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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 12, 2019 | 讟壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 56

One who purchases a animal or owns the animal through a partership with others, is exempt聽from animal tithes. The gemara discusses this exemption and brings exceptions to the rule.


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

诪讛 讘谞讬讱 讗讬谉 讘诇拽讜讞 讜讘诪转谞讛 讗祝 爪讗谞讱 讜讘拽专讱 讗讬谞讜 讘诇拽讜讞 讜讘诪转谞讛

Just as the redemption of your firstborn son does not apply to a child who was purchased or received as a gift, i.e., the mitzva applies only to one鈥檚 own son, so too, the mitzva of separating tithe from your flock and your herd does not apply to animals that were purchased or received as a gift.

讜讛讗讬 讘讘讻讜专 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻谉 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘注砖讬讬讛 讚讘专讞诐 拽讚讜砖 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this verse, which juxtaposes the firstborn son to an animal, is written with regard to redemption of a firstborn, not with regard to animal tithe. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淪o 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 22:29). If this is not needed for the matter of firstborn animals, which do not require any action to sanctify them as the animal is already consecrated when it leaves the womb, apply it to the matter of animal tithe, where an animal is sanctified only when the owner counts it as the tenth animal.

讜讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讟讗转 讜诇讗砖诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘谞讱 诪讛 讘谞讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讗祝 爪讗谞讱 讜砖讜专讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗

The Gemara suggests: But instead one can say to apply this phrase: 鈥淪o you shall do,鈥 to the matter of a sin offering and a guilt offering rather than animal tithe, i.e., one should derive that these offerings are sanctified only if they originally belonged to the individual who is attempting to sanctify them, not if they are purchased or received as a gift. The Gemara explains that one expounds the phrase as referring to animal tithe because that case is similar to the case of: Your son. Just as your son does not come to be redeemed to atone for a sin, so too, the phrase: Your sheep and your oxen, discussed in the verse, is referring to animal tithe, which does not come to the Temple to atone for a sin. Sin offerings and guilt offerings are brought only if one commits a sin.

讜讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇注讜诇讛 讜诇砖诇诪讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘谞讱 诪讛 讘谞讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讗祝 爪讗谞讱 讜砖讜专讱 讻讜壮

The Gemara suggests: But instead one can say to apply this phrase to the matter of a burnt offering and a peace offering, which can be brought even if one has not sinned, like the animal tithe. The Gemara explains that one expounds the phrase as referring to animal tithe because that case is similar to the case of: Your son. Just as your son cannot come in the form of a vow or a gift, so too, the phrase: Your sheep and your oxen, discussed in the verse, is referring to animal tithe, which cannot be brought as a vow or as a gift. It is not referring to a burnt offering or a peace offering, both of which can be brought as a vow or as a gift.

讜讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘谞讱 诪讛 讘谞讱 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 讗祝 砖讜专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉

The Gemara suggests: But one can say instead that one should apply this phrase to the matter of a burnt offering of appearance, which one brings when he ascends to Jerusalem on one of the three pilgrimage Festivals. This offering is not brought for a sin, nor as a vow or a gift, as it is obligatory. The Gemara explains that one expounds the phrase as referring to animal tithe because that case is similar to the case of: Your son. Just as your son does not have a fixed time of year to be redeemed, but is redeemed after the thirtieth day from his birth, so too: Your oxen and your sheep, discussed in the verse, is referring to animal tithe, which does not have a fixed time to be brought. By contrast, the burnt offering of appearance is brought only on the three pilgrimage Festivals.

讗讬 诪讛 讘谞讱 讗讬谞讜 讘诇拽讜讞 讻诇诇 讗祝 砖讜专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 讗讬谞讜 讘诇拽讜讞 讻诇诇 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽讞 注砖专讛 注讜讘专讬谉 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讻讜诇诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

The Gemara asks: If the halakha of the tithing of a purchased animal is derived from the juxtaposition to the mitzva of redemption of a firstborn son, then all the halakhot of one should apply to the other: Just as your firstborn son cannot be purchased at all, under any circumstances, so too, your oxen and your sheep should not be subject to animal tithe if they are purchased at all. If so, why does Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one purchased ten animal fetuses while they were still in their mothers鈥 wombs and the animals were born once he already owned them, they all enter the pen to be tithed? If the halakha is derived from a firstborn son, there should be no concept of tithe in the case of purchased animals.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 转注砖讛 讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 诪讬注讟 讛讻转讜讘

Rava said in response that the verse states: 鈥淪o 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 The verse excludes purchased animals from animal tithe only at the time of doing, i.e., from the time the animals are fit to be sacrificed in the Temple, not while they are still in their mothers鈥 wombs, as at that time they are as yet unfit to be sacrificed on the altar.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽讞 注砖专讛 注讜讘专讬诐 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara discusses the matter itself, to cite the relevant discussion in full. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one purchased ten animal fetuses while they were still in their mothers鈥 wombs and the animals were born once he already owned them, they all enter the pen to be tithed. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One who purchases an animal or has an animal that was given to him as a gift is exempt from animal tithe? If so, why isn鈥檛 the owner of these fetuses also exempt from animal tithe?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝讗讬 讘讞讬诇诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪注诇讬讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 转注砖讛 讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 诪讬注讟 讛讻转讜讘 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇拽讜讞 讞诇 注诇 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

Rabbi Elazar said: I saw Rabbi Yo岣nan in a dream, which is a sign that I am saying a proper matter in explaining his opinion. The verse states: 鈥淪o you shall do鈥 (Exodus 22:29); the verse excludes purchased animals from animal tithe only at the time of doing, i.e., from the time the animals are fit to be sacrificed in the Temple. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar from a baraita: The exemption of a purchased animal applies even to an animal whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., before it is eight days old and fit to be sacrificed in the Temple. By the same token, the exemption should also apply to a fetus, despite the fact that it is not yet fit to be sacrificed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪砖谞讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜拽专讘 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讗祝 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜拽专讘 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜

Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim: This baraita is not a tannaitic source that can be relied upon, as it is not accurate. And if you say this baraita is a tannaitic source that can be relied upon, it is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon, who says that an animal whose time has not yet arrived also enters the pen to be tithed, and in this regard it is like a firstborn animal. Just as a firstborn animal is sanctified before its time arrives to be sacrificed, but is sacrificed after its time, i.e., after it is at least eight days old, so too, an animal whose time has not yet arrived enters the pen to be tithed, and if it comes out as the tenth animal, it is sanctified before its time for sacrifice has arrived but is sacrificed only after its time, i.e., after it is at least eight days old.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讝讛讜 讗转谞谉 砖谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讻诇 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞讜 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讛讗 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘诇讜拽讞

A tanna taught a baraita in the presence of Rav: Which is the type of animal set aside as payment to a prostitute, about which the Sages said (see 57a) that it enters the pen to be tithed? Any animal that he gave to her as payment and subsequently purchased back from her. The tanna asked: But doesn鈥檛 it become disqualified from the status of animal tithe as a purchased animal, as he purchased it back from the prostitute?

讗讬砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽讞 注砖专讛 注讜讘专讬谉 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讻讜诇诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

The Gemara answers that this statement escaped that tanna: As Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one purchased ten animal fetuses while they were still in their mothers鈥 wombs they all enter the pen to be tithed. Accordingly, the baraita can be understood as referring to an animal that was given to a prostitute as payment and purchased back from her while it was still inside its mother鈥檚 womb.

讜转讬注砖专讛 讗讬讛讬 讘讝讜谞讛 讙讜讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is the meaning of the baraita, why is it necessary to purchase the animal back from the prostitute for it to be subject to animal tithe? Let her tithe it herself, as it is not prohibited as payment to a prostitute, since it was in the womb when he gave it to her. The Gemara answers that the baraita is referring to a gentile prostitute, to whom the mitzva of tithing animals does not apply.

讜诇讜拽诪讛 讘讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜转讬注砖专讛 讗讬讛讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗转谞谉

The Gemara challenges: But let the baraita establish this case, of an animal set aside as payment to a prostitute that nevertheless enters the pen to be tithed, as a case involving a Jewish prostitute, and let it be referring to a case where she tithes it herself. The Gemara explains that this baraita teaches us that an animal given as payment to a Jewish prostitute does not have the halakhic status of payment to a prostitute, and is not prohibited for sacrifice.

讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讝讜谞讛 讙讜讬讛 讗转谞谞讛 讗住讜专 讜讻讛谉 讛讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讗转谞谞讛 诪讜转专 讜讻讛谉 讛讘讗 注诇讬讛 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜

The Gemara adds that this is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as Abaye says: An animal given to a gentile prostitute is considered to be payment to a prostitute, which is prohibited for sacrifice on the altar. And a priest who engages in intercourse with a gentile prostitute is not flogged due to the prohibition of: 鈥淎 widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a prostitute, these shall he not take, but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him鈥 (Leviticus 21:14鈥15). Conversely, an animal given to a Jewish prostitute is not considered payment to a prostitute and it is permitted to sacrifice it. But a priest who engages in intercourse with a Jewish prostitute is flogged due to the prohibition of: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.鈥

讝讜谞讛 讙讜讬讛 讗转谞谞讛 讗住讜专 讙诪专 转讜注讘讛 转讜注讘讛 诪注专讬讜转

The Gemara clarifies Abaye鈥檚 opinion. An animal given to a gentile prostitute is considered payment to a prostitute, which is prohibited for sacrifice on the altar, as Abaye derives a verbal analogy from the word 鈥渁bomination鈥 stated with regard to payment to a prostitute: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19), and the word 鈥渁bomination鈥 stated in the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden: 鈥淔or whosoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29).

诪讛 注专讬讜转 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬 讗祝 讝讜谞讛 讘讛讱 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬

The Gemara elaborates: Just as the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden are referring specifically to those women upon whom betrothal does not take effect, so too, the prostitute referred to in the verse is one upon whom betrothal does not take effect, i.e., a gentile prostitute.

讜讻讛谉 讛讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讚诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讝专注讬讛 讛讜讗

Abaye further stated: And a priest who engages in intercourse with her is not flogged due to the prohibition of: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.鈥 The Gemara explains: The reason is that the Merciful One states that he should not profane his seed, i.e., his children, and any children born from this gentile prostitute are not considered to be his seed, as the children of a gentile mother are gentiles.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讞讬谉 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽诇讘讜谉

MISHNA: With regard to brothers and partners, i.e., brothers who are partners in the inheritance of their father, when they are obligated to add the premium [bakalbon] to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple they are exempt from animal tithe. Conversely, those whose halakhic status is like that of sons who are supported by their father and are obligated to separate animal tithe are exempt from adding the premium.

拽谞讜 诪转驻讬住转 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 讞诇拽讜 讞讝专讜 讜谞砖转转驻讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The mishna clarifies: If the brothers acquired the animals through inheritance from the property in the possession of their father鈥檚 house they are obligated in animal tithe; but if not, they are exempt. How so? If they divided the inheritance between them and then reentered a partnership, they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讜诇讗 砖诇 砖讜转驻讜转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 拽谞讜 讘转驻讬住转 讛讘讬转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讛讬讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hat you shall set apart for the Lord all that opens the womb; every firstborn male that emerges from an animal that shall be yours belongs to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 13:12). This teaches that the obligation of animal tithe applies only to an animal that belongs to you, i.e., to one owner, but not to an animal owned by partners. One might have thought that the obligation of the tithe does not apply to the animal even if brothers acquired the animals through inheritance from the property in the possession of their father鈥檚 house. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪hall be,鈥 to include animals acquired through inheritance in the obligation of animal tithe.

讜讛讗讬 讘讘讻讜专 讻转讬讘 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 讚讛讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讻讜专讜转 讘拽专讻诐 讜爪讗谞讻诐 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: But this verse is not referring to animal tithe; rather, it is written with regard to firstborn animals. The Gemara answers: If it is not needed for the matter of firstborn animals, as the mitzva of sanctifying a firstborn animal does apply in a case of partnership, as it is written, in the plural form: 鈥淎nd you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your offerings, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6), apply the verse to the matter of animal tithe, teaching that it does not apply to an animal owned by partners.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽诇讘讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches: If the brothers divided the inheritance between them and then reentered a partnership, they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe. Rabbi Yirmeya says: There are times when they are obligated both in this, the premium, and in that, animal tithe. And there are times when they are exempt both from this and from that. Furthermore, there are times when they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe; and finally, there are times when they are obligated in animal tithe and are exempt from having to add the premium.

讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 砖讞诇拽讜 讘讻住驻讬诐 讜诇讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讘讛诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 砖讞诇拽讜 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讻住驻讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: The guiding principle is that partners are exempt from animal tithe but obligated to pay the premium, whereas in the case of individual ownership one is obligated in the animal tithe but exempt from paying the premium. Therefore, the case where they are obligated both in this, the premium, and in that, animal tithe, is when they divided the money they inherited from their father but did not divide the animals they inherited. The case where they are exempt both from this and from that is when they divided the animals but did not divide the money.

讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 砖讞诇拽讜 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

The case where they are obligated to pay the premium and are exempt from animal tithe is when they divided up both this and that, the money and the animals, from the estate of their deceased father. Afterward they reestablished a partnership and are therefore partners in the normal sense, rather than co-owners of the original inherited estate, and partners are obligated to pay the premium and are exempt from the animal tithe.

讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽诇讘讜谉 砖诇讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

Finally, the case where they are obligated in the animal tithe and are exempt from paying the premium involves brothers who have not divided this or that, the money and the animals of their father鈥檚 estate, between them at all. It is therefore considered as though their father is still the sole owner of the estate and is contributing the shekel for the pair of them. Since the estate is under individual ownership, the animal tithe must be separated from the livestock.

驻砖讬讟讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讻住驻讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诇拽讜 讘讘讛诪讛 讙诇讜 讚注转讬讬讛讜 讚诇诪讬驻诇讙 拽讬讬诪讬 讜诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 讘拽诇讘讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? What is the novelty of Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Yirmeya to teach the case where they divided the animals but did not divide the money. It might enter your mind to say that since they divided the animals they have thereby revealed their intent to divide the entire estate. Consequently, the estate stands to be divided, and they should be obligated to pay the premium. Therefore, Rabbi Yirmeya teaches us that they are exempt from paying the premium until they have actually divided the money.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬讬诐 讻谞讙讚 转讬讬砖讬诐 讜转讬讬砖讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬讬诐

Rav Anan says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where they divided kids for goats and goats for kids, i.e., when the two brothers inherited both kids and goats, but one took all the goats and the other all the kids. Since each originally inherited both goats and kids, this division is tantamount to one brother trading his goats for the other鈥檚 kids. When they again become partners, they are considered like strangers who join together. Consequently, they are exempt from the animal tithe.

讗讘诇 讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬讬诐 讜转讬讬砖讬诐 讻谞讙讚 转讬讬砖讬诐 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

But if they divided kids for kids and goats for goats, so that each takes some of both types, in the normal manner, one can say that this, i.e., the group of animals that each brother takes, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset, and no transaction between them has occurred. Consequently, when they reestablish the partnership the estate reverts to its original status as a single entity, and they are therefore obligated to separate animal tithe.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬讬诐 讜转讬讬砖讬诐 讻谞讙讚 转讬讬砖讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讛讜讗 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

And Rav Na岣an says: Even if they divided the estate in the manner of kids for kids and goats for goats, we do not say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset. Therefore, if they reestablish a partnership they are considered like partners and are exempt from separating animal tithe.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞诇拽讜 转砖注讛 讻谞讙讚 注砖专讛 讜注砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 转砖注讛

The Gemara notes that this matter is also the subject of a dispute between other amora鈥檌m. And Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught this halakha only when they divided nine large goats for ten kids, and ten kids for nine large ones. Since the nine large goats are worth the same as ten kids, this division is tantamount to one brother trading his large goats for the other鈥檚 kids. When they again become partners they are considered as strangers who join together, and therefore they are exempt from the animal tithe.

讗讘诇 讞诇拽讜 转砖注讛 讻谞讙讚 转砖注讛 讜注砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 注砖专讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

But if they divided nine large goats for nine large goats and ten kids for ten kids, so that each takes some of both types, one can say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset, and no transaction between them has occurred. Consequently, when they reestablish the partnership the estate reverts to its original status as a single entity, which means they are obligated to separate animal tithe.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 转砖注讛 讻谞讙讚 转砖注讛 讜注砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 注砖专讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if they divided the estate in the manner of nine large goats for nine large goats and ten kids for ten kids, one does not say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset. Therefore, if they reestablish a partnership they are considered as partners and are exempt from separating animal tithe.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 56

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 56

诪讛 讘谞讬讱 讗讬谉 讘诇拽讜讞 讜讘诪转谞讛 讗祝 爪讗谞讱 讜讘拽专讱 讗讬谞讜 讘诇拽讜讞 讜讘诪转谞讛

Just as the redemption of your firstborn son does not apply to a child who was purchased or received as a gift, i.e., the mitzva applies only to one鈥檚 own son, so too, the mitzva of separating tithe from your flock and your herd does not apply to animals that were purchased or received as a gift.

讜讛讗讬 讘讘讻讜专 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻谉 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘注砖讬讬讛 讚讘专讞诐 拽讚讜砖 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this verse, which juxtaposes the firstborn son to an animal, is written with regard to redemption of a firstborn, not with regard to animal tithe. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淪o 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 22:29). If this is not needed for the matter of firstborn animals, which do not require any action to sanctify them as the animal is already consecrated when it leaves the womb, apply it to the matter of animal tithe, where an animal is sanctified only when the owner counts it as the tenth animal.

讜讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讟讗转 讜诇讗砖诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘谞讱 诪讛 讘谞讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讗祝 爪讗谞讱 讜砖讜专讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗

The Gemara suggests: But instead one can say to apply this phrase: 鈥淪o you shall do,鈥 to the matter of a sin offering and a guilt offering rather than animal tithe, i.e., one should derive that these offerings are sanctified only if they originally belonged to the individual who is attempting to sanctify them, not if they are purchased or received as a gift. The Gemara explains that one expounds the phrase as referring to animal tithe because that case is similar to the case of: Your son. Just as your son does not come to be redeemed to atone for a sin, so too, the phrase: Your sheep and your oxen, discussed in the verse, is referring to animal tithe, which does not come to the Temple to atone for a sin. Sin offerings and guilt offerings are brought only if one commits a sin.

讜讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇注讜诇讛 讜诇砖诇诪讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘谞讱 诪讛 讘谞讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讗祝 爪讗谞讱 讜砖讜专讱 讻讜壮

The Gemara suggests: But instead one can say to apply this phrase to the matter of a burnt offering and a peace offering, which can be brought even if one has not sinned, like the animal tithe. The Gemara explains that one expounds the phrase as referring to animal tithe because that case is similar to the case of: Your son. Just as your son cannot come in the form of a vow or a gift, so too, the phrase: Your sheep and your oxen, discussed in the verse, is referring to animal tithe, which cannot be brought as a vow or as a gift. It is not referring to a burnt offering or a peace offering, both of which can be brought as a vow or as a gift.

讜讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘谞讱 诪讛 讘谞讱 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 讗祝 砖讜专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉

The Gemara suggests: But one can say instead that one should apply this phrase to the matter of a burnt offering of appearance, which one brings when he ascends to Jerusalem on one of the three pilgrimage Festivals. This offering is not brought for a sin, nor as a vow or a gift, as it is obligatory. The Gemara explains that one expounds the phrase as referring to animal tithe because that case is similar to the case of: Your son. Just as your son does not have a fixed time of year to be redeemed, but is redeemed after the thirtieth day from his birth, so too: Your oxen and your sheep, discussed in the verse, is referring to animal tithe, which does not have a fixed time to be brought. By contrast, the burnt offering of appearance is brought only on the three pilgrimage Festivals.

讗讬 诪讛 讘谞讱 讗讬谞讜 讘诇拽讜讞 讻诇诇 讗祝 砖讜专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 讗讬谞讜 讘诇拽讜讞 讻诇诇 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽讞 注砖专讛 注讜讘专讬谉 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讻讜诇诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

The Gemara asks: If the halakha of the tithing of a purchased animal is derived from the juxtaposition to the mitzva of redemption of a firstborn son, then all the halakhot of one should apply to the other: Just as your firstborn son cannot be purchased at all, under any circumstances, so too, your oxen and your sheep should not be subject to animal tithe if they are purchased at all. If so, why does Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one purchased ten animal fetuses while they were still in their mothers鈥 wombs and the animals were born once he already owned them, they all enter the pen to be tithed? If the halakha is derived from a firstborn son, there should be no concept of tithe in the case of purchased animals.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 转注砖讛 讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 诪讬注讟 讛讻转讜讘

Rava said in response that the verse states: 鈥淪o 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 The verse excludes purchased animals from animal tithe only at the time of doing, i.e., from the time the animals are fit to be sacrificed in the Temple, not while they are still in their mothers鈥 wombs, as at that time they are as yet unfit to be sacrificed on the altar.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽讞 注砖专讛 注讜讘专讬诐 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara discusses the matter itself, to cite the relevant discussion in full. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one purchased ten animal fetuses while they were still in their mothers鈥 wombs and the animals were born once he already owned them, they all enter the pen to be tithed. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One who purchases an animal or has an animal that was given to him as a gift is exempt from animal tithe? If so, why isn鈥檛 the owner of these fetuses also exempt from animal tithe?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝讗讬 讘讞讬诇诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪注诇讬讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 转注砖讛 讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 诪讬注讟 讛讻转讜讘 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇拽讜讞 讞诇 注诇 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

Rabbi Elazar said: I saw Rabbi Yo岣nan in a dream, which is a sign that I am saying a proper matter in explaining his opinion. The verse states: 鈥淪o you shall do鈥 (Exodus 22:29); the verse excludes purchased animals from animal tithe only at the time of doing, i.e., from the time the animals are fit to be sacrificed in the Temple. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar from a baraita: The exemption of a purchased animal applies even to an animal whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., before it is eight days old and fit to be sacrificed in the Temple. By the same token, the exemption should also apply to a fetus, despite the fact that it is not yet fit to be sacrificed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪砖谞讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜拽专讘 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讗祝 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜拽专讘 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜

Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim: This baraita is not a tannaitic source that can be relied upon, as it is not accurate. And if you say this baraita is a tannaitic source that can be relied upon, it is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon, who says that an animal whose time has not yet arrived also enters the pen to be tithed, and in this regard it is like a firstborn animal. Just as a firstborn animal is sanctified before its time arrives to be sacrificed, but is sacrificed after its time, i.e., after it is at least eight days old, so too, an animal whose time has not yet arrived enters the pen to be tithed, and if it comes out as the tenth animal, it is sanctified before its time for sacrifice has arrived but is sacrificed only after its time, i.e., after it is at least eight days old.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讝讛讜 讗转谞谉 砖谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讻诇 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞讜 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讛讗 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘诇讜拽讞

A tanna taught a baraita in the presence of Rav: Which is the type of animal set aside as payment to a prostitute, about which the Sages said (see 57a) that it enters the pen to be tithed? Any animal that he gave to her as payment and subsequently purchased back from her. The tanna asked: But doesn鈥檛 it become disqualified from the status of animal tithe as a purchased animal, as he purchased it back from the prostitute?

讗讬砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽讞 注砖专讛 注讜讘专讬谉 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讻讜诇诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

The Gemara answers that this statement escaped that tanna: As Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one purchased ten animal fetuses while they were still in their mothers鈥 wombs they all enter the pen to be tithed. Accordingly, the baraita can be understood as referring to an animal that was given to a prostitute as payment and purchased back from her while it was still inside its mother鈥檚 womb.

讜转讬注砖专讛 讗讬讛讬 讘讝讜谞讛 讙讜讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is the meaning of the baraita, why is it necessary to purchase the animal back from the prostitute for it to be subject to animal tithe? Let her tithe it herself, as it is not prohibited as payment to a prostitute, since it was in the womb when he gave it to her. The Gemara answers that the baraita is referring to a gentile prostitute, to whom the mitzva of tithing animals does not apply.

讜诇讜拽诪讛 讘讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜转讬注砖专讛 讗讬讛讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗转谞谉

The Gemara challenges: But let the baraita establish this case, of an animal set aside as payment to a prostitute that nevertheless enters the pen to be tithed, as a case involving a Jewish prostitute, and let it be referring to a case where she tithes it herself. The Gemara explains that this baraita teaches us that an animal given as payment to a Jewish prostitute does not have the halakhic status of payment to a prostitute, and is not prohibited for sacrifice.

讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讝讜谞讛 讙讜讬讛 讗转谞谞讛 讗住讜专 讜讻讛谉 讛讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讗转谞谞讛 诪讜转专 讜讻讛谉 讛讘讗 注诇讬讛 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜

The Gemara adds that this is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as Abaye says: An animal given to a gentile prostitute is considered to be payment to a prostitute, which is prohibited for sacrifice on the altar. And a priest who engages in intercourse with a gentile prostitute is not flogged due to the prohibition of: 鈥淎 widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a prostitute, these shall he not take, but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him鈥 (Leviticus 21:14鈥15). Conversely, an animal given to a Jewish prostitute is not considered payment to a prostitute and it is permitted to sacrifice it. But a priest who engages in intercourse with a Jewish prostitute is flogged due to the prohibition of: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.鈥

讝讜谞讛 讙讜讬讛 讗转谞谞讛 讗住讜专 讙诪专 转讜注讘讛 转讜注讘讛 诪注专讬讜转

The Gemara clarifies Abaye鈥檚 opinion. An animal given to a gentile prostitute is considered payment to a prostitute, which is prohibited for sacrifice on the altar, as Abaye derives a verbal analogy from the word 鈥渁bomination鈥 stated with regard to payment to a prostitute: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19), and the word 鈥渁bomination鈥 stated in the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden: 鈥淔or whosoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29).

诪讛 注专讬讜转 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬 讗祝 讝讜谞讛 讘讛讱 讚诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讚讜砖讬

The Gemara elaborates: Just as the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden are referring specifically to those women upon whom betrothal does not take effect, so too, the prostitute referred to in the verse is one upon whom betrothal does not take effect, i.e., a gentile prostitute.

讜讻讛谉 讛讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讚诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讝专注讬讛 讛讜讗

Abaye further stated: And a priest who engages in intercourse with her is not flogged due to the prohibition of: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.鈥 The Gemara explains: The reason is that the Merciful One states that he should not profane his seed, i.e., his children, and any children born from this gentile prostitute are not considered to be his seed, as the children of a gentile mother are gentiles.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讞讬谉 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽诇讘讜谉

MISHNA: With regard to brothers and partners, i.e., brothers who are partners in the inheritance of their father, when they are obligated to add the premium [bakalbon] to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple they are exempt from animal tithe. Conversely, those whose halakhic status is like that of sons who are supported by their father and are obligated to separate animal tithe are exempt from adding the premium.

拽谞讜 诪转驻讬住转 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 讞诇拽讜 讞讝专讜 讜谞砖转转驻讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The mishna clarifies: If the brothers acquired the animals through inheritance from the property in the possession of their father鈥檚 house they are obligated in animal tithe; but if not, they are exempt. How so? If they divided the inheritance between them and then reentered a partnership, they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讜诇讗 砖诇 砖讜转驻讜转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 拽谞讜 讘转驻讬住转 讛讘讬转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讛讬讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hat you shall set apart for the Lord all that opens the womb; every firstborn male that emerges from an animal that shall be yours belongs to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 13:12). This teaches that the obligation of animal tithe applies only to an animal that belongs to you, i.e., to one owner, but not to an animal owned by partners. One might have thought that the obligation of the tithe does not apply to the animal even if brothers acquired the animals through inheritance from the property in the possession of their father鈥檚 house. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪hall be,鈥 to include animals acquired through inheritance in the obligation of animal tithe.

讜讛讗讬 讘讘讻讜专 讻转讬讘 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 讚讛讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讻讜专讜转 讘拽专讻诐 讜爪讗谞讻诐 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: But this verse is not referring to animal tithe; rather, it is written with regard to firstborn animals. The Gemara answers: If it is not needed for the matter of firstborn animals, as the mitzva of sanctifying a firstborn animal does apply in a case of partnership, as it is written, in the plural form: 鈥淎nd you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your offerings, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6), apply the verse to the matter of animal tithe, teaching that it does not apply to an animal owned by partners.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽诇讘讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches: If the brothers divided the inheritance between them and then reentered a partnership, they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe. Rabbi Yirmeya says: There are times when they are obligated both in this, the premium, and in that, animal tithe. And there are times when they are exempt both from this and from that. Furthermore, there are times when they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe; and finally, there are times when they are obligated in animal tithe and are exempt from having to add the premium.

讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 砖讞诇拽讜 讘讻住驻讬诐 讜诇讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讘讛诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 砖讞诇拽讜 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讻住驻讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: The guiding principle is that partners are exempt from animal tithe but obligated to pay the premium, whereas in the case of individual ownership one is obligated in the animal tithe but exempt from paying the premium. Therefore, the case where they are obligated both in this, the premium, and in that, animal tithe, is when they divided the money they inherited from their father but did not divide the animals they inherited. The case where they are exempt both from this and from that is when they divided the animals but did not divide the money.

讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽诇讘讜谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 砖讞诇拽讜 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

The case where they are obligated to pay the premium and are exempt from animal tithe is when they divided up both this and that, the money and the animals, from the estate of their deceased father. Afterward they reestablished a partnership and are therefore partners in the normal sense, rather than co-owners of the original inherited estate, and partners are obligated to pay the premium and are exempt from the animal tithe.

讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽诇讘讜谉 砖诇讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

Finally, the case where they are obligated in the animal tithe and are exempt from paying the premium involves brothers who have not divided this or that, the money and the animals of their father鈥檚 estate, between them at all. It is therefore considered as though their father is still the sole owner of the estate and is contributing the shekel for the pair of them. Since the estate is under individual ownership, the animal tithe must be separated from the livestock.

驻砖讬讟讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 讞诇拽讜 讘讻住驻讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诇拽讜 讘讘讛诪讛 讙诇讜 讚注转讬讬讛讜 讚诇诪讬驻诇讙 拽讬讬诪讬 讜诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 讘拽诇讘讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? What is the novelty of Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Yirmeya to teach the case where they divided the animals but did not divide the money. It might enter your mind to say that since they divided the animals they have thereby revealed their intent to divide the entire estate. Consequently, the estate stands to be divided, and they should be obligated to pay the premium. Therefore, Rabbi Yirmeya teaches us that they are exempt from paying the premium until they have actually divided the money.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬讬诐 讻谞讙讚 转讬讬砖讬诐 讜转讬讬砖讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬讬诐

Rav Anan says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where they divided kids for goats and goats for kids, i.e., when the two brothers inherited both kids and goats, but one took all the goats and the other all the kids. Since each originally inherited both goats and kids, this division is tantamount to one brother trading his goats for the other鈥檚 kids. When they again become partners, they are considered like strangers who join together. Consequently, they are exempt from the animal tithe.

讗讘诇 讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬讬诐 讜转讬讬砖讬诐 讻谞讙讚 转讬讬砖讬诐 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

But if they divided kids for kids and goats for goats, so that each takes some of both types, in the normal manner, one can say that this, i.e., the group of animals that each brother takes, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset, and no transaction between them has occurred. Consequently, when they reestablish the partnership the estate reverts to its original status as a single entity, and they are therefore obligated to separate animal tithe.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 讙讚讬讬诐 讻谞讙讚 讙讚讬讬诐 讜转讬讬砖讬诐 讻谞讙讚 转讬讬砖讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讛讜讗 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

And Rav Na岣an says: Even if they divided the estate in the manner of kids for kids and goats for goats, we do not say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset. Therefore, if they reestablish a partnership they are considered like partners and are exempt from separating animal tithe.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞诇拽讜 转砖注讛 讻谞讙讚 注砖专讛 讜注砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 转砖注讛

The Gemara notes that this matter is also the subject of a dispute between other amora鈥檌m. And Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught this halakha only when they divided nine large goats for ten kids, and ten kids for nine large ones. Since the nine large goats are worth the same as ten kids, this division is tantamount to one brother trading his large goats for the other鈥檚 kids. When they again become partners they are considered as strangers who join together, and therefore they are exempt from the animal tithe.

讗讘诇 讞诇拽讜 转砖注讛 讻谞讙讚 转砖注讛 讜注砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 注砖专讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

But if they divided nine large goats for nine large goats and ten kids for ten kids, so that each takes some of both types, one can say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset, and no transaction between them has occurred. Consequently, when they reestablish the partnership the estate reverts to its original status as a single entity, which means they are obligated to separate animal tithe.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 转砖注讛 讻谞讙讚 转砖注讛 讜注砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 注砖专讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞诇拽讜 讛诪讙讬注讜 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if they divided the estate in the manner of nine large goats for nine large goats and ten kids for ten kids, one does not say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset. Therefore, if they reestablish a partnership they are considered as partners and are exempt from separating animal tithe.

Scroll To Top