted when the animal is shorn after its death, and that which does not appear to be part of the fleece is prohibited.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讞讟讜 讘讬谉 注拽讘讬讗 讘讬谉 专讘谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪砖专讗 砖专讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k explains the proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that is difficult: But in what case did he issue this ruling? If we say it was in a case where he slaughtered it that cannot be correct, as whether the halakha follows the opinion of Akavya or whether it follows the opinion of the Rabbis, in both this case of wool that appears to be part of the fleece and that case where it does not, the use of the wool is permitted.

讜讗诇讗 讘诪转 讜讗讬 专讘谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬住专 讗住专讬 讜讗讬 注拽讘讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 讗住讜专 讚诪讬转讛 拽讗住专讛 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 诪讜转专 讚诪注讬拽专讗 转诇讬砖

Rather, if one says this is referring to a case where the animal died, that too is difficult. But that cannot be correct either, since if the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis, then both this wool and that wool are prohibited. And if the halakha is in accordance with Akavya, then the mishna should have stated the opposite ruling: If the dangling wool appears to be part of the fleece it is prohibited, as the death of the animal renders it prohibited because it is considered attached to the animal; if it does not appear to be part of the fleece it is permitted, as it was considered detached from the beginning, before the animal died.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪转 讘讬谉 诇注拽讘讬讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬住专 讗住专讬

Rather, it is obvious that this clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And in what case does the mishna鈥檚 ruling apply? If we say it is referring to a case where the animal died, then whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Akavya or whether it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, in both this case of wool that appears to be part of the fleece and that case where it does not, the use of the wool is prohibited.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘砖讞讟讛 讜讗讬 注拽讘讬讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪砖专讗 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘砖讞讟讜 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, is it not referring to a case where he slaughtered the animal? And consequently, if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Akavya, then in both this case of wool that appears to be part of the fleece and that case where it does not, use of the wool is permitted. Rather, is it not correct to say the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? And accordingly, one may conclude from it that Akavya and the Rabbis disagree in a case where he slaughtered the animal? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛转讜诇砖 爪诪专 诪注讜诇讛 转诪讬诪讛 诪讛讜 转讜诇砖 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗诇讗 爪诪专 砖谞转诇砖 诪注讜诇讛 转诪讬诪讛 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yannai raises a dilemma: With regard to one who plucks wool from an unblemished burnt offering which was later slaughtered, what is the halakha? The Gemara expresses surprise: If one intentionally violates a prohibition and plucks the wool from an unblemished consecrated animal, is there anyone who deems it permitted? All agree that use of the wool is prohibited in such a case. Rather, Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 question was: With regard to wool that was torn out by itself from an unblemished burnt offering, what is the halakha?

讚讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讻驻专讛 讗转讜 诇讗 诪砖讛讜 诇讛讜 讚讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 谞诪讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诇讻驻专讛 讗转讜 诪砖讛讜 诇讛讜 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚注讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉

The Gemara elaborates: Do not raise the dilemma concerning the wool of a sin offering and a guilt offering. Since these offerings come for atonement the owner does not keep them longer than necessary, and therefore there is no reason to deem the wool prohibited. Likewise, with regard to the wool of a firstborn and an animal tithe offering there is also no dilemma. Since they do not come for atonement one might keep them longer than necessary, and therefore the wool is prohibited in order to prevent one from violating the prohibition against shearing the animal or using it for labor. Rather, when you raise the dilemma, it is with regard to the wool of a burnt offering. What is the halakha? Does one say that since

讚注讬拽专 诇讗讜 诇讻驻专讛 讗转讬 诪砖讛讬 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 诪讻驻专讗 讗注砖讛 诇讗 诪砖讛讬 诇讛

being brought for atonement is not its primary function, there is a concern that one might keep it? Or perhaps, since a burnt offering also effects atonement for neglecting to perform a positive mitzva, one does not keep the animal longer than necessary.

转讗 砖诪注 讛转讜诇砖 爪诪专 诪讘讻讜专 转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 砖讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讟注诪讗 讚转讜诇砖 讛讗 谞转诇砖 砖专讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 注讜诇讛 讚诇讗 诪砖讛讬 诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: With regard to one who plucks the wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though it later developed a blemish and the owner then slaughtered it, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason use of the wool is prohibited is because he plucks it. But if it was torn out not by human intervention it is permitted. And this is correct all the more so with regard to a burnt offering, where one does not keep the animal any longer than necessary.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转诇砖 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 转讜诇砖 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚注拽讘讬讗 讚讘讘注诇 诪讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜诇砖 谞诪讬 砖专讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, the same is true even if the wool of an unblemished firstborn animal was torn out by some other means; it is also prohibited. And the reason that the baraita teaches the halakha using the term: One who plucks, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya ben Mahalalel, as he maintains that in the case of a blemished animal, discussed in the latter clause of the baraita, even if one plucks the wool it is permitted. Since the latter clause discusses a case where one plucked the wool himself, it is inferred that the former clause discusses the same situation.

讜讛讗谞谉 谞砖专 转谞谉 转谞讗 谞砖专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 转谞讗 转讜诇砖 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚注拽讘讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that the hair was shed rather than plucked? The Gemara explains that the mishna taught a case where the hair of the blemished animal was shed in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem the wool prohibited even in such a case. Conversely, the baraita taught a case where one plucks the hair in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya.

爪诪专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 砖注讬拽专讜 讛驻讜讱 讻诇驻讬 专讗砖讜 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转诪注讱 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛

搂 The mishna teaches that it is permitted to derive benefit from wool that is dangling from a firstborn but was not completely shed if it appears to be part of the fleece when the animal is shorn after death, but otherwise it is prohibited. The Gemara inquires: What is considered: That which does not appear to be part of the fleece? Rabbi Elazar says that Reish Lakish says: This includes any strand of wool whose root is overturned and is facing toward the top, i.e., outward. Rav Natan bar Oshaya says: This includes any strand of wool that is not compressed together with the rest of the fleece, i.e., it sticks out when the fleece is pressed down.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 拽住讘专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讙讬讝讛 讘诇讗 谞讬诪讬谉 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讜转

And what is the reason Reish Lakish did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rav Natan bar Oshaya, whose explanation is the more straightforward meaning of the phrase: That which does not appear to be part of the fleece? Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: Reish Lakish holds that the Sages did not deem strands of wool that are not compressed together with the rest of the fleece prohibited, because it is impossible for there to be fleece without dangling hairs. If Rav Natan bar Oshaya鈥檚 explanation were accepted, it would never be permitted to use such fleece of a dead firstborn animal. Consequently, Reish Lakish explains the statement of the mishna in a more lenient manner.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诇讜拽讞 讘讛诪讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 注讚 讻诪讛 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讬讟驻诇 讘讘讻讜专 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讙住讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讻讛谉 讘转讜讱 讛讝诪谉 转谞讛讜 诇讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转谞谞讜 诇讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛讜 诇讬 砖讗讜讻诇谞讜 诪讜转专 讜讘砖注转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗诐 讛讬讛 转诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 讜讗拽专讘谞讜 诪讜转专

MISHNA: Until when must an Israelite tend to and raise a firstborn animal before giving it to the priest? With regard to a small animal, e.g., a sheep or goat, it is thirty days, and with regard to a large animal, e.g., cattle, it is fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a small animal, it is three months. If the priest said to the owner within that period: Give it to me, that owner may not give it to him. And if it is a blemished firstborn and the priest said to him: Give it to me so I may eat it, it is permitted for the owner to give it to him. And at the time that the Temple is standing, if it is unblemished and the priest said to him: Give it to me and I will sacrifice it, it is permitted for the owner to give it to him.

讛讘讻讜专 谞讗讻诇 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

The firstborn animal is eaten year by year, i.e., within its first year, whether it is blemished or whether it is unblemished, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:20). If a blemish developed within its first year, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months. If a blemish developed after twelve months have passed, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for only thirty days.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻讜专 讘谞讬讱 转转谉 诇讬 讻谉 转注砖讛 诇爪讗谞讱

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an Israelite must raise a firstborn animal for thirty or fifty days, depending on the type of animal, before giving it to a priest. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Kahana said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother, on the eighth day you shall give it to Me鈥 (Exodus 22:28鈥29). The second part of verse 28 is juxtaposed to the second animal mentioned in verse 29. This juxtaposition teaches that just as a firstborn son is redeemed when he is thirty days old (Numbers 18:16), so too a sheep is given to the priest only when it is thirty days old.

诪诇讗转讱 讜讚诪注讱 诇讗 转讗讞专 讻谉 转注砖讛 诇砖专讱

The verses also state: 鈥淵ou shall not delay the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses鈥o you shall do with your oxen鈥 (Exodus 22:28鈥29). Just as the first fruits are brought on the festival of Shavuot, fifty days after Passover, so too the firstborn oxen are given to a priest when they are fifty days old. Here, the first part of verse 28 is juxtaposed with the first animal mentioned in verse 29.

讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚诪拽讚诐 诇诪拽讚诐 讚诪讗讞专 诇讚诪讗讞专 讗讚专讘讛 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: If these verses are the source, one can reverse the cases and derive that a firstborn ox must be given to the priest after thirty days, and a firstborn sheep after fifty days. The Gemara explains: It stands to reason that the time period that is alluded to earlier in the first verse corresponds to the animal that is mentioned earlier in the second verse, while the time period that is alluded to later in the first verse corresponds to the animal that is mentioned later in the second verse. The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it stands to reason that the time period that is alluded to closer to the mention of an animal should correspond to the animal, i.e., oxen, that is closest to it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 转注砖讛 讛讜住讬祝 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讬讬讛 讗讞专转 讘砖讜专讱

Rather, Rava says that the halakha of both a firstborn sheep and a firstborn ox are juxtaposed with the halakha of a firstborn child, which teaches that both require at least thirty days. But since the verse states: 鈥淪o you shall do with your oxen鈥 (Exodus 22:29), the verse adds an extra act of doing for you in the case of your oxen. In other words, the verse requires that the owner take care of an ox for additional time before giving it to the priest.

讜讗讬诪讗 砖讬转讬谉 诇讗 诪住专讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara challenges: But if so, one can say that the owner must care for the ox an additional thirty days, making a total of sixty days. From where is the total of fifty days derived? The Gemara answers: The interpretation of the verse with regard to the exact amount of time was given only to the Sages, and they determined that the owner must take care of his ox for fifty days.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讻讜专 讘谞讬讱 转转谉 诇讬 讻谉 转注砖讛 诇爪讗谞讱 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇砖讜专讱 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注砖讛 讛讜住讬祝 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讬讬讛 讗讞专转 讘砖讜专讱 诇讗 诪住专讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讞讻诪讬诐

This is also taught in a baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me鈥 (Exodus 22:28鈥29). One might have thought that this time period, i.e., thirty days, applies also to your oxen. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do.鈥 The verse adds an extra act of doing for you in the case of your oxen, and the interpretation of the verse was given only to the Sages.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 注讚 讻诪讛 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讟驻诇 讘讘讻讜专 讘讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讙住讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讟驻讜诇讛 诪专讜讘讛 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讬谞讬讛 讚拽讜转

From here the Sages stated: Until when must an Israelite tend to and raise a firstborn animal before handing it to the priest? With regard to a small animal, e.g., a sheep or goat, it is thirty days, and with regard to a large animal, e.g., cattle, it is fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a small animal, it is three months, because its tending is extensive, i.e., a great deal of work and effort are required in order to raise it before it can be given to a priest. A tanna taught that so much effort is required to raise a sheep because its teeth are small and it cannot eat most foods.

讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讻讛谉 讘转讜讱 讛讝诪谉 转谞讛讜 诇讬壮 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻讻讛谉 讛诪住讬讬注 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: If the priest said to the owner within that period: Give it to me, that owner may not give it to him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rav Sheshet says: Because such a priest appears like a priest who assists at the threshing floor so that he can be given teruma. Since this arrangement benefits the owner of the firstborn, as he is spared the effort of taking care of the animal throughout this period, it is as though this priest has paid for the right to receive the firstborn, which is prohibited.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 讜讛注谞讬讬诐 讛诪住讬讬注讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛专讜注讬诐 讜讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转 讜讘讘讬转 讛诪讟讘讞讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 讘砖讻专谉 讜讗诐 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 讞讬诇诇讜 讜注诇讬讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 砖讞转诐 讘专讬转 讛诇讜讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讞诇诇讜 讜诇讗 转诪讜转讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the priests, the Levites, and the poor people who assist in the home of the shepherd, or at the threshing floor, or in the slaughterhouse, one may not give them teruma or tithe as their wages. And if one did so, he desecrated the sanctity of the item. And with regard to them the verse states: 鈥淏ut you are turned aside out of the way; you have caused many to stumble in the law; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the Lord of hosts鈥 (Malachi 2:8). And another verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by it, seeing that you have set apart the best from it; and you shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, that you shall not die鈥 (Numbers 18:32).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讬转讛 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讞诇诇讜 讜诇讗 转诪讜转讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Gemara cites the second verse introduced with the phrase: And another verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the first verse indicates merely that teruma and tithe become desecrated, but one who does this is not punished by death, come and hear the second verse cited by the Gemara: 鈥淎nd you shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, that you shall not die鈥 (Numbers 18:32).

讜讘拽砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇拽讜谞住谉 讜诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诐 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜诐 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

The baraita continues: And the Sages wished to penalize those who gave teruma or tithe to the priests, Levites, or poor people who helped them, and to require them to separate in their place complete teruma, so that the owners of the produce would not benefit from their improper actions. And for what reason did the Sages not penalize them? Perhaps they would mistakenly think that the produce has not yet been tithed at all, and they would come to separate teruma and tithes from it when it is actually exempt produce, as by Torah law it has already had its tithes removed. They might then separate teruma and tithes from it on behalf of produce to which the obligation of separating tithes still applies, i.e., regular untithed produce.

讜讘讻讜诇谉 讬砖 讘讛谉

The baraita adds: And in all of these cases, although it is prohibited to give the teruma and tithe to a priest or Levite as his wages, nevertheless there is

  • 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 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 26

讛讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖专讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 转谞讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 转诐 拽专讬 诇讬讛

But in the case of a blemished firstborn, use of its wool is permitted, even though an expert did not deem the animal permitted for slaughter. This contradicts the statement of Rabbi Asi. The Gemara answers: It is possible that the tanna of that baraita calls the animal unblemished wherever an expert did not yet deem the firstborn permitted for slaughter, even if it was physically blemished.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛转讜诇砖 爪诪专 诪讘讻讜专 转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讜砖讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖转诇砖 诪诪谞讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘讝讛 讛转讬专 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讗诇讗 讘砖注专 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞砖专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讜 讘讝讛 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

The Gemara remarks: Let us say that the interpretation of Reish Lakish is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as the baraita states: With regard to one who plucks the wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though it later developed a blemish and the owner slaughtered it, use of the wool is prohibited. In the case of a blemished firstborn from which one plucked wool, and it subsequently died, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems the wool permitted and the Rabbis deem it prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda said: It was not with regard to that case that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed use of the wool permitted. Rather, it was in a case of the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal and one placed the hair in a compartment, and thereafter one slaughtered the animal. In that case Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted, and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讜讚讛 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 讘讬讬讞讜讚 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讬谞讬讞谞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 砖诪讗 讬砖 转拽讜讛 砖讞讟讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 诪转 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says: My father, 岣lafta, concedes to Akavya ben Mahalalel in this case of a slaughtered firstborn that use of the wool is permitted. Indeed [aval], the Rabbis said explicitly: One places it in a compartment, as perhaps there is a hope that use of the wool will ultimately be permitted, since if he slaughters the animal all agree that use of the wool is permitted. But if the animal dies by other means, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted and the Rabbis deem it prohibited.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is the explanation of their dispute, the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, as both hold that use of the wool of a slaughtered blemished firstborn is permitted and the dispute between Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis applies to a case where the animal dies by other means. Rather, is it not correct to say the dispute between them concerns the requirement that an expert deem the animal permitted for slaughter?

讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛

The Gemara elaborates: As the first tanna holds: If an expert deemed the animal permitted before its wool was shed, then yes, use of the wool is permitted after the animal has been slaughtered; but if not, then use of the wool is not permitted. And Rabbi Yosei comes to say that even in a case where an expert did not deem the firstborn permitted for slaughter before its wool was shed, use of the wool is still permitted. If so, the interpretation of Reish Lakish is the subject of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei: The first tanna agrees with that opinion and Rabbi Yosei rejects it.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬 讛转讬专讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讗 讜砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讚讘专 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪转 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇砖讞讟讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪转 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚注拽讘讬讗

Rava said: No, the interpretation of Reish Lakish is not the subject of their dispute, as everyone agrees that if an expert deemed the animal permitted before its wool was shed, then yes, use of the wool is permitted, but if an expert did not deem the animal permitted beforehand then the use of its wool is not permitted. And there are three disputes concerning this matter, as the first tanna holds: Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis disagree with regard to a case where the firstborn died, and the same is true, i.e., they disagree, in a case where he slaughtered it. And the reason that the first tanna states they disagree specifically in a case where it died is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya, i.e., that he deems use of the wool permitted even if the animal was not slaughtered.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘诪转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讞讟讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讘砖讞讟讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪转

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: With regard to a firstborn that died, all, i.e., Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis, agree that use of the wool is prohibited, and when they disagree it is with regard to a case where the owner slaughtered the animal. And Rabbi Yosei comes to say: Where he slaughtered it, all agree that use of the wool is permitted, and when they disagree it is with regard to a case where the animal died.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转谞谉 讘讘讞讬专转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 砖注专 讘讻讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞砖专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讞诇讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟讜 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since we learned a mishna in our preferred tractate in accordance with his opinion. As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 5:6): In the case of the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that shed from the animal and one placed the hair in a compartment, and thereafter he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted and the Rabbis deem its use prohibited even after the animal鈥檚 death.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚转谞谉 爪诪专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讘讻讜专 讗转 砖谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 讗住讜专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The mishna is also precisely formulated so that this conclusion can be inferred, as we learned in the latter clause of the mishna: With regard to wool that was not completely shed which is dangling from a firstborn animal, that which appears to be part of the fleece is permitted when the animal is shorn after its death, and that which does not appear to be part of the fleece is prohibited.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讞讟讜 讘讬谉 注拽讘讬讗 讘讬谉 专讘谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪砖专讗 砖专讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k explains the proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that is difficult: But in what case did he issue this ruling? If we say it was in a case where he slaughtered it that cannot be correct, as whether the halakha follows the opinion of Akavya or whether it follows the opinion of the Rabbis, in both this case of wool that appears to be part of the fleece and that case where it does not, the use of the wool is permitted.

讜讗诇讗 讘诪转 讜讗讬 专讘谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬住专 讗住专讬 讜讗讬 注拽讘讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 讗住讜专 讚诪讬转讛 拽讗住专讛 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 诪讜转专 讚诪注讬拽专讗 转诇讬砖

Rather, if one says this is referring to a case where the animal died, that too is difficult. But that cannot be correct either, since if the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis, then both this wool and that wool are prohibited. And if the halakha is in accordance with Akavya, then the mishna should have stated the opposite ruling: If the dangling wool appears to be part of the fleece it is prohibited, as the death of the animal renders it prohibited because it is considered attached to the animal; if it does not appear to be part of the fleece it is permitted, as it was considered detached from the beginning, before the animal died.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪转 讘讬谉 诇注拽讘讬讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬住专 讗住专讬

Rather, it is obvious that this clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And in what case does the mishna鈥檚 ruling apply? If we say it is referring to a case where the animal died, then whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Akavya or whether it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, in both this case of wool that appears to be part of the fleece and that case where it does not, the use of the wool is prohibited.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘砖讞讟讛 讜讗讬 注拽讘讬讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪砖专讗 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘砖讞讟讜 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, is it not referring to a case where he slaughtered the animal? And consequently, if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Akavya, then in both this case of wool that appears to be part of the fleece and that case where it does not, use of the wool is permitted. Rather, is it not correct to say the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? And accordingly, one may conclude from it that Akavya and the Rabbis disagree in a case where he slaughtered the animal? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛转讜诇砖 爪诪专 诪注讜诇讛 转诪讬诪讛 诪讛讜 转讜诇砖 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗诇讗 爪诪专 砖谞转诇砖 诪注讜诇讛 转诪讬诪讛 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yannai raises a dilemma: With regard to one who plucks wool from an unblemished burnt offering which was later slaughtered, what is the halakha? The Gemara expresses surprise: If one intentionally violates a prohibition and plucks the wool from an unblemished consecrated animal, is there anyone who deems it permitted? All agree that use of the wool is prohibited in such a case. Rather, Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 question was: With regard to wool that was torn out by itself from an unblemished burnt offering, what is the halakha?

讚讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讻驻专讛 讗转讜 诇讗 诪砖讛讜 诇讛讜 讚讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 谞诪讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诇讻驻专讛 讗转讜 诪砖讛讜 诇讛讜 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚注讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉

The Gemara elaborates: Do not raise the dilemma concerning the wool of a sin offering and a guilt offering. Since these offerings come for atonement the owner does not keep them longer than necessary, and therefore there is no reason to deem the wool prohibited. Likewise, with regard to the wool of a firstborn and an animal tithe offering there is also no dilemma. Since they do not come for atonement one might keep them longer than necessary, and therefore the wool is prohibited in order to prevent one from violating the prohibition against shearing the animal or using it for labor. Rather, when you raise the dilemma, it is with regard to the wool of a burnt offering. What is the halakha? Does one say that since

讚注讬拽专 诇讗讜 诇讻驻专讛 讗转讬 诪砖讛讬 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 诪讻驻专讗 讗注砖讛 诇讗 诪砖讛讬 诇讛

being brought for atonement is not its primary function, there is a concern that one might keep it? Or perhaps, since a burnt offering also effects atonement for neglecting to perform a positive mitzva, one does not keep the animal longer than necessary.

转讗 砖诪注 讛转讜诇砖 爪诪专 诪讘讻讜专 转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 砖讞讟讜 讗住讜专 讟注诪讗 讚转讜诇砖 讛讗 谞转诇砖 砖专讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 注讜诇讛 讚诇讗 诪砖讛讬 诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: With regard to one who plucks the wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though it later developed a blemish and the owner then slaughtered it, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason use of the wool is prohibited is because he plucks it. But if it was torn out not by human intervention it is permitted. And this is correct all the more so with regard to a burnt offering, where one does not keep the animal any longer than necessary.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转诇砖 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 转讜诇砖 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚注拽讘讬讗 讚讘讘注诇 诪讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜诇砖 谞诪讬 砖专讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, the same is true even if the wool of an unblemished firstborn animal was torn out by some other means; it is also prohibited. And the reason that the baraita teaches the halakha using the term: One who plucks, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya ben Mahalalel, as he maintains that in the case of a blemished animal, discussed in the latter clause of the baraita, even if one plucks the wool it is permitted. Since the latter clause discusses a case where one plucked the wool himself, it is inferred that the former clause discusses the same situation.

讜讛讗谞谉 谞砖专 转谞谉 转谞讗 谞砖专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 转谞讗 转讜诇砖 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚注拽讘讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that the hair was shed rather than plucked? The Gemara explains that the mishna taught a case where the hair of the blemished animal was shed in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem the wool prohibited even in such a case. Conversely, the baraita taught a case where one plucks the hair in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya.

爪诪专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 砖注讬拽专讜 讛驻讜讱 讻诇驻讬 专讗砖讜 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转诪注讱 注诐 讛讙讬讝讛

搂 The mishna teaches that it is permitted to derive benefit from wool that is dangling from a firstborn but was not completely shed if it appears to be part of the fleece when the animal is shorn after death, but otherwise it is prohibited. The Gemara inquires: What is considered: That which does not appear to be part of the fleece? Rabbi Elazar says that Reish Lakish says: This includes any strand of wool whose root is overturned and is facing toward the top, i.e., outward. Rav Natan bar Oshaya says: This includes any strand of wool that is not compressed together with the rest of the fleece, i.e., it sticks out when the fleece is pressed down.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 拽住讘专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讙讬讝讛 讘诇讗 谞讬诪讬谉 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讜转

And what is the reason Reish Lakish did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rav Natan bar Oshaya, whose explanation is the more straightforward meaning of the phrase: That which does not appear to be part of the fleece? Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: Reish Lakish holds that the Sages did not deem strands of wool that are not compressed together with the rest of the fleece prohibited, because it is impossible for there to be fleece without dangling hairs. If Rav Natan bar Oshaya鈥檚 explanation were accepted, it would never be permitted to use such fleece of a dead firstborn animal. Consequently, Reish Lakish explains the statement of the mishna in a more lenient manner.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诇讜拽讞 讘讛诪讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 注讚 讻诪讛 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讬讟驻诇 讘讘讻讜专 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讙住讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讻讛谉 讘转讜讱 讛讝诪谉 转谞讛讜 诇讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转谞谞讜 诇讜 讜讗诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛讜 诇讬 砖讗讜讻诇谞讜 诪讜转专 讜讘砖注转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗诐 讛讬讛 转诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 讜讗拽专讘谞讜 诪讜转专

MISHNA: Until when must an Israelite tend to and raise a firstborn animal before giving it to the priest? With regard to a small animal, e.g., a sheep or goat, it is thirty days, and with regard to a large animal, e.g., cattle, it is fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a small animal, it is three months. If the priest said to the owner within that period: Give it to me, that owner may not give it to him. And if it is a blemished firstborn and the priest said to him: Give it to me so I may eat it, it is permitted for the owner to give it to him. And at the time that the Temple is standing, if it is unblemished and the priest said to him: Give it to me and I will sacrifice it, it is permitted for the owner to give it to him.

讛讘讻讜专 谞讗讻诇 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

The firstborn animal is eaten year by year, i.e., within its first year, whether it is blemished or whether it is unblemished, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:20). If a blemish developed within its first year, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months. If a blemish developed after twelve months have passed, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for only thirty days.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻讜专 讘谞讬讱 转转谉 诇讬 讻谉 转注砖讛 诇爪讗谞讱

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an Israelite must raise a firstborn animal for thirty or fifty days, depending on the type of animal, before giving it to a priest. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Kahana said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother, on the eighth day you shall give it to Me鈥 (Exodus 22:28鈥29). The second part of verse 28 is juxtaposed to the second animal mentioned in verse 29. This juxtaposition teaches that just as a firstborn son is redeemed when he is thirty days old (Numbers 18:16), so too a sheep is given to the priest only when it is thirty days old.

诪诇讗转讱 讜讚诪注讱 诇讗 转讗讞专 讻谉 转注砖讛 诇砖专讱

The verses also state: 鈥淵ou shall not delay the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses鈥o you shall do with your oxen鈥 (Exodus 22:28鈥29). Just as the first fruits are brought on the festival of Shavuot, fifty days after Passover, so too the firstborn oxen are given to a priest when they are fifty days old. Here, the first part of verse 28 is juxtaposed with the first animal mentioned in verse 29.

讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚诪拽讚诐 诇诪拽讚诐 讚诪讗讞专 诇讚诪讗讞专 讗讚专讘讛 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: If these verses are the source, one can reverse the cases and derive that a firstborn ox must be given to the priest after thirty days, and a firstborn sheep after fifty days. The Gemara explains: It stands to reason that the time period that is alluded to earlier in the first verse corresponds to the animal that is mentioned earlier in the second verse, while the time period that is alluded to later in the first verse corresponds to the animal that is mentioned later in the second verse. The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it stands to reason that the time period that is alluded to closer to the mention of an animal should correspond to the animal, i.e., oxen, that is closest to it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 转注砖讛 讛讜住讬祝 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讬讬讛 讗讞专转 讘砖讜专讱

Rather, Rava says that the halakha of both a firstborn sheep and a firstborn ox are juxtaposed with the halakha of a firstborn child, which teaches that both require at least thirty days. But since the verse states: 鈥淪o you shall do with your oxen鈥 (Exodus 22:29), the verse adds an extra act of doing for you in the case of your oxen. In other words, the verse requires that the owner take care of an ox for additional time before giving it to the priest.

讜讗讬诪讗 砖讬转讬谉 诇讗 诪住专讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara challenges: But if so, one can say that the owner must care for the ox an additional thirty days, making a total of sixty days. From where is the total of fifty days derived? The Gemara answers: The interpretation of the verse with regard to the exact amount of time was given only to the Sages, and they determined that the owner must take care of his ox for fifty days.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讻讜专 讘谞讬讱 转转谉 诇讬 讻谉 转注砖讛 诇爪讗谞讱 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇砖讜专讱 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注砖讛 讛讜住讬祝 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讬讬讛 讗讞专转 讘砖讜专讱 诇讗 诪住专讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讞讻诪讬诐

This is also taught in a baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me鈥 (Exodus 22:28鈥29). One might have thought that this time period, i.e., thirty days, applies also to your oxen. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do.鈥 The verse adds an extra act of doing for you in the case of your oxen, and the interpretation of the verse was given only to the Sages.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 注讚 讻诪讛 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讟驻诇 讘讘讻讜专 讘讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讙住讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讟驻讜诇讛 诪专讜讘讛 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讬谞讬讛 讚拽讜转

From here the Sages stated: Until when must an Israelite tend to and raise a firstborn animal before handing it to the priest? With regard to a small animal, e.g., a sheep or goat, it is thirty days, and with regard to a large animal, e.g., cattle, it is fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a small animal, it is three months, because its tending is extensive, i.e., a great deal of work and effort are required in order to raise it before it can be given to a priest. A tanna taught that so much effort is required to raise a sheep because its teeth are small and it cannot eat most foods.

讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讻讛谉 讘转讜讱 讛讝诪谉 转谞讛讜 诇讬壮 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻讻讛谉 讛诪住讬讬注 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: If the priest said to the owner within that period: Give it to me, that owner may not give it to him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rav Sheshet says: Because such a priest appears like a priest who assists at the threshing floor so that he can be given teruma. Since this arrangement benefits the owner of the firstborn, as he is spared the effort of taking care of the animal throughout this period, it is as though this priest has paid for the right to receive the firstborn, which is prohibited.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 讜讛注谞讬讬诐 讛诪住讬讬注讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛专讜注讬诐 讜讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转 讜讘讘讬转 讛诪讟讘讞讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 讘砖讻专谉 讜讗诐 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 讞讬诇诇讜 讜注诇讬讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 砖讞转诐 讘专讬转 讛诇讜讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讞诇诇讜 讜诇讗 转诪讜转讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the priests, the Levites, and the poor people who assist in the home of the shepherd, or at the threshing floor, or in the slaughterhouse, one may not give them teruma or tithe as their wages. And if one did so, he desecrated the sanctity of the item. And with regard to them the verse states: 鈥淏ut you are turned aside out of the way; you have caused many to stumble in the law; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the Lord of hosts鈥 (Malachi 2:8). And another verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by it, seeing that you have set apart the best from it; and you shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, that you shall not die鈥 (Numbers 18:32).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讬转讛 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讞诇诇讜 讜诇讗 转诪讜转讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Gemara cites the second verse introduced with the phrase: And another verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the first verse indicates merely that teruma and tithe become desecrated, but one who does this is not punished by death, come and hear the second verse cited by the Gemara: 鈥淎nd you shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, that you shall not die鈥 (Numbers 18:32).

讜讘拽砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇拽讜谞住谉 讜诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诐 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜诐 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

The baraita continues: And the Sages wished to penalize those who gave teruma or tithe to the priests, Levites, or poor people who helped them, and to require them to separate in their place complete teruma, so that the owners of the produce would not benefit from their improper actions. And for what reason did the Sages not penalize them? Perhaps they would mistakenly think that the produce has not yet been tithed at all, and they would come to separate teruma and tithes from it when it is actually exempt produce, as by Torah law it has already had its tithes removed. They might then separate teruma and tithes from it on behalf of produce to which the obligation of separating tithes still applies, i.e., regular untithed produce.

讜讘讻讜诇谉 讬砖 讘讛谉

The baraita adds: And in all of these cases, although it is prohibited to give the teruma and tithe to a priest or Levite as his wages, nevertheless there is

Scroll To Top