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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 17, 2019 | 讬状讚 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • 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 61

If the tenth and eleventh comes out together and the owner calls them “tenth”, what are the different opinions regarding the halacha? If his messenger makes a mistake, is it the same as if the owner did, or is it different?


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

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬 讬拽专讬讘讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇

And the ruling of this tanna, who teaches: Both animals must be sacrificed, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one may bring sacrificial animals to a situation where the likelihood of disqualification is increased.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬 讬诪讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讟注讜转 诪注砖专 转诪讜专讛 讛讜讬讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转诪讜专转 诪注砖专 诪转讛

And the ruling of this tanna, who teaches: Both animals must die, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: When the owner makes a mistake in designating animal tithe, e.g., if one designates the ninth animal as the tenth, the designated animal has the status of a substitute animal. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that a substitute for an animal tithe must be left to die. Since it is uncertain which animal is the eleventh, both are left to die.

讜拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转诪讜专转 诪注砖专 诪转讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讛 转诪讜专讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 拽专讘 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 拽专讘

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that a substitute for an animal tithe must die? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Meir, in response to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: The eleventh animal is not considered a substitute for the animal tithe, since if it were a substitute it would not be sacrificed, as the substitute for an animal tithe is not sacrificed?By inference, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the eleventh animal is sacrificed, and not put to death, despite the fact that it has the status of a substitute animal.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讗讬 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 拽讗诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 注讜砖讛 拽讚讜砖讛 诇讬拽专讘 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 拽讚讜砖讛 诇讬拽专讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讚讜砖 诇讬拽专讘 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗 注讘讬讚 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 拽专讬讘

The Gemara continues: And if you would say that Rabbi Meir is saying his statement according to what he himself holds, and therefore nothing can be inferred from his comment with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that cannot be so; but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The difference between the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as animal tithe and a peace offering is only that this, the peace offering, renders a substitute sanctified to the extent that it can be sacrificed, but that, the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as animal tithe, does not render its substitute sanctified to be sacrificed; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara infers: It is stated only that the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe does not render its substitute sanctified with enough sanctity to be sacrificed, which indicates the eleventh animal itself is sacrificed and not put to death.

讜注讜讚 讚转谞讬讗 讗诐 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诇专讘讜转 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇砖诇诪讬诐

And furthermore, there is a source that indicates that Rabbi Yehuda holds that a mistakenly designated animal tithe is sacrificed, as it is taught in a baraita in the Sifra: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings: If he sacrifice of the herd, whether male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 3:1). This serves to include the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe; it must be sacrificed as a peace offering.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讛转砖讬注讬 讗诪专转 讜讻讬 讛拽讚砖 诇驻谞讬讜 诪拽讚砖 讗讜 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讚砖 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讚砖

One might have thought that I include even the ninth animal mistakenly designated as the tithe. You say in rejection of this suggestion: But does consecration sanctify a substitute before the original animal is sanctified, or does it sanctify only after the original animal is sanctified? You must say that it sanctifies only after the original animal is sanctified. If so, only the eleventh animal is sacrificed as a peace offering, but not the ninth.

住转诐 住讬驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诇专讘讜转 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇砖诇诪讬诐

And who is the author of the unattributed statement in the Sifra? It is Rabbi Yehuda. And the baraita is teaching that the verse: 鈥淚f he sacrifice of the herd, whether male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord,鈥 serves to include the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe, i.e., to teach that it must be sacrificed as a peace offering. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe must die.

讗诇讗 转专讙诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 转拽诇讛

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita that rules that in a case where two animals emerged together as the tenth, and the owner called them both the tenth, they must both die? It cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Abba, interpreted that baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: We are dealing with animal tithe in the present time, and the animals must die due to concern that a mishap might occur, as one might shear them or put them to work, or eat them before they develop a blemish.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讞讚 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讗讘诇 转专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬砖讛讬谞讛讜 注讚 讚谞讬驻讜诇 讘讛讜 诪讜诪讗 讜诇讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, why is the baraita referring specifically to a case where two animals left the pen at the same time? The same would hold true even with regard to one animal designated as tithe, as it cannot be sacrificed nowadays. The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to teach that in a case where one animal was designated as tithe it must die, as there is no major financial loss. But in a case where two animals were designated as tithe, since the loss is great one might think he should leave them until they develop a blemish, and then eat them. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that even in a case where two animals were designated as tithe, both must die.

讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜注砖专 注诇讬 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 注砖讬专讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讜专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬

It was stated: In the case of one who says to his agent: Go and separate animal tithe on my behalf, Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: If he called the ninth animal the tenth, it is sanctified and may not be eaten until it has developed a blemish. The owner is not particular about this error, as the animal is not rendered entirely prohibited. But if he designated the eleventh animal as the tenth it is not sanctified as a peace offering, as the owner would not tolerate losing the animal entirely. And Rav Pappa disagrees and says: Even if the agent called the ninth animal the tenth it is not sanctified, as the owner who sent him can say to him: I sent you to act for my benefit and not to my detriment. The authority to serve as an agent does not extend to a case where he acts to the detriment of the one who designated him.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜转专讜诐 转讜专诐 讻讚注转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara asks: And in what manner is the case of animal tithe different from that which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 4:4): With regard to one who says to his agent: Go and separate teruma, the agent separates teruma in accordance with the intention of the homeowner. He must separate the amount that he assumes the owner would want to give, as there is no fixed measure that one must set aside as teruma. A generous person gives as much as one-fortieth of his produce as teruma, while a stingy person can give one-sixtieth.

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转讜专诐 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讬诐 驻讬讞转 注砖专讛 讗讜 讛讜住讬祝 注砖专讛 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The mishna continues: If he does not know the intention of the homeowner he separates an intermediate measure, i.e., one-fiftieth of the produce. If he subtracted ten from the denominator and separated one-fortieth of the produce, or added ten to the denominator and separated one-sixtieth, his teruma is considered teruma. In this case too, the owner should also be able to say he did not send the agent to act to his detriment, and therefore the act of separating teruma should not take effect.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚转专讬诐 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转专讬诐 讘注讬谉 专注讛 讗诪专 诇讛讻讬 讗诪讚转讬讱 讛讻讗 讟注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇诪讬讟注讬

The Sages say in answer: There, with regard to teruma, since there are those who separate teruma generously and there are those who separate teruma sparingly, the agent can say: I estimated that you were one such as this, i.e., either generous or stingy. But here, with regard to animal tithe, it is a mistake, and therefore the owner can say: I did not want you to make a mistake.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讬讛 诪住讻转 讘讻讜专讜转

 

  • 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 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 61

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬 讬拽专讬讘讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇

And the ruling of this tanna, who teaches: Both animals must be sacrificed, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one may bring sacrificial animals to a situation where the likelihood of disqualification is increased.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬 讬诪讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讟注讜转 诪注砖专 转诪讜专讛 讛讜讬讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转诪讜专转 诪注砖专 诪转讛

And the ruling of this tanna, who teaches: Both animals must die, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: When the owner makes a mistake in designating animal tithe, e.g., if one designates the ninth animal as the tenth, the designated animal has the status of a substitute animal. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that a substitute for an animal tithe must be left to die. Since it is uncertain which animal is the eleventh, both are left to die.

讜拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转诪讜专转 诪注砖专 诪转讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讛 转诪讜专讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 拽专讘 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 拽专讘

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that a substitute for an animal tithe must die? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Meir, in response to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: The eleventh animal is not considered a substitute for the animal tithe, since if it were a substitute it would not be sacrificed, as the substitute for an animal tithe is not sacrificed?By inference, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the eleventh animal is sacrificed, and not put to death, despite the fact that it has the status of a substitute animal.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讗讬 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 拽讗诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 注讜砖讛 拽讚讜砖讛 诇讬拽专讘 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 拽讚讜砖讛 诇讬拽专讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讚讜砖 诇讬拽专讘 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗 注讘讬讚 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 拽专讬讘

The Gemara continues: And if you would say that Rabbi Meir is saying his statement according to what he himself holds, and therefore nothing can be inferred from his comment with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that cannot be so; but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The difference between the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as animal tithe and a peace offering is only that this, the peace offering, renders a substitute sanctified to the extent that it can be sacrificed, but that, the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as animal tithe, does not render its substitute sanctified to be sacrificed; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara infers: It is stated only that the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe does not render its substitute sanctified with enough sanctity to be sacrificed, which indicates the eleventh animal itself is sacrificed and not put to death.

讜注讜讚 讚转谞讬讗 讗诐 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诇专讘讜转 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇砖诇诪讬诐

And furthermore, there is a source that indicates that Rabbi Yehuda holds that a mistakenly designated animal tithe is sacrificed, as it is taught in a baraita in the Sifra: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings: If he sacrifice of the herd, whether male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 3:1). This serves to include the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe; it must be sacrificed as a peace offering.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讛转砖讬注讬 讗诪专转 讜讻讬 讛拽讚砖 诇驻谞讬讜 诪拽讚砖 讗讜 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讚砖 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪拽讚砖

One might have thought that I include even the ninth animal mistakenly designated as the tithe. You say in rejection of this suggestion: But does consecration sanctify a substitute before the original animal is sanctified, or does it sanctify only after the original animal is sanctified? You must say that it sanctifies only after the original animal is sanctified. If so, only the eleventh animal is sacrificed as a peace offering, but not the ninth.

住转诐 住讬驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诇专讘讜转 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇砖诇诪讬诐

And who is the author of the unattributed statement in the Sifra? It is Rabbi Yehuda. And the baraita is teaching that the verse: 鈥淚f he sacrifice of the herd, whether male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord,鈥 serves to include the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe, i.e., to teach that it must be sacrificed as a peace offering. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe must die.

讗诇讗 转专讙诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 转拽诇讛

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita that rules that in a case where two animals emerged together as the tenth, and the owner called them both the tenth, they must both die? It cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Abba, interpreted that baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: We are dealing with animal tithe in the present time, and the animals must die due to concern that a mishap might occur, as one might shear them or put them to work, or eat them before they develop a blemish.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讞讚 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讗讘诇 转专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬砖讛讬谞讛讜 注讚 讚谞讬驻讜诇 讘讛讜 诪讜诪讗 讜诇讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, why is the baraita referring specifically to a case where two animals left the pen at the same time? The same would hold true even with regard to one animal designated as tithe, as it cannot be sacrificed nowadays. The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to teach that in a case where one animal was designated as tithe it must die, as there is no major financial loss. But in a case where two animals were designated as tithe, since the loss is great one might think he should leave them until they develop a blemish, and then eat them. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that even in a case where two animals were designated as tithe, both must die.

讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜注砖专 注诇讬 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 注砖讬专讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讜专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬

It was stated: In the case of one who says to his agent: Go and separate animal tithe on my behalf, Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: If he called the ninth animal the tenth, it is sanctified and may not be eaten until it has developed a blemish. The owner is not particular about this error, as the animal is not rendered entirely prohibited. But if he designated the eleventh animal as the tenth it is not sanctified as a peace offering, as the owner would not tolerate losing the animal entirely. And Rav Pappa disagrees and says: Even if the agent called the ninth animal the tenth it is not sanctified, as the owner who sent him can say to him: I sent you to act for my benefit and not to my detriment. The authority to serve as an agent does not extend to a case where he acts to the detriment of the one who designated him.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜转专讜诐 转讜专诐 讻讚注转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara asks: And in what manner is the case of animal tithe different from that which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 4:4): With regard to one who says to his agent: Go and separate teruma, the agent separates teruma in accordance with the intention of the homeowner. He must separate the amount that he assumes the owner would want to give, as there is no fixed measure that one must set aside as teruma. A generous person gives as much as one-fortieth of his produce as teruma, while a stingy person can give one-sixtieth.

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转讜专诐 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讬诐 驻讬讞转 注砖专讛 讗讜 讛讜住讬祝 注砖专讛 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The mishna continues: If he does not know the intention of the homeowner he separates an intermediate measure, i.e., one-fiftieth of the produce. If he subtracted ten from the denominator and separated one-fortieth of the produce, or added ten to the denominator and separated one-sixtieth, his teruma is considered teruma. In this case too, the owner should also be able to say he did not send the agent to act to his detriment, and therefore the act of separating teruma should not take effect.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚转专讬诐 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转专讬诐 讘注讬谉 专注讛 讗诪专 诇讛讻讬 讗诪讚转讬讱 讛讻讗 讟注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇诪讬讟注讬

The Sages say in answer: There, with regard to teruma, since there are those who separate teruma generously and there are those who separate teruma sparingly, the agent can say: I estimated that you were one such as this, i.e., either generous or stingy. But here, with regard to animal tithe, it is a mistake, and therefore the owner can say: I did not want you to make a mistake.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讬讛 诪住讻转 讘讻讜专讜转

 

Scroll To Top