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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 13, 2019 | 讬壮 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 57

Which animals are considered as part of the coun for animals tithes and which are not? What times of year is one to put the animal in the pen to tithe them? What is considered the new year for animals?


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

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛谉 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘讬讜讘诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his established line of reasoning in this regard. As Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Brothers who divided real estate received as an inheritance are considered purchasers who have purchased from each other, and as purchasers of land they must return the portions to each other in the Jubilee Year, at which point they may redistribute the property. This demonstrates that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold that it is retroactively established that each brother鈥檚 portion was designated for him upon their father鈥檚 death. Rather, it is considered as though all the land was joint property until the brothers traded or bought their respective portions from each other.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘谞讱 诪讛 讘谞讱 讘讘专讜专 诇讱 讗祝 砖讜专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 讘讘专讜专 诇讱 讗讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讻专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讛讚专 讘讬讜讘诇 讬专讜砖讛 讜诪转谞讛 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And both statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan are necessary. As, if he had taught this halakha to us only here, with regard to animal tithe, one might have thought that it is in this case that Rabbi Yo岣nan says each one has not received his own portion. This is because the case must be similar to the case of your firstborn son, in accordance with the juxtaposition between the two cases. Just as your firstborn son is redeemed only if it is clear to you that he is your son, not if he is purchased from another, so too, your cattle and your sheep are subject to animal tithe only if it is clear to you, i.e., if there is no aspect of acquisition at all. But in the case of a field, one might think it is only with regard to a field that is sold that the Merciful One states that the purchaser should return it in the Jubilee Year, whereas a field that is an inheritance or a gift need not be returned.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讚讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if Rabbi Yo岣nan had taught us only the halakha that a field inherited by two brothers must be returned in the Jubilee Year, one might have thought that Rabbi Yo岣nan was uncertain and therefore ruled to be stringent. If so, he would rule stringently with regard to animal tithe as well, deeming the brothers liable. Alternatively, one might think Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in this manner with regard to returning fields in the Jubilee Year only because the field must return to how it was in the beginning. But here, in the case of animal tithe, where there is no requirement to return matters to their initial state, one might say that the brothers are not considered to be purchasers, but rather each received the animals that were retroactively designated for him and they are therefore obligated in animal tithe. For this reason it is necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan to teach both cases.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讻谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗讞讚 谞讟诇 注砖专讛 讜讗讞讚 谞讟诇 转砖注讛 讜讻诇讘 砖讻谞讙讚 讛讻诇讘 讗住讜专讬谉 砖注诐 讛讻诇讘 诪讜转专讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专转 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 诇讬讘专讜专 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讘讛讚讬 讻诇讘 讜诇砖拽讜诇 讜讛谞讱 诇讬砖转专讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against the opinion that there is retroactive designation of the animals: And similarly in the case of two partners who divided their common property, and one took ten lambs and the other one took nine lambs and a dog, sacrificing any of the ten lambs taken in exchange for the dog is prohibited. This is because they are considered 鈥渢he price of a dog,鈥 as it states in the Torah (Deuteronomy 23:19), since they were given in exchange for it. Nevertheless, the nine lambs that were taken with the dog are permitted for sacrifice. The Gemara explains the objection: And if you say that there is retroactive designation, why are all ten lambs prohibited? Let him select one of the lambs to correspond to the dog and take it away, and all the rest of these lambs should be permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讚砖讜讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 讜砖讜讬 讛讗讬 讻诇讘讗 讞讚 讜诪砖讛讜 讜讛讗讬 诪砖讛讜 诪砖讬讱 讜讗转讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜

Rav Ashi said: If this is referring to a case where they are all equal in value to each other, indeed one may consider only one of the lambs as corresponding to the dog. Here, we are dealing with a case where they are not all equal in value to each other, but the value of this dog is one and a small amount more than the value of each one of the ten lambs. Therefore, one cannot set aside a single lamb in exchange for the dog, and consequently one draws this extra small amount, i.e., the additional value of the dog, and divides it between all of the other nine lambs. As a result, all ten lambs are prohibited, since part of the price of a dog is included in each of them.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讜讟专驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜讛讬转讜诐 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讬转讜诐 讻诇 砖诪转讛 讗诪讛 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讞讟讛 讗诪讛 讜讛砖诇讞 拽讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 讬转讜诐

MISHNA: All cattle, sheep, and goats enter the pen to be tithed, except for an animal crossbred from diverse kinds, e.g., a hybrid of a goat and a sheep; a tereifa; an animal born by caesarean section; one whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., that is younger than eight days old, which is when animals become eligible for sacrifice; and an orphan. And what is an orphan? It is any animal whose mother died or was slaughtered while giving birth to it and thereafter completed giving birth to it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if its mother was slaughtered but its hide exists at birth, i.e., if the mother鈥檚 hide is present after the birth, this is not an orphan.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 讗讜 讻砖讘 驻专讟 诇讻诇讗讬诐 讗讜 注讝 驻专讟 诇谞讚诪讛 讻讬 讬讜诇讚 驻专讟 诇讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讛讬讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 驻专讟 诇诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 转讞转 讗诪讜 驻专讟 诇讬转讜诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., the fact that those animals are not included in the animal tithe, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita that discusses offerings in general: 鈥淲hen a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, then it shall be seven days under its mother, but from the eighth day onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:27). The phrase 鈥渁 bull or a sheep鈥 serves to exclude an animal born from diverse kinds; 鈥渙r a goat鈥 serves to exclude an animal that resembles another, e.g., a sheep that is the offspring of two sheep but which looks like a goat, or vice versa; 鈥渨hen鈥s born鈥 serves to exclude an animal born by caesarean section; 鈥渢hen it shall be seven days鈥 serves to exclude an animal whose time has not yet arrived; 鈥渦nder its mother鈥 serves to exclude an orphan.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 转讞转 讛砖讘讟 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 转讞转 讗诪讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 驻专讟 诇讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 驻专讟 诇讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 驻专讟 诇讟专驻讛 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 驻专讟 诇讟专驻讛

The baraita continues: From where is it derived that these halakhot also apply to animal tithe? Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says it is learned by a verbal analogy from the term 鈥渦nder.鈥 It is stated here, with regard to animal tithe: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and it is stated there, with regard to all offerings: 鈥淯nder its mother鈥 (Leviticus 22:27). Just as there, in the case of all offerings, the verse serves to exclude all these categories, so too here, with regard to animal tithe, the verse serves to exclude all these categories. And just as here, with regard to animal tithe, the verse serves to exclude a tereifa, as the verse states: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod,鈥 and a tereifa is unable to pass unaided, so too there, with regard to all offerings, the verse serves to exclude a tereifa.

讛讻诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜讛诪讞讬专 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讬谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

搂 The Gemara asks: What does the mishna鈥檚 expansive term: All, serve to include? The Gemara answers that it serves to include this halakha that the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or an animal that was set aside for idol worship, or one that was worshipped as a deity, or one that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or a tumtum, i.e., an animal whose sexual organs are indeterminate, or a hermaphrodite, i.e., an animal displaying sexual organs of both sexes, all of these enter the pen to be tithed despite the fact that they are disqualified from being brought as offerings. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A tumtum and a hermaphrodite do not enter the pen to be tithed.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讗讬 讙诪专 转讞转 转讞转 诪拽讚砖讬诐 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 讛谞讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But as for the tanna of our mishna, if he derives the verbal analogy of: 鈥淯nder鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and: 鈥淯nder鈥 (Leviticus 22:27), from the verse referring to sacrificial animals, then these types listed in the baraita should also not enter the pen to be tithed, as they are all disqualified from being sacrificed. And if he does not derive the verbal analogy from sacrificial animals, from where does he derive the exemption of these categories listed in the mishna, e.g., one whose time has not yet arrived and an orphan?

诇注讜诇诐 讙诪讬专 讜讛谞讬 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪砖讞转诐 讘讛诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 诇讗 讬专爪讜 诇讻诐 讜转讗谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 讛砖讞转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, the tanna does derive the verbal analogy, but these categories listed in the baraita are included by the Merciful One in the animal tithe. As it is written with regard to those animals that may not be brought as offerings: 鈥淣either from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them鈥 (Leviticus 22:25). This verse indicates that corruption is considered a blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term: Corruption, is stated, it is a reference to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship.

讚讘专 注专讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛砖讞讬转 讻诇 讘砖专 讗转 讚专讻讜 注诇 讛讗专抓 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻谉 转砖讞讬转讜谉 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讻诐 驻住诇 转诪讜谞转 讻诇 住诪诇 转讘谞讬转 讝讻专 讗讜 谞拽讘讛

The baraita supports this claim: Corruption is a reference to a matter of licentiousness, as it is written with regard to the generation of the flood: 鈥淎nd God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth鈥 (Genesis 6:12). And corruption is also a reference to idol worship, as it is written: 鈥淟est you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image, the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:16).

讜讻诇 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讛讗讬 诪注砖专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讘拽专 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专谞讜 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘讬讛

And the juxtaposition of the word 鈥渃orruption鈥 with the word 鈥渂lemish鈥 in Leviticus 22:25 teaches that in any case where a blemish disqualifies an animal, a matter of licentiousness or a matter of idol worship also disqualifies it. And in a case where a blemish does not disqualify an animal, a matter of licentiousness or a matter of idol worship also does not disqualify it. And with regard to this animal tithe, since a blemish on an animal does not disqualify it, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall not inquire whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), a matter of licentiousness or a matter of idol worship also does not disqualify it.

专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 讚讘专 注专讜讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗转谞谉 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜诪讞讬专 讗讬转拽砖 诇讗转谞谉

The Gemara further explains that the categories listed in the baraita are either matters of licentiousness or matters of idol worship. An animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality are both a matter of licentiousness. An animal that was set aside for idol worship and one that was worshipped are cases of idol worship. And an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute is a matter of licentiousness, and an animal used as the price of a dog is juxtaposed to an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute (see Deuteronomy 23:19).

讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 拽住讘专 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗

Finally, with regard to an animal that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, the tanna holds that it is uncertain whether it is male or female, not a creature unto itself, and therefore a tumtum is also subject to the tithe.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 拽住讘专 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 讜谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪注砖专 谞诪讬 讙诪专 转讞转 转讞转 诪拽讚砖讬诐

The baraita states that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A tumtum and a hermaphrodite do not enter the pen to be tithed. The Gemara explains: He holds that the case of an animal that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite involves an uncertainty, and the Merciful One excluded cases of uncertainty with regard to sacrificial animals. Only a definite male or a definite female is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. Consequently, with regard to animal tithe too, they do not enter the pen to be tithed, as he derives the verbal analogy of 鈥渦nder鈥 and 鈥渦nder鈥 from sacrificial animals.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻诇 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讟专驻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讘专转讜转讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗谞讬 砖诪注转讬 讛讬诪谞讜 讗祝 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜讬转讜诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: All animals enter the pen to be tithed except for an animal crossbred from diverse kinds, e.g., a hybrid of a goat and a sheep, and a tereifa; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yehuda, of the village of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Akiva said: I heard from Rabbi Yehoshua that an animal born by caesarean section and an animal whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., that is less than eight days old, and an orphan animal, are also excluded from animal tithe.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬 讙诪专 转讞转 转讞转 诪拽讚砖讬诐 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讙诪专 讘砖诇诪讗 讟专驻讛 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘专 转讞转 讛砖讘讟 讻转讬讘 驻专讟 诇讟专驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专转 讗诇讗 讻诇讗讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna of the baraita, what does he maintain? If he derives the verbal analogy of 鈥渦nder鈥 and 鈥渦nder鈥 from sacrificial animals, then these categories listed by Rabbi Akiva should also not enter the pen to be tithed. And if he does not derive the verbal analogy, granted, he rules that a tereifa does not enter the pen to be tithed, as it is written: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), which excludes a tereifa, as it does not pass under the rod due to its physical state. But from where does he derive that an animal crossbred from diverse kinds does not enter the pen to be tithed?

诇注讜诇诐 讙诪专 讜讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does derive the verbal analogy of 鈥渦nder鈥 and 鈥渦nder,鈥 and therefore he excludes a tereifa and diverse kinds from the animal tithe. But with regard to an animal born by caesarean section

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that a human child born by caesarean section is a full-fledged offspring and renders its mother ritually impure with the impurity of childbirth. Likewise, with regard to an animal born by caesarean section, he holds the birth was a proper birth and the animal may be brought as an offering, and therefore it also enters the pen to be tithed. And this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that Rabbi Shimon concedes that an animal born by caesarean section is disqualified from being brought as an offering (see Nidda 40a).

讘诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讬转讜诐 讻讙讜谉 砖讛砖诇讞 拽讬讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讞讟 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讛砖诇讞 拽讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 讬转讜诐

And with regard to an animal whose time has not yet arrived, this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, who maintains that the obligation of animal tithe applies to such an animal. As for an orphan animal, he is referring to a case where the mother鈥檚 hide exists at birth, i.e., the mother鈥檚 hide is present after the birth, and therefore the animal is not considered an orphan. And Rabbi Yehoshua, whose opinion this tanna follows, conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: Even if its mother was slaughtered but its hide exists at birth, i.e., if the mother鈥檚 hide is present after the birth, this is not an orphan.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 住转专讬讗诇 诪注专拽转 诇讘讬谞讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘诪拽讜诪谞讜 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪转讛 讜诪诇讘讬砖讬谉 讗转 讛讞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转讙诇讛 讟注诪讗 砖诇 诪砖谞转讬谞讜

Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel, from a place called Arkat Leveina, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In our locale, if an animal dies while giving birth they flay the dead mother鈥檚 skin and clothe the living newborn animal with it for protection. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This testimony of yours reveals the reason for the ruling of the mishna that if the hide of the mother still exists the offspring is not considered to be an orphan; the hide serves as a substitute for the mother.

讞讝讬专讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诪谞讜 讬砖 诇讛诐 砖砖讬诐 专讘讜讗 拽诇驻讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛诪住住 砖诇讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞驻诇 讗专讝 讗讞讚 砖讘诪拽讜诪谞讜 讜注讘专讜 砖砖 注砖专讛 拽专讜谞讜转 注诇 讞讜讚讜 讗讞转

Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel also testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The lettuce in our locale has 600,000 leaves in its omasum, i.e., in its core. Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel further testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Once one cedar tree fell in our locale, and it was so wide that sixteen wagons passed over its back, meaning the width of its trunk, as one, i.e., side by side.

驻注诐 讗讞转 谞驻诇讛 讘讬爪转 讘专 讬讜讻谞讬 讜讟讘注讛 砖砖讬诐 讻专讻讬诐 讜砖讘专讛 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讗专讝讬诐 讜诪讬 砖讚讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讻谞祝 专谞谞讬诐 谞注诇住讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讜讝专转讗 讛讜讗讬

Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel also testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Once an egg of the bird called bar yokhani fell, and the contents of the egg drowned sixty cities and broke three hundred cedar trees. The Gemara asks: And does the bar yokhani bird throw its eggs to the ground? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he kenaf renanim bird rejoices, but are her wings and feathers those of the stork? For she leaves her eggs on the earth, and warms them in dust鈥 (Job 39:13鈥14)? The Sages understood that kenaf renanim is another name for the bar yokhani bird. If so, how could its egg fall if it lays its eggs on the ground? Rav Ashi said in explanation: That egg was unfertilized, and since it would never hatch the bird threw it to the ground.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 讙专谞讜转 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讘驻专住 讛驻住讞 讜讘驻专住 讛注爪专转 讜讘驻专住 讛讞讙 讜讛谉 讙专谞讜转 砖诇 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

MISHNA: There are three times during the year designated for gathering the animals that were born since the last date for animal tithe: Adjacent to Passover, and adjacent to Shavuot, and adjacent to Sukkot. And those are the gathering times for animal tithe; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讚专 讘讗讞讚 讘住讬讜谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 讘讗讞讚 讘住讬讜谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗诇讜诇 讜诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗诇讜诇 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讘讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇驻讬讻讱 讛拽讚讬诪讜讛讜 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗诇讜诇

Ben Azzai says the dates are: On the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that the dates are: On the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. And why did Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say the twenty-ninth of Elul, and why did they not say the first of Tishrei? It is due to the fact that the first of Tishrei is the festival of Rosh HaShana, and one cannot tithe on a Festival. Consequently, they brought it earlier, to the twenty-ninth of Elul.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讗讞讚 讘讗诇讜诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛讗诇讜诇讬诐 诪转注砖专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉

Rabbi Meir says: The beginning of the new year for animal tithe is on the first of Elul. Ben Azzai says: The animals born in Elul are tithed by themselves, due to the uncertainty as to whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, i.e., that the new year begins on the first of Elul, or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, which would mean that the new year begins on the first of Tishrei.

讻诇 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗诇讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讞诪砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇讗讞专 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谞谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讞诪砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讙讜专谉 讜讞诪砖讛 诇讗讞专 讛讙讜专谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专讜 砖诇砖 讙专谞讜转 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 砖注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讛讙讜专谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专 讜诇砖讞讜讟 讛讙讬注 讛讙讜专谉 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 驻讟讜专

According to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, with regard to all animals that are born from the first of Tishrei until the twenty-ninth of Elul, those animals join to be tithed together. If five were born before Rosh HaShana and five after Rosh HaShana, those animals do not join to be tithed together. If five were born before a time designated for gathering and five after that time designated for gathering, those animals join to be tithed together. If so, why were three times stated for gathering the animals for animal tithe? The reason is that until the time designated for gathering arrives it is permitted to sell and slaughter the animals. Once the time designated for gathering arrives one may not slaughter those animals before tithing them; but if he slaughtered an animal without tithing it he is exempt.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转诇转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 诇拽讘诇 讞讜专驻讬 讜讗驻诇讬 讜拽讬讬讟讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that there are three times during the year designated for gathering the animals born since the last date for animal tithe. The Gemara asks: What is different about these dates, i.e., why are there specifically three times designated in the year? Rabba bar Sheila said: There are three times in order to collect the animals born early in winter, and the animals born later in spring, and the animals born in the summer.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讛谞讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讻讜

The Gemara asks: And what is different about these three times, i.e., before Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, that they are chosen? Rabbi Tan岣m, son of Rav 岣yya, of the village of Akko, says:

  • 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 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 57

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛谉 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘讬讜讘诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his established line of reasoning in this regard. As Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Brothers who divided real estate received as an inheritance are considered purchasers who have purchased from each other, and as purchasers of land they must return the portions to each other in the Jubilee Year, at which point they may redistribute the property. This demonstrates that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold that it is retroactively established that each brother鈥檚 portion was designated for him upon their father鈥檚 death. Rather, it is considered as though all the land was joint property until the brothers traded or bought their respective portions from each other.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘谞讱 诪讛 讘谞讱 讘讘专讜专 诇讱 讗祝 砖讜专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 讘讘专讜专 诇讱 讗讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讻专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讛讚专 讘讬讜讘诇 讬专讜砖讛 讜诪转谞讛 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And both statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan are necessary. As, if he had taught this halakha to us only here, with regard to animal tithe, one might have thought that it is in this case that Rabbi Yo岣nan says each one has not received his own portion. This is because the case must be similar to the case of your firstborn son, in accordance with the juxtaposition between the two cases. Just as your firstborn son is redeemed only if it is clear to you that he is your son, not if he is purchased from another, so too, your cattle and your sheep are subject to animal tithe only if it is clear to you, i.e., if there is no aspect of acquisition at all. But in the case of a field, one might think it is only with regard to a field that is sold that the Merciful One states that the purchaser should return it in the Jubilee Year, whereas a field that is an inheritance or a gift need not be returned.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讚讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if Rabbi Yo岣nan had taught us only the halakha that a field inherited by two brothers must be returned in the Jubilee Year, one might have thought that Rabbi Yo岣nan was uncertain and therefore ruled to be stringent. If so, he would rule stringently with regard to animal tithe as well, deeming the brothers liable. Alternatively, one might think Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in this manner with regard to returning fields in the Jubilee Year only because the field must return to how it was in the beginning. But here, in the case of animal tithe, where there is no requirement to return matters to their initial state, one might say that the brothers are not considered to be purchasers, but rather each received the animals that were retroactively designated for him and they are therefore obligated in animal tithe. For this reason it is necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan to teach both cases.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讻谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗讞讚 谞讟诇 注砖专讛 讜讗讞讚 谞讟诇 转砖注讛 讜讻诇讘 砖讻谞讙讚 讛讻诇讘 讗住讜专讬谉 砖注诐 讛讻诇讘 诪讜转专讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专转 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 诇讬讘专讜专 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讘讛讚讬 讻诇讘 讜诇砖拽讜诇 讜讛谞讱 诇讬砖转专讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against the opinion that there is retroactive designation of the animals: And similarly in the case of two partners who divided their common property, and one took ten lambs and the other one took nine lambs and a dog, sacrificing any of the ten lambs taken in exchange for the dog is prohibited. This is because they are considered 鈥渢he price of a dog,鈥 as it states in the Torah (Deuteronomy 23:19), since they were given in exchange for it. Nevertheless, the nine lambs that were taken with the dog are permitted for sacrifice. The Gemara explains the objection: And if you say that there is retroactive designation, why are all ten lambs prohibited? Let him select one of the lambs to correspond to the dog and take it away, and all the rest of these lambs should be permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讚砖讜讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 讜砖讜讬 讛讗讬 讻诇讘讗 讞讚 讜诪砖讛讜 讜讛讗讬 诪砖讛讜 诪砖讬讱 讜讗转讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜

Rav Ashi said: If this is referring to a case where they are all equal in value to each other, indeed one may consider only one of the lambs as corresponding to the dog. Here, we are dealing with a case where they are not all equal in value to each other, but the value of this dog is one and a small amount more than the value of each one of the ten lambs. Therefore, one cannot set aside a single lamb in exchange for the dog, and consequently one draws this extra small amount, i.e., the additional value of the dog, and divides it between all of the other nine lambs. As a result, all ten lambs are prohibited, since part of the price of a dog is included in each of them.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讜讟专驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜讛讬转讜诐 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讬转讜诐 讻诇 砖诪转讛 讗诪讛 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讞讟讛 讗诪讛 讜讛砖诇讞 拽讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 讬转讜诐

MISHNA: All cattle, sheep, and goats enter the pen to be tithed, except for an animal crossbred from diverse kinds, e.g., a hybrid of a goat and a sheep; a tereifa; an animal born by caesarean section; one whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., that is younger than eight days old, which is when animals become eligible for sacrifice; and an orphan. And what is an orphan? It is any animal whose mother died or was slaughtered while giving birth to it and thereafter completed giving birth to it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if its mother was slaughtered but its hide exists at birth, i.e., if the mother鈥檚 hide is present after the birth, this is not an orphan.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专 讗讜 讻砖讘 驻专讟 诇讻诇讗讬诐 讗讜 注讝 驻专讟 诇谞讚诪讛 讻讬 讬讜诇讚 驻专讟 诇讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讛讬讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 驻专讟 诇诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 转讞转 讗诪讜 驻专讟 诇讬转讜诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., the fact that those animals are not included in the animal tithe, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita that discusses offerings in general: 鈥淲hen a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, then it shall be seven days under its mother, but from the eighth day onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:27). The phrase 鈥渁 bull or a sheep鈥 serves to exclude an animal born from diverse kinds; 鈥渙r a goat鈥 serves to exclude an animal that resembles another, e.g., a sheep that is the offspring of two sheep but which looks like a goat, or vice versa; 鈥渨hen鈥s born鈥 serves to exclude an animal born by caesarean section; 鈥渢hen it shall be seven days鈥 serves to exclude an animal whose time has not yet arrived; 鈥渦nder its mother鈥 serves to exclude an orphan.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 转讞转 讛砖讘讟 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 转讞转 讗诪讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 驻专讟 诇讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 驻专讟 诇讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 驻专讟 诇讟专驻讛 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 驻专讟 诇讟专驻讛

The baraita continues: From where is it derived that these halakhot also apply to animal tithe? Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says it is learned by a verbal analogy from the term 鈥渦nder.鈥 It is stated here, with regard to animal tithe: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and it is stated there, with regard to all offerings: 鈥淯nder its mother鈥 (Leviticus 22:27). Just as there, in the case of all offerings, the verse serves to exclude all these categories, so too here, with regard to animal tithe, the verse serves to exclude all these categories. And just as here, with regard to animal tithe, the verse serves to exclude a tereifa, as the verse states: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod,鈥 and a tereifa is unable to pass unaided, so too there, with regard to all offerings, the verse serves to exclude a tereifa.

讛讻诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜讛诪讞讬专 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讬谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

搂 The Gemara asks: What does the mishna鈥檚 expansive term: All, serve to include? The Gemara answers that it serves to include this halakha that the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or an animal that was set aside for idol worship, or one that was worshipped as a deity, or one that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or a tumtum, i.e., an animal whose sexual organs are indeterminate, or a hermaphrodite, i.e., an animal displaying sexual organs of both sexes, all of these enter the pen to be tithed despite the fact that they are disqualified from being brought as offerings. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A tumtum and a hermaphrodite do not enter the pen to be tithed.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讗讬 讙诪专 转讞转 转讞转 诪拽讚砖讬诐 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 讛谞讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But as for the tanna of our mishna, if he derives the verbal analogy of: 鈥淯nder鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and: 鈥淯nder鈥 (Leviticus 22:27), from the verse referring to sacrificial animals, then these types listed in the baraita should also not enter the pen to be tithed, as they are all disqualified from being sacrificed. And if he does not derive the verbal analogy from sacrificial animals, from where does he derive the exemption of these categories listed in the mishna, e.g., one whose time has not yet arrived and an orphan?

诇注讜诇诐 讙诪讬专 讜讛谞讬 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪砖讞转诐 讘讛诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 诇讗 讬专爪讜 诇讻诐 讜转讗谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 讛砖讞转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, the tanna does derive the verbal analogy, but these categories listed in the baraita are included by the Merciful One in the animal tithe. As it is written with regard to those animals that may not be brought as offerings: 鈥淣either from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them鈥 (Leviticus 22:25). This verse indicates that corruption is considered a blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term: Corruption, is stated, it is a reference to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship.

讚讘专 注专讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛砖讞讬转 讻诇 讘砖专 讗转 讚专讻讜 注诇 讛讗专抓 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻谉 转砖讞讬转讜谉 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讻诐 驻住诇 转诪讜谞转 讻诇 住诪诇 转讘谞讬转 讝讻专 讗讜 谞拽讘讛

The baraita supports this claim: Corruption is a reference to a matter of licentiousness, as it is written with regard to the generation of the flood: 鈥淎nd God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth鈥 (Genesis 6:12). And corruption is also a reference to idol worship, as it is written: 鈥淟est you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image, the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:16).

讜讻诇 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讛讗讬 诪注砖专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讘拽专 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专谞讜 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘讬讛

And the juxtaposition of the word 鈥渃orruption鈥 with the word 鈥渂lemish鈥 in Leviticus 22:25 teaches that in any case where a blemish disqualifies an animal, a matter of licentiousness or a matter of idol worship also disqualifies it. And in a case where a blemish does not disqualify an animal, a matter of licentiousness or a matter of idol worship also does not disqualify it. And with regard to this animal tithe, since a blemish on an animal does not disqualify it, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall not inquire whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), a matter of licentiousness or a matter of idol worship also does not disqualify it.

专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 讚讘专 注专讜讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗转谞谉 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜诪讞讬专 讗讬转拽砖 诇讗转谞谉

The Gemara further explains that the categories listed in the baraita are either matters of licentiousness or matters of idol worship. An animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality are both a matter of licentiousness. An animal that was set aside for idol worship and one that was worshipped are cases of idol worship. And an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute is a matter of licentiousness, and an animal used as the price of a dog is juxtaposed to an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute (see Deuteronomy 23:19).

讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 拽住讘专 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗

Finally, with regard to an animal that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, the tanna holds that it is uncertain whether it is male or female, not a creature unto itself, and therefore a tumtum is also subject to the tithe.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 拽住讘专 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 讜谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪注砖专 谞诪讬 讙诪专 转讞转 转讞转 诪拽讚砖讬诐

The baraita states that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A tumtum and a hermaphrodite do not enter the pen to be tithed. The Gemara explains: He holds that the case of an animal that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite involves an uncertainty, and the Merciful One excluded cases of uncertainty with regard to sacrificial animals. Only a definite male or a definite female is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. Consequently, with regard to animal tithe too, they do not enter the pen to be tithed, as he derives the verbal analogy of 鈥渦nder鈥 and 鈥渦nder鈥 from sacrificial animals.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻诇 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讟专驻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讘专转讜转讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗谞讬 砖诪注转讬 讛讬诪谞讜 讗祝 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜讬转讜诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: All animals enter the pen to be tithed except for an animal crossbred from diverse kinds, e.g., a hybrid of a goat and a sheep, and a tereifa; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yehuda, of the village of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Akiva said: I heard from Rabbi Yehoshua that an animal born by caesarean section and an animal whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., that is less than eight days old, and an orphan animal, are also excluded from animal tithe.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬 讙诪专 转讞转 转讞转 诪拽讚砖讬诐 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讙诪专 讘砖诇诪讗 讟专驻讛 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘专 转讞转 讛砖讘讟 讻转讬讘 驻专讟 诇讟专驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专转 讗诇讗 讻诇讗讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna of the baraita, what does he maintain? If he derives the verbal analogy of 鈥渦nder鈥 and 鈥渦nder鈥 from sacrificial animals, then these categories listed by Rabbi Akiva should also not enter the pen to be tithed. And if he does not derive the verbal analogy, granted, he rules that a tereifa does not enter the pen to be tithed, as it is written: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), which excludes a tereifa, as it does not pass under the rod due to its physical state. But from where does he derive that an animal crossbred from diverse kinds does not enter the pen to be tithed?

诇注讜诇诐 讙诪专 讜讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does derive the verbal analogy of 鈥渦nder鈥 and 鈥渦nder,鈥 and therefore he excludes a tereifa and diverse kinds from the animal tithe. But with regard to an animal born by caesarean section

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that a human child born by caesarean section is a full-fledged offspring and renders its mother ritually impure with the impurity of childbirth. Likewise, with regard to an animal born by caesarean section, he holds the birth was a proper birth and the animal may be brought as an offering, and therefore it also enters the pen to be tithed. And this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that Rabbi Shimon concedes that an animal born by caesarean section is disqualified from being brought as an offering (see Nidda 40a).

讘诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讬转讜诐 讻讙讜谉 砖讛砖诇讞 拽讬讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讞讟 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讛砖诇讞 拽讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 讬转讜诐

And with regard to an animal whose time has not yet arrived, this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, who maintains that the obligation of animal tithe applies to such an animal. As for an orphan animal, he is referring to a case where the mother鈥檚 hide exists at birth, i.e., the mother鈥檚 hide is present after the birth, and therefore the animal is not considered an orphan. And Rabbi Yehoshua, whose opinion this tanna follows, conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: Even if its mother was slaughtered but its hide exists at birth, i.e., if the mother鈥檚 hide is present after the birth, this is not an orphan.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 住转专讬讗诇 诪注专拽转 诇讘讬谞讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘诪拽讜诪谞讜 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪转讛 讜诪诇讘讬砖讬谉 讗转 讛讞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转讙诇讛 讟注诪讗 砖诇 诪砖谞转讬谞讜

Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel, from a place called Arkat Leveina, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In our locale, if an animal dies while giving birth they flay the dead mother鈥檚 skin and clothe the living newborn animal with it for protection. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This testimony of yours reveals the reason for the ruling of the mishna that if the hide of the mother still exists the offspring is not considered to be an orphan; the hide serves as a substitute for the mother.

讞讝讬专讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诪谞讜 讬砖 诇讛诐 砖砖讬诐 专讘讜讗 拽诇驻讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛诪住住 砖诇讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞驻诇 讗专讝 讗讞讚 砖讘诪拽讜诪谞讜 讜注讘专讜 砖砖 注砖专讛 拽专讜谞讜转 注诇 讞讜讚讜 讗讞转

Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel also testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The lettuce in our locale has 600,000 leaves in its omasum, i.e., in its core. Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel further testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Once one cedar tree fell in our locale, and it was so wide that sixteen wagons passed over its back, meaning the width of its trunk, as one, i.e., side by side.

驻注诐 讗讞转 谞驻诇讛 讘讬爪转 讘专 讬讜讻谞讬 讜讟讘注讛 砖砖讬诐 讻专讻讬诐 讜砖讘专讛 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讗专讝讬诐 讜诪讬 砖讚讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讻谞祝 专谞谞讬诐 谞注诇住讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讜讝专转讗 讛讜讗讬

Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel also testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Once an egg of the bird called bar yokhani fell, and the contents of the egg drowned sixty cities and broke three hundred cedar trees. The Gemara asks: And does the bar yokhani bird throw its eggs to the ground? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he kenaf renanim bird rejoices, but are her wings and feathers those of the stork? For she leaves her eggs on the earth, and warms them in dust鈥 (Job 39:13鈥14)? The Sages understood that kenaf renanim is another name for the bar yokhani bird. If so, how could its egg fall if it lays its eggs on the ground? Rav Ashi said in explanation: That egg was unfertilized, and since it would never hatch the bird threw it to the ground.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 讙专谞讜转 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讘驻专住 讛驻住讞 讜讘驻专住 讛注爪专转 讜讘驻专住 讛讞讙 讜讛谉 讙专谞讜转 砖诇 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

MISHNA: There are three times during the year designated for gathering the animals that were born since the last date for animal tithe: Adjacent to Passover, and adjacent to Shavuot, and adjacent to Sukkot. And those are the gathering times for animal tithe; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讚专 讘讗讞讚 讘住讬讜谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 讘讗讞讚 讘住讬讜谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗诇讜诇 讜诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗诇讜诇 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讘讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇驻讬讻讱 讛拽讚讬诪讜讛讜 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗诇讜诇

Ben Azzai says the dates are: On the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that the dates are: On the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. And why did Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say the twenty-ninth of Elul, and why did they not say the first of Tishrei? It is due to the fact that the first of Tishrei is the festival of Rosh HaShana, and one cannot tithe on a Festival. Consequently, they brought it earlier, to the twenty-ninth of Elul.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讗讞讚 讘讗诇讜诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛讗诇讜诇讬诐 诪转注砖专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉

Rabbi Meir says: The beginning of the new year for animal tithe is on the first of Elul. Ben Azzai says: The animals born in Elul are tithed by themselves, due to the uncertainty as to whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, i.e., that the new year begins on the first of Elul, or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, which would mean that the new year begins on the first of Tishrei.

讻诇 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗诇讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讞诪砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇讗讞专 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谞谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讞诪砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讙讜专谉 讜讞诪砖讛 诇讗讞专 讛讙讜专谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专讜 砖诇砖 讙专谞讜转 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 砖注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讛讙讜专谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专 讜诇砖讞讜讟 讛讙讬注 讛讙讜专谉 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 驻讟讜专

According to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, with regard to all animals that are born from the first of Tishrei until the twenty-ninth of Elul, those animals join to be tithed together. If five were born before Rosh HaShana and five after Rosh HaShana, those animals do not join to be tithed together. If five were born before a time designated for gathering and five after that time designated for gathering, those animals join to be tithed together. If so, why were three times stated for gathering the animals for animal tithe? The reason is that until the time designated for gathering arrives it is permitted to sell and slaughter the animals. Once the time designated for gathering arrives one may not slaughter those animals before tithing them; but if he slaughtered an animal without tithing it he is exempt.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转诇转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 诇拽讘诇 讞讜专驻讬 讜讗驻诇讬 讜拽讬讬讟讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that there are three times during the year designated for gathering the animals born since the last date for animal tithe. The Gemara asks: What is different about these dates, i.e., why are there specifically three times designated in the year? Rabba bar Sheila said: There are three times in order to collect the animals born early in winter, and the animals born later in spring, and the animals born in the summer.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讛谞讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讻讜

The Gemara asks: And what is different about these three times, i.e., before Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, that they are chosen? Rabbi Tan岣m, son of Rav 岣yya, of the village of Akko, says:

Scroll To Top