Bechorot Daf 16 (בכורות דף ט״ז)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (16a)

Segment 1

TYPE: גמרא

Completing 15b: the seifa’s ‘klalo shel davar’ adds the prohibition of milk

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לְאֵתוֹיֵי חֲלָבוֹ.

English Translation:

serves to include its milk in the prohibition, i.e., it is prohibited to consume milk of disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed.

קלאוד על הדף:

This finishes the sentence broken off at the end of 15b. The reisha’s general principle (‘like chullin in every respect’) added that slaughtering outside is exempt. The seifa’s principle (‘like hekdesh in every respect, except that they may be eaten’) adds that the milk of a redeemed animal consecrated before its blemish remains forbidden. This matches the baraita on 15a, where ‘meat’ was read as excluding milk.

Key Terms:

• לְאֵתוֹיֵי = to include / to add
• חֲלָבוֹ = its milk (not to be confused with חֶלְבּוֹ, its forbidden fat)

Segment 2

TYPE: דיוק

Inferences from the baraita: blemished offspring can be redeemed; dedication to the same offering is allowed

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר מָר: אֵין נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִין, וְאֵין מַתְפִּיסָן לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. תְּמִימִים הוּא דְּלָא מִיפַּרְקִי, הָא בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — מִיפַּרְקִי. לְכׇל שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הוּא דְּאֵין מַתְפִּיסָן, הָא לְאוֹתוֹ זֶבַח — מַתְפִּיסָן.

English Translation:

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said above: With regard to disqualified sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, their offspring are sacred and may not be redeemed while they are unblemished, and one may not dedicate them as any offering he desires. The Gemara infers: It is only unblemished offspring that one may not redeem, which indicates that one may redeem blemished offspring. Likewise, it is only for any offering he desires that he may not dedicate the offspring, but for the same offering as the mother, one may dedicate the offspring.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara reads the baraita’s seifa closely. ‘They are not redeemed unblemished’ implies that blemished offspring are redeemed. ‘They are not dedicated to any offering one wishes’ implies that they can be dedicated to the mother’s own offering. Each inference seems to teach something about what can be done with these offspring.

Key Terms:

• אָמַר מָר = the master said — quoting the baraita for analysis
• מִיפַּרְקִי = they are redeemed
• לְאוֹתוֹ זֶבַח = to the same offering as the mother

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא

The case fitting both inferences: dedicated to the same offering, then redeemed when blemished — a refutation of Rav Huna?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? דְּמַתְפִּיסָן לְאוֹתוֹ זֶבַח, וְנִפְדִּין בְּמוּמָן. נֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא?

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: How can you find a situation that includes both of these inferences? They apply in a case where one dedicates the unborn offspring as the same offering for which its mother was consecrated, and it may then be redeemed after having developed a blemish. The Gemara remarks: Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who maintains that the offspring cannot be redeemed and rules that one must leave them to die?

קלאוד על הדף:

Both inferences fit one scenario. The fetus was dedicated to its mother’s offering before her redemption, as Rabbi Chanina advised on 15b, and was later redeemed once it developed a blemish. If an offspring of this kind can be redeemed when blemished, that contradicts Rav Huna. He held on 15b that offspring born after the mother’s redemption can be neither offered nor redeemed and are left to die.

Key Terms:

• הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ = how can you find it? — seeking a case that fits
• תְּיוּבְתָּא = a conclusive refutation
• רַב הוּנָא = Rav Huna, a second-generation Babylonian amora, head of the academy in Sura

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ

Rav Huna: the seifa’s wording only mirrors the reisha; no inference may be drawn

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין אֵין נִפְדִּין, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים״ — תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא ״אֵין נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים״, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה״ — תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא ״לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה״.

English Translation:

Rav Huna could have said to you: The inferences upon which the refutation is based are false. Just as these unblemished offspring cannot be redeemed, the same is true with regard to blemished animals, as even blemished offspring cannot be redeemed. And since the former clause taught the phrase: They may be redeemed unblemished, the latter clause also taught the phrase: They may not be redeemed unblemished. And since the former clause taught: As any offering he desires, the latter clause also taught: As any offering he desires. According to Rav Huna, no inferences can be made from these rulings of the baraita because they were phrased in this manner for the sake of symmetry between its two sections, rather than to teach a specific halakha.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Huna rejects both inferences. The seifa said ‘not redeemed unblemished’ and ‘not for any offering he wishes’ only because the reisha said ‘redeemed unblemished’ and ‘for any offering he wishes’; the tanna kept the two halves parallel. This is the Gemara’s familiar ‘aidi’ device: a phrase can be explained as matching its counterpart rather than as teaching something of its own.

Key Terms:

• אַיְּידֵי = since — ‘since it taught X in the first clause, it taught Y in the second’
• הוּא הַדִּין = the same law applies
• רֵישָׁא / סֵיפָא = the first clause / the latter clause

Segment 5

TYPE: מימרא

Rav Huna reads ‘liable’ for slaughtering outside: dukin in the eye, following Rabbi Akiva

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר. רַב הוּנָא מַתְנֵי חַיָּיב, וּמוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּדוּקִין שֶׁבְּעַיִן, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.

English Translation:

It is stated: And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet. The Gemara notes: Rav Huna taught this as: One who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet, and he interprets it as referring to a case involving an animal with a minor blemish, such as on the cornea of the eye. And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Although animals with a minor blemish may not be sacrificed ab initio, if they ascended the altar they shall not descend and are sacrificed. Since an animal with a minor blemish is potentially suitable for sacrifice, one who slaughters it outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita’s reisha exempted one who slaughters a blemish-first animal outside the courtyard. Rav Huna’s version reads ‘liable,’ and he explains it as a case where the blemish was a minor film on the eye (דוקין שבעין). Rabbi Akiva holds that such an animal, once placed on the altar, is not taken down. Since it is fit for the altar after the fact, slaughtering it outside is an offence.

Key Terms:

• דּוּקִין שֶׁבְּעַיִן = a minor blemish on the cornea or white of the eye
• אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ = if they ascended the altar they do not descend
• רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא = Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef, the leading tanna of the third generation
• מַתְנֵי = teaches / reads the text as

Segment 6

TYPE: מימרא

Rav Nachman citing Rabba bar Avuh: a temura made after redemption must die

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בֵּין לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: וּתְמוּרָתוֹ לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנוֹ מֵתָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? הֵיכִי לֶיעְבֵּיד? לַיקְרְבַיהּ — מִכֹּחַ קְדוּשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה קָאָתְיָא, לִיפְרְקַהּ — לָא אַלִּימָא לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנָהּ, הִלְכָּךְ מֵתָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara continues analyzing the baraita, which teaches: Whether before its redemption or after its redemption, an animal whose consecration preceded its blemish renders an animal that was a substitute for it sacred. Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: And its substitute that was imbued with sanctity after its redemption must die. What is the reason? The Gemara explains: What are we to do? Shall we sacrifice it? It cannot be sacrificed, as it received its status from the deferred sanctity of the redeemed blemished animal and is therefore unfit for the altar. Shall we redeem it? It cannot be redeemed, as its sanctity is not strong enough to be transferable to the money for its redemption. Therefore, it must die.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita said a consecration-first animal makes a temura even after its redemption. Rav Nachman, citing Rabba bar Avuh, adds that such a temura is left to die. The reasoning is the same as Rav Huna’s on 15b. It cannot be offered because it came from sanctity already disqualified (קדושה דחויה), and it cannot be redeemed because that weak sanctity cannot pass onto money.

Key Terms:

• רַב נַחְמָן = Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, a third-generation Babylonian amora, judge in Nehardea
• רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ = Rabba bar Avuh, a second-generation Babylonian amora, teacher of Rav Nachman
• מֵתָה = it dies — it is confined until it dies
• הִלְכָּךְ = therefore

Segment 7

TYPE: קושיא

Rav Amram: let it be eaten in its blemish, like the temura of bechor and ma’aser

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב עַמְרָם: וְתִיתְּכִיל בְּמוּמָהּ לַבְּעָלִים! וְכִי מָה בֵּין זוֹ לִתְמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר? דִּתְנַן: תְּמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, הֵן וּוְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְיֵאָכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן לַבְּעָלִים!

English Translation:

Rav Amram objects to this: But let the substitute be eaten in its blemished state by the owners. After all, what is the difference between this substitute and the substitute of a firstborn or of an animal tithe offering, which may be eaten? The Gemara explains the question: As we learned in a mishna (Temura 21a): With regard to the substitute of a firstborn and of an animal tithe offering, both they, the substitutes themselves, and their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, forever, i.e., for all future generations, are like the firstborn and the animal tithe offering, respectively, and therefore they are eaten in their blemished state by the owners. Why is the blemished substitute of a firstborn or an animal tithe permitted whereas the substitute of a disqualified consecrated animal remains forbidden?

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Amram objects: the mishna in Temura (21a) rules that the substitute of a bechor or ma’aser, and all its descendants, are eaten by their owners once blemished, without redemption. Why should the temura of a redeemed pesul hamukdashin be treated more harshly than theirs?

Key Terms:

• רַב עַמְרָם = Rav Amram, a Babylonian amora of the second-third generation
• תִּיתְּכִיל = let it be eaten
• עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם = until the end of all time — every future generation
• לַבְּעָלִים = by the owners

Segment 8

TYPE: תירוץ

Abaye: each temura bears its ‘mother’s’ name — bechor and ma’aser are eaten blemished, so their substitutes are too

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: זֶה שֵׁם אִמּוֹ עָלָיו וְזֶה שֵׁם אִמּוֹ עָלָיו, זֶה כּוּלּוֹ תְּמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר מִיקַּרְיָא, מָה בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר בְּמוּמָן מִיתְאַכְלָן לַבְּעָלִים, אַף תְּמוּרָתָן מִיתְאַכְלָא.

English Translation:

Abaye said to Rav Amram: This one bears its mother’s name and that one bears its mother’s name, i.e., each substitute is subject to the same halakha as the animal for which it was substituted. This animal is entirely called a substitute of a firstborn or an animal tithe offering: Just as a firstborn and an animal tithe offering are eaten in their blemished state by the owners, so too, their substitute is eaten even when it is blemished.

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye answers that a temura takes on the status of the animal it was exchanged for (שם אמו עליו). A blemished bechor or ma’aser is eaten without any redemption, so its substitute is eaten the same way.

Key Terms:

• שֵׁם אִמּוֹ עָלָיו = its mother’s name is upon it — it takes the status of its source
• מִיקַּרְיָא = it is called

Segment 9

TYPE: תירוץ

Ordinary kodashim are eaten only through redemption — and this temura cannot be redeemed

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְזֶה שֵׁם אִמּוֹ עָלָיו, תְּמוּרַת קָדָשִׁים מִיקַּרְיָא, מָה קָדָשִׁים לָא מִיתַּכְלִי אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן — אַף תְּמוּרָתָן נָמֵי לָא מִיתַּכְלִי אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן, וְהָא לָא אַלִּימָא לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנַהּ.

English Translation:

And likewise, this substitute for a redeemed animal whose consecration preceded its blemish bears its mothers name, i.e., it is called the substitute of a sacrificial animal: Just as sacrificial animals are eaten only once they have been rendered permitted through redemption, so too, their substitutes are also eaten only through redemption. But the sanctity of this particular substitute is not strong enough to be transferable to money for its redemption, and therefore it cannot be redeemed. Consequently, it may not be eaten.

קלאוד על הדף:

The substitute of an ordinary sacrifice takes its status from an animal that may be eaten only after redemption. Redemption is exactly what this temura’s weak sanctity cannot undergo. So the path that permits its ‘mother’ is closed to it, and it cannot be eaten at all. The difference from bechor and ma’aser is that they never needed redemption in the first place.

Key Terms:

• בְּפִדְיוֹן = through redemption
• לָא אַלִּימָא = it is not strong enough
• לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנַהּ = to have its redemption take hold, transferring its sanctity to money

Segment 10

TYPE: ברייתא

Support for Rav Nachman: ‘tamei’ in Vayikra 11:4 — a kosher-signed animal forbidden to eat

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: מִנַּיִן לִתְמוּרַת פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁמֵּתָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה… טָמֵא״, הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת! הָהוּא מִ״מַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה טָמֵא״ נָפְקָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman: From where is it derived with regard to the substitute of disqualified consecrated animals that it must die? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Nevertheless, these you shall not eat, of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have a split hoof…it is impure to you” (Leviticus 11:4). The extraneous phrase “impure to you” indicates that there exists an animal which possesses the signs of a kosher animal but is nevertheless prohibited in consumption, and that is the substitute of a disqualified consecrated animal. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t that extraneous phrase necessary for the halakha of the five sin offerings that are left to die, which may not be eaten? The Gemara answers: No; that halakha is derived from the phrase: “Of them that only have a split hoof…is impure.”

קלאוד על הדף:

A baraita finds the rule in the verse on animals that only chew the cud: the apparently extra ‘it is impure’ teaches that an animal with kosher signs can still be forbidden, namely the temura of pesulei hamukdashin. The objection that the verse is needed for the five sin offerings left to die is answered by assigning those to the parallel phrase about split hooves.

Key Terms:

• מַעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה = animals that chew the cud
• מַפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה = animals with split hooves
• חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת = the five sin offerings left to die: offspring of a chatat, temura of a chatat, a chatat whose owner died, one whose owner achieved atonement with another, and one that aged past its year

Segment 11

TYPE: ברייתא

Another baraita derives the five sin offerings from ‘split hoof’ — but they are a halacha l’Moshe; the verse must be for temurat asham

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מִנַּיִן לְחָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה… טָמֵא״. חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת, הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא קְרָא לִתְמוּרַת אָשָׁם.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that there are five sin offerings that are left to die? The verse states: “Of them that have a split hoof…is impure to you,” which indicates that there is a second category of animals that possess the signs of a kosher animal, but that are nevertheless prohibited in consumption. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t the category of the five sin offerings that are left to die a halakha learned as a tradition, not from a verse? Rather, when that verse came, it came to teach that the substitute of a guilt offering may not be sacrificed and is left to graze until it develops a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

A second baraita confirms that ‘split hoof… impure’ refers to the five sin offerings. The Gemara objects that these are known by oral tradition (הלכתא גמירי לה) and need no verse, and suggests the verse teaches instead that a guilt offering’s substitute is not offered but grazes.

Key Terms:

• הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ = it is learned as a tradition (halacha l’Moshe miSinai)
• תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם = the substitute of a guilt offering
• תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = it was also taught thus

Segment 12

TYPE: קושיא

But temurat asham is also tradition: whatever dies for a chatat grazes for an asham

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם נָמֵי הִילְכְתָא הִיא, כֹּל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה — בָּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה!

English Translation:

The Gemara raises a further objection: The halakha of a substitute for a guilt offering is also a halakha learned as a tradition, as stated in the principle: In any case where a sin offering is left to die, a guilt offering is left to graze. Since the substitute of a sin offering is left to die, it is established by tradition that the substitute of a guilt offering is left to graze, and therefore no verse is required to teach this halakha.

קלאוד על הדף:

That suggestion also fails, because the rule for a guilt offering’s substitute is itself part of the tradition. The rule is that whatever is left to die in the case of a chatat is left to graze in the case of an asham. So the verse still needs a subject.

Key Terms:

• כֹּל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה בָּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה = whatever dies for a sin offering grazes for a guilt offering
• רוֹעֶה = grazes — until blemished, then sold and the money used for a voluntary offering

Segment 13

TYPE: תירוץ

Resolution: both the verse and the tradition are needed — the tradition for ‘death’, the verse for a lav

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת, וְאִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא וְאִצְטְרִיךְ הִילְכְתָא, דְּאִי מִקְּרָא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לִרְעִיָּיה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הִילְכְתָא לְמִיתָה. וְאִי מֵהִילְכְתָא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הֵיכָא דַּעֲבַד אִיקְּרִי וַאֲכַל מֵהָנֵי חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת — אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, לָאו לֵיכָּא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיכָּא לָאו.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: Rather, the verse is actually the source for a halakha that applies to the five sin offerings left to die. And both a verse is necessary and the halakha learned as a tradition is also necessary to determine the final course of action that one should take. The Gemara elaborates: If the concept of the five sin offerings had been derived from the verse alone, I would say that the five sin offerings are left to graze. Therefore, the halakha learned through tradition teaches us that they are left to die. And if this ruling were based only on the halakha learned as a tradition, I would say: In a case where one happened to eat from one of these five sin offerings, there is a prohibition that he violated, but not a negative mitzva, for which one is liable to receive lashes. The verse therefore teaches us that there is a negative mitzva here as well.

קלאוד על הדף:

The verse does refer to the five sin offerings, and both sources are needed. From the verse alone one might think these animals graze; the tradition teaches that they are left to die. From the tradition alone one might think eating them is a prohibition without lashes; the verse makes it a lav, punishable by lashes.

Key Terms:

• אִצְטְרִיךְ = it is necessary
• אִיקְּרִי וַאֲכַל = he happened to eat
• אִיסּוּרָא = a prohibition, without the penalty of lashes
• לָאו = a negative commandment punishable by lashes

Segment 14

TYPE: תירוץ אחר

Alternatively: a hekesh — what comes from ‘cud-chewers’ is compared to what comes from ‘split hooves’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי דָּבָר הַבָּא מִמַּעֲלֵי גֵּרָה לְדָבָר הַבָּא ״מִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמִיתָה — אַף כָּאן בְּמִיתָה.

English Translation:

And if you wish, say instead that the halakha of the five sin offerings left to die is in fact a halakha learned as a tradition, and therefore no verse is required for its own sake. Rather, the verse: “Of them that have a split hoof,” serves to juxtapose an item that comes, i.e., that is derived, from the mention of animals who chew their cud, referring to the substitutes of disqualified consecrated animals, with an item that comes from animals who have a split hoof, referring to the five sin offerings: Just as there, the sin offerings are left to die, so too here, the substitutes are left to die.

קלאוד על הדף:

A second answer: the five sin offerings rest on tradition alone. The verse’s function is to link its two halves. The case derived from ‘chews the cud,’ the temura of pesulei hamukdashin, is compared to the case derived from ‘split hoof,’ the sin offerings left to die. As they die, so does it, which confirms Rav Nachman’s ruling.

Key Terms:

• לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי = to compare through a hekesh
• מָה לְהַלָּן… אַף כָּאן = just as there… so too here

Segment 15

TYPE: משנה

New mishna: one who receives ‘iron sheep’ from a gentile…

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ הַמְקַבֵּל צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִן הַגּוֹי —

English Translation:

MISHNA: With regard to one who receives animals as part of a guaranteed investment from a gentile, i.e., the Jew receives the animals to raise them and commits to pay a fixed price at a later date even if they die or their value decreases, and the offspring born in the interim are divided between the gentile and the Jew,

קלאוד על הדף:

A new mishna, still within the second perek, introduces tzon barzel (‘iron sheep’). A Jew takes a gentile’s flock to raise at a fixed guaranteed value; the principal is always owed to the gentile whatever happens to the animals, and the offspring are shared. The question is how the gentile’s claim affects the bechor obligation. The ruling follows on 16b.

Key Terms:

• צֹאן בַּרְזֶל = ‘iron sheep’ — an investment whose principal value is guaranteed, as unbreakable as iron
• הַמְקַבֵּל = one who receives / takes on
• גּוֹי = a gentile — animals owned by a gentile are exempt from bechora

Amud Bet (16b)

Segment 1

TYPE: משנה

Offspring exempt, grandchildren obligated; one more generation if offspring were set in place of mothers; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: even ten

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין, וַלְדֵי וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן חַיָּיבִין. הֶעֱמִיד וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן — וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וּוַלְדֵי וַולְדֵי וְולָדוֹת חַיָּיבִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה פְּטוּרִים, שֶׁאַחְרָיוּתָן לַנׇּכְרִי.

English Translation:

their direct offspring are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn if they give birth to a male, but the offspring of their direct offspring are obligated in the mitzva of the firstborn if they gave birth to a male. If the Jew established their offspring in place of their mothers for collection in case the mothers die, the offspring of their direct offspring are exempt and the offspring of the offspring of their direct offspring are obligated. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even until ten generations, the offspring are exempt, as they all serve as a guarantee for the gentile, because if he does not receive the fixed payment for the animal, he will collect his debt from any offspring born to it or its offspring.

קלאוד על הדף:

The direct offspring are exempt, because the gentile could seize them for his debt; the next generation is obligated. If the Jew formally designated the offspring as security in place of their mothers, the exemption extends one more generation. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that every generation, even ten down, is exempt, since the gentile’s guarantee reaches all of them.

Key Terms:

• הֶעֱמִיד… תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן = he set up the offspring in place of their mothers as security
• אַחְרָיוּתָן = their liability / their being security for the debt
• רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל = Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II, Nasi in the fourth generation of tannaim

Segment 2

TYPE: משנה

A ewe that bore a goat-like animal, or a goat that bore a sheep-like one — exempt; with some signs — obligated

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְעֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיָּיב.

English Translation:

A ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. And if the offspring has some of the characteristics of its mother, it is obligated in the mitzva of firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna adds a separate law. The Torah’s firstborn of ‘a sheep’ or ‘a goat’ must be the same species as its mother. An offspring that looks like a different species is exempt, but if it has some of its mother’s features it is obligated.

Key Terms:

• רָחֵל = a ewe
• עֵז = a goat
• מִקְצָת סִימָנִין = some of the identifying features of its mother’s species

Segment 3

TYPE: שאלה

Does this mean that, until the owner is paid, the flock remains in the owner’s possession?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ לְמֵימְרָא, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא נָקֵט מָרָא זוּזֵי — בִּרְשׁוּתָא דְּמָרָא קָיְימָא?

English Translation:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that animals given to a Jew as a guaranteed investment by a gentile are not subject to their offspring being counted a firstborn because they belong to the gentile. The Gemara suggests: Is this to say that since the owner did not yet take the money that will be owed to him, the investment itself stands in the owner’s possession, i.e., the owner is still regarded as such?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks what the mishna implies. Exempting the offspring suggests that until the gentile has been paid, the animals are still legally his.

Key Terms:

• לְמֵימְרָא = is this to say?
• מָרָא = the owner
• בִּרְשׁוּתָא = in the possession / ownership of

Segment 4

TYPE: קושיא

Contradiction: tzon barzel from a Jew is forbidden as ribbit — so the flock belongs to the recipient

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּרְמִינְהוּ: אֵין מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רִבִּית, אַלְמָא בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִּמְקַבֵּל קָיְימָא!

English Translation:

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this conclusion from a mishna (Bava Metzia 70b): One may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, in which the terms of the transaction dictate that the one accepting the item takes upon himself complete responsibility to repay its value in the event of depreciation or loss, but receives only part of the profit. This is because it is a loan, as the principal is fixed and always returned to the owner, and any additional sum the owner receives is interest. The Gemara remarks: Evidently, the investment stands in the possession of the recipient, as otherwise it would not be considered a loan.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna in Bava Metzia (70b) forbids taking tzon barzel from a fellow Jew because it is ribbit (interest). That classification implies the recipient owns the flock and merely owes a fixed sum, like a borrower. The two mishnayot seem to assign ownership differently.

Key Terms:

• וּרְמִינְהוּ = and they contrasted it — introducing a contradiction between sources
• רִבִּית = interest, forbidden between Jews
• אַלְמָא = evidently
• מְקַבֵּל = the recipient

Segment 5

TYPE: תירוץ

Abaye: here the owner accepted risk of accident and depreciation; there he did not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, וְהָא דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא.

English Translation:

Abaye said: This is not difficult. This case, i.e., the mishna here, is where the gentile owner of the sheep accepts upon himself the responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation in the market value, and that is why the sheep are considered to still belong to him. And that case, the mishna in Bava Metzia, is where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. Therefore, the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient.

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye distinguishes the cases. Where the gentile owner bears the risk of accidents (אונסא) and falling prices (זולא), the flock is still his, so our mishna exempts it. In Bava Metzia the owner took on no risk, so the arrangement is a loan with interest.

Key Terms:

• אוּנְסָא = loss through accident beyond one’s control
• זוֹלָא = a fall in market value
• קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ = accepted upon himself

Segment 6

TYPE: קושיא

Rava: then it isn’t ‘iron sheep’ at all — and why state it without qualification?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, ״צֹאן בַּרְזֶל״ קָרֵית לֵיהּ? וְעוֹד, מַאי פַּסְקָא?

English Translation:

Rava said to Abaye: If the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, can you call it a guaranteed investment? This case is not a guaranteed investment, as the owner is not guaranteed to receive what he had given; rather, it is a type of joint business venture that is permitted between two Jews. And furthermore, if the term: Guaranteed investment, can refer to two different kinds of investments, then why was it stated without qualification in both mishnayot?

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava objects twice. First, an arrangement in which the owner bears the risk is not ‘iron’ at all: it is a partnership, permitted even between Jews. Second, if the term covered two different arrangements, neither mishna could have used it without qualification (מאי פסקא).

Key Terms:

• רָבָא = Rava, a fourth-generation Babylonian amora and Abaye’s colleague
• מַאי פַּסְקָא = what is conclusive? — why state it without qualification?
• קָרֵית לֵיהּ = do you call it

Segment 7

TYPE: קושיא

And the Bava Metzia mishna should have distinguished within the Jewish case itself

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְעוֹד, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא אֲבָל מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִן הַגּוֹי — לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, אֲבָל קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי!

English Translation:

Rava continued: And furthermore, even if one grants that this arrangement can be called a guaranteed investment, there is another difficulty. Instead of the tanna teaching in the latter clause of the mishna in Bava Metzia: But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, let the tanna distinguish and teach within the case itself, that of accepting a guaranteed investment from a Jew. He should have taught: In what case is this statement, i.e., that one may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, said? It is in a case when the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, but if the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, one may well enter into such an arrangement.

קלאוד על הדף:

Third, if Abaye were right, the mishna in Bava Metzia should have drawn the distinction within its own case. It would have said that tzon barzel from a Jew is forbidden only when the owner bears no risk. Instead it moves to a different case, a gentile, and that shows the term has only one meaning.

Key Terms:

• אַדְּתָנֵי = instead of teaching
• לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ = let it distinguish and teach within the case itself
• בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים = in what case are these words said?
• שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי = it is entirely permitted

Segment 8

TYPE: תירוץ

Rava: in both the owner bears no risk; the exemption is ‘yad akum ba’emtza’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, וְהָכָא גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרָה הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דְּאִילּוּ אָתֵי גּוֹי בָּעֵי זוּזֵי וְלָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ — תָּפֵיס לַהּ לִבְהֵמָה, וְאִי לָא מַשְׁכַּח לַהּ לִבְהֵמָה — תָּפֵיס וְלָדוֹת דִּידַהּ, וַהֲרֵי יַד גּוֹי בָּאֶמְצַע, וְכֹל יַד גּוֹי בָּאֶמְצַע — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

English Translation:

Rather, Rava rejected this explanation and said: Both this case in the mishna here and that case in Bava Metzia are discussing a situation where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. And here, with regard to the firstborn, this is the reason that the offspring are exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn: Since, if the gentile comes and wants his money, and the Jew does not give it to him, the gentile will seize the animal, and if he does not find the animal he will seize the offspring, this means that the hand of a gentile is in the middle, i.e., even though the animals stand in the possession of the recipient, the gentile has some degree of ownership over the bodies of the offspring. And there is a halakha: In every case where the hand of a gentile is in the middle, the animal is exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava’s own answer is that in both mishnayot the flock belongs to the recipient. The offspring are still exempt from bechora because the gentile, if unpaid, will seize the animal or, failing that, its young. The gentile’s claim of repayment from the animal’s body puts ‘a gentile’s hand in the middle,’ and any such involvement exempts from bechora.

Key Terms:

• יַד גּוֹי בָּאֶמְצַע = a gentile’s hand is in the middle — he has some claim on the animal
• תָּפֵיס = he seizes
• אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי = both this and that

Segment 9

TYPE: מחלוקת

When offspring were not set in place of the mothers: Rav Huna — one generation exempt; Rav Yehuda — two

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הֶעֱמִיד וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן — וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִים. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וַולְדֵי (ולדותיהן) [וְלָדוֹת] חַיָּיבִין. וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת נָמֵי פְּטוּרִין, וַולְדֵי וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת חַיָּיבִין.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches: If the Jew established their offspring in place of their mothers for collection in case the mothers die, the offspring of their direct offspring are exempt. The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to animals involved in a guaranteed investment, in a case where the Jew did not establish their offspring in the place of their mothers. Rav Huna says: Their direct offspring are exempt, but the offspring of their direct offspring are obligated. And Rav Yehuda says: The offspring of their direct offspring are also exempt, and the offspring of the offspring of their direct offspring are obligated.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna’s clause about setting the offspring in place of the mothers leads to an amoraic dispute about the case where he did not. Rav Huna exempts only the direct offspring. Rav Yehuda exempts the grandchildren as well, and obligates only the third generation.

Key Terms:

• רַב יְהוּדָה = Rav Yehuda bar Yechezkel, a second-generation Babylonian amora, founder of the Pumbedita academy
• וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת = offspring of the offspring — the second generation

Segment 10

TYPE: קושיא

Objection to Rav Yehuda: the mishna exempts the grandchildren only when he set them in place of the mothers

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תְּנַן: הֶעֱמִיד וְלָדוֹת תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן — וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין. טַעְמָא דְּהֶעֱמִיד, הָא לֹא הֶעֱמִיד — לָא. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרַב יְהוּדָה!

English Translation:

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. We learned in the mishna: If the Jew established their offspring in place of their mothers for collection in case the mothers die, the offspring of their direct offspring are exempt. The Gemara infers: The reason they are exempt is that he established the offspring in place of their mothers; but if he did not establish them in place of their mothers, they are not exempt. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna tied the grandchildren’s exemption to setting the offspring in place of their mothers. By implication, without that step the grandchildren are obligated, which fits Rav Huna and refutes Rav Yehuda. (The English translation says ‘Rabbi Yehuda’ here; the amora meant is Rav Yehuda.)

Key Terms:

• תְּנַן = we learned in the mishna
• טַעְמָא דְּ… = the reason is that… — an inference from the stated condition

Segment 11

TYPE: תירוץ

Rav Yehuda: the same is true without designation; the mishna teaches that even with it, no more than two generations

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר לָךְ רַב יְהוּדָה: הוּא הַדִּין, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הֶעֱמִיד, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֲפִילּוּ הֶעֱמִיד נָמֵי.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda could have said to you: That inference is incorrect, as the same is true even though he did not establish the offspring in place of their mothers. In that case as well, the offspring of their offspring are exempt. And this is what the mishna is teaching us by stating the halakha in that manner: Even if he established the offspring in place of the mother, only the first two generations of offspring are exempt, but not all successive generations.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Yehuda answers that the grandchildren are exempt either way. The mishna mentioned the designation to set a limit: even when the offspring were pledged in place of their mothers, the exemption still stops after two generations.

Key Terms:

• אַף עַל גַּב = even though
• אֲפִילּוּ הֶעֱמִיד נָמֵי = even if he did set them up

Segment 12

TYPE: גמרא

Why that needed saying: one might think a gentile ordinarily seizes descendants of every generation

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּגוֹי לְמִיתְפַּס בְּנָהּ, וְהָוֵי כְּמִי דְּלֹא הֶעֱמִיד — וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וַולְדֵי וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת חַיָּיבִין.

English Translation:

And it is necessary to teach this halakha that although he established the offspring in place of their mothers all successive generations are not exempt, as one might think that it is the normal manner of the gentile to seize not only the direct offspring, but her young of any generation as payment, which would mean that all successive generations are exempt. And therefore the mishna teaches that he is like one who did not establish the offspring in place of the mother, which means that the offspring of the direct offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the direct offspring are obligated.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara explains why the limit needs stating. One might have assumed that a designation, together with the gentile’s habit of seizing any young, would exempt every later generation. The mishna teaches that it is treated like no designation: two generations exempt, the third obligated.

Key Terms:

• אוֹרְחֵיהּ = his normal practice
• לְמִיתְפַּס בְּנָהּ = to seize her young
• כְּמִי דְּלֹא הֶעֱמִיד = like one who did not set them up

Segment 13

TYPE: קושיא

Objection to Rav Huna from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s ‘even ten’ — the daf breaks off mid-argument (continues on 17a)

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תְּנַן: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דּוֹרוֹת פְּטוּרִין, שֶׁאַחְרָיוּתָן לַנׇּכְרִי. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: נָחֵית תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְדָרֵי —

English Translation:

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna. We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even until ten generations the offspring are exempt, as they serve as a guarantee for the gentile, because if he does not receive the fixed payment for the animal he will collect his debt from any offspring born to it or its offspring. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s use of the term: Even, indicates that he disagrees with the first tanna only with regard to how many generations of offspring are exempt, but both agree that at least some generations are exempt. Granted, according to Rav Yehuda, who says that, in exempting from firstborn status, the first tanna descended to two generational levels,

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s ‘even up to ten generations’ implies that the first tanna also exempts more than one generation, and that they disagree only about how far the exemption reaches. This fits Rav Yehuda, for whom the first tanna already goes down two generations. The Gemara is about to show the difficulty for Rav Huna when the daf ends; the argument continues on 17a.

Key Terms:

• בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted — introducing the view that fits, before the one that does not
• נָחֵית… לְדָרֵי = descended to generations — extended the exemption downward
• תַּנָּא קַמָּא = the first tanna — the anonymous opinion in the mishna

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 16 finishes the long baraita that compares the two kinds of פסולי המוקדשין (disqualified consecrated animals) and then moves to a new mishna, still within the second perek. The daf opens with the end of the sentence left open on 15b: the seifa’s כללו של דבר comes to add the animal’s milk, which stays forbidden even after redemption. The gemara then goes through the baraita’s rulings on animals consecrated before their blemish. First it asks whether the baraita’s wording refutes Rav Huna. Then Rav Huna emends “exempt” to “liable” for slaughtering outside. Last comes the temura made after redemption, which Rav Nachman, citing Rabba bar Avuh, rules must die. Rav Amram challenges that ruling from the temura of a bechor and ma’aser, and Abaye answers him. A baraita derives the ruling from “טמא” in Vayikra 11:4, which leads to a discussion of the five חטאות מתות (sin offerings left to die) and the temura of an asham. The new mishna deals with צאן ברזל (a guaranteed investment) received from a gentile, and with a ewe that gives birth to a goat-like animal. The gemara reconciles the mishna with Bava Metzia, where a צאן ברזל from a Jew is ribbit. Rava’s explanation, יד גוי באמצע (a gentile’s hand in the middle), wins out over Abaye’s. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda then argue over how many generations are exempt, and the daf breaks off in the middle of an objection to Rav Huna.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• Milk: the seifa’s כללו של דבר includes the milk of an animal consecrated before its blemish. The milk stays forbidden even after the animal is redeemed.
• Inferences against Rav Huna: the baraita says the offspring “may not be redeemed unblemished” and “may not be dedicated to any offering one wishes.” This seems to imply that blemished offspring may be redeemed and may be dedicated to the mother’s own offering. That would refute Rav Huna, who sends such offspring to die.
• “איידי”: Rav Huna answers that the baraita chose this phrasing only to match the reisha (“redeemed unblemished,” “any offering one wishes”). Wording chosen for symmetry teaches nothing, and even blemished offspring cannot be redeemed.
• Slaughter outside: Rav Huna reads “liable” in place of “exempt.” He places the case in an animal with a דוקין שבעין (minor blemish on the cornea), following R’ Akiva, who holds that such an animal is not removed once it has gone up on the altar. Because it could still be offered, slaughtering it outside carries karet.
• Temura after redemption: the animal makes a temura both before and after redemption. Rav Nachman, citing Rabba bar Avuh, says that a temura made after redemption must die. It cannot be offered, because it comes from a קדושה דחויה (deferred sanctity). It cannot be redeemed either, because its sanctity is too weak to pass into redemption money.
• Rav Amram’s challenge: let it be eaten by the owners once it is blemished, like the temura of a bechor or ma’aser. Those, with their offspring “to the end of the world,” are eaten in their blemish (Temura 21a).
• Abaye’s answer, “שם אמו עליו” (it bears its mother’s name): a temura follows the rules of the animal it was exchanged for. A bechor and ma’aser are eaten when blemished without redemption, so their temura is too. Kodashim are eaten only through redemption, and this temura cannot be redeemed, so it is never eaten.
• Baraita supporting Rav Nachman: “ממעלי הגרה… טמא” (Vayikra 11:4) points to an animal that has kosher signs and is still forbidden, which is the temura of pesulei hamukdashin. The five חטאות מתות come from “ממפריסי הפרסה… טמא.”
• Verse or tradition? The five sin offerings are a הלכה (tradition), so the verse was said to teach the temura of an asham. But that is also a tradition: whatever dies in the case of a chatat grazes in the case of an asham. The answer is that both are needed. From the verse alone one would think the sin offerings graze, and the tradition teaches that they die. From the tradition alone one would think eating them is only an issur, and the verse adds a lav.
• Alternative: the verse sets up a hekesh (juxtaposition) between the cud-chewer case (the temura) and the split-hoof case (the five sin offerings). Just as the sin offerings die, so does the temura.

Amud Bet Highlights

• The mishna: when a Jew receives צאן ברזל from a gentile, the direct offspring are exempt from bechora and the grandchildren are obligated. If he set the offspring in place of the mothers, one more generation is exempt. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even ten generations are exempt, “שאחריותן לנכרי” (they are security for the gentile).
• Mixed species: a ewe that bears a goat-like animal, or a goat that bears a ewe-like one, is exempt. If the young has some of its mother’s signs, it is obligated.
• Contradiction: the mishna treats the animals as still in the gentile’s possession. The Bava Metzia mishna forbids taking צאן ברזל from a Jew because it is ribbit, which means the animals belong to the recipient.
• Abaye: here the owner accepted אונסא וזולא (accident and depreciation), so the animals remain his. In Bava Metzia he did not.
• Rava’s three objections: (1) if the owner bears accidents and depreciation, the arrangement is not “צאן ברזל” at all. (2) “מאי פסקא”: if the term covered two arrangements, why do both mishnayot use it without qualification? (3) Bava Metzia should then have made the distinction inside the Jewish case, and not by contrasting it with the gentile.
• Rava’s explanation: in both mishnayot the owner did not accept the risk. The exemption comes from יד גוי באמצע. If the Jew does not pay, the gentile seizes the animal, and if it is gone he seizes its offspring. Wherever a gentile has such a hold, the animal is exempt from bechora.
• Generations when he did not set them in place: Rav Huna says the offspring are exempt and the grandchildren obligated. Rav Yehuda says the grandchildren are also exempt and only the great-grandchildren are obligated.
• Objection to Rav Yehuda: the mishna exempts the grandchildren only when he set the offspring in place of the mothers. Rav Yehuda answers that the same is true without it, and the mishna teaches that “even if he set them,” one does not go further. One might have thought a gentile seizes young of any generation.
• Objection to Rav Huna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says “even” ten generations, which suggests that the tanna kamma already exempts more than one generation. Rav Yehuda’s view fits, since his tanna kamma goes down two levels. The daf ends there, and the argument continues on 17a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

The seifa’s כללו של דבר adds the milk. Rav Huna turns aside the inferences from the baraita as symmetrical phrasing. He also reads “liable” for slaughter outside, following R’ Akiva on דוקין שבעין. Rav Nachman’s ruling that a temura made after redemption dies stands. Abaye defends it with “שם אמו עליו,” and a baraita supports it from “טמא.” The gemara concludes that the verse and the tradition about the five חטאות מתות are both needed, or else that the verse sets up a hekesh. In the new mishna, Rava’s יד גוי באמצע reconciles the firstborn exemption with the ribbit prohibition in Bava Metzia, and Abaye’s distinction is rejected. Rav Yehuda answers the objection from the mishna’s “set in place” clause. The objection to Rav Huna from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s “even” is left open at the end of the daf, and the gemara continues it on 17a.

Key Figures

Tannaim: R’ Akiva, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the tanna kamma of the mishna, the tanna of the baraitot

Amoraim: Rav Huna, Rav Nachman, Rabba bar Avuh, Rav Amram, Abaye, Rava, Rav Yehuda

One-Line Takeaway

Holiness and ownership both carry forward through a line of animals: a temura bears its mother’s name, and a gentile’s claim on a herd reaches into the next generations until it finally runs out.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Yesterday’s daf stopped mid-sentence, and today we get the missing word: milk! Then the Gemara wraps up its long look at holy animals that got a blemish, including a poor “stuck” animal that can’t go anywhere. Halfway through, a brand-new mishna starts, about a business deal with a gentile called “iron sheep,” and a very funny-looking lamb. The daf ends in the middle of an argument about family trees of sheep.

Quick Recap: Holy, Then Blemished 🏷️

Remember our main characters from the last few dapim?

פסולי המוקדשין (pesulei hamukdashin, “disqualified holy animals”) are animals that were dedicated as perfect offerings and then got a permanent מום (mum, a blemish, like a torn ear or a broken leg). They can’t go on the altar anymore.

So they get redeemed, which means someone pays money for them, the holiness moves onto the money, and the animal can now be eaten. But it never becomes 100% ordinary. It keeps a little “holy shadow.”

Daf 15 ended with a baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna that isn’t in the Mishna) saying: “They’re like holy animals in all matters, except that you may eat them.” The Gemara asked: what hidden case does that “general rule” add? And then… the page ended.

The Simple Idea 💡: Disqualified holy animals are “holy with permission to eat,” and we’re about to find out one more thing that stays holy about them.

The Missing Word: Milk! 🥛

Here’s the answer to yesterday’s cliffhanger. The phrase “they’re like holy animals in all matters” comes to include its milk.

Even after the animal is redeemed, you may not drink its milk. You can eat the meat once it’s slaughtered, but the milk is off-limits, just like the milk of a fully holy animal.

Think of it like… a museum that lets you eat lunch in its café. You can have your sandwich, but you still can’t take the paintings home.

The Simple Idea 💡: A redeemed disqualified holy animal may be eaten, but its milk stays forbidden.

Reading Between the Lines 🔍

Now the Gemara zooms in on another line of the same baraita. It said the babies of these holy-then-blemished animals:

• “may not be redeemed while they’re perfect (unblemished),” and
• “may not be dedicated as any offering you like.”

The Gemara plays a game called “what does it not say?”

• It says they can’t be redeemed while perfect. So… maybe they can be redeemed once they’re blemished?
• It says they can’t be dedicated as any offering you like. So… maybe they can be dedicated as the same offering as their mother?

Put those together and you get a neat plan: dedicate the unborn baby as the same offering its mother was, and later, when it gets a blemish, redeem it. No problem at all!

But wait! Remember Rav Huna from yesterday? He said these “stuck” babies can’t be redeemed, so they must be put in a room and left to die. This baraita seems to say they can be redeemed. Is Rav Huna refuted?

The Simple Idea 💡: By reading what the baraita doesn’t say, the Gemara finds a plan that seems to contradict Rav Huna.

Rav Huna’s Defense: “It Just Sounds Nice!” 🎵

Rav Huna has an answer. He says: don’t read too much into those words!

The baraita has two halves. The first half (about the other kind of animal, the one blemished before it was dedicated) said “they may be redeemed while perfect” and “you may dedicate them as any offering you like.”

So when the baraita wrote the second half, it just flipped those same phrases: “they may not be redeemed while perfect,” “you may not dedicate them as any offering you like.” The Tanna (the Mishna-era teacher) was keeping the two halves matching, like a rhyme. He wasn’t hinting that blemished babies can be redeemed. According to Rav Huna, even blemished ones can’t be.

Think of it like… a poster that says “Big kids MAY ride the rollercoaster” and right under it “Little kids may NOT ride the rollercoaster.” Nobody thinks the second line means little kids can ride the carousel-coaster in the back. The words were just chosen to match the first line.

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav Huna says the baraita’s wording was chosen for symmetry, so you can’t draw conclusions from it.

Tiny Blemish, Big Consequence 👁️

The baraita also said: if someone slaughters one of these animals outside the Temple courtyard, he is פטור (patur, exempt).

Why would you ever be punished for slaughtering outside? Because there’s a serious rule: a real offering must be slaughtered inside the Temple. Slaughtering a real offering outside brings כרת (karet, being “cut off,” a very serious spiritual punishment from Heaven).

But Rav Huna had a different version of the text. He read it as חייב (chayav, liable)! How can that be?

He explains that the baraita is talking about an animal with a tiny blemish, like a small spot on the clear part of the eye. And it follows Rabbi Akiva, who says: animals with such a tiny blemish shouldn’t be brought to the altar in the first place, but “if they went up, they don’t come down.” In other words, if someone already put it on the altar, it stays and is offered.

So an animal like that is almost a proper offering. And slaughtering an “almost offering” outside the Temple is serious enough to bring karet.

Think of it like… a soccer ball with a tiny scuff. The referee would rather you use a brand-new ball, but if the game already started with it, nobody stops the match. It still counts as a real game ball.

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav Huna reads “liable,” because an animal with a tiny eye blemish could still be offered if it got onto the altar, so slaughtering it outside is a real offense.

The Stuck Substitute 🔒

Time for a new word: תמורה (temura, “substitute”). If someone tries to swap a holy animal for a different animal (“let this one replace that one”), the swap doesn’t work the way he wanted. The holy animal stays holy, and the new animal becomes holy too!

The baraita says a holy-then-blemished animal can create a temura both before and after it’s redeemed.

Rav Nachman, quoting Rabba bar Avuh, adds a sad detail: a temura made after redemption must die. Why? What else could we do with it?

• Offer it on the altar? No. Its holiness came from an animal whose holiness had already been “pushed aside” by a blemish. It isn’t fit for the altar.
• Redeem it? No. Its holiness is too weak to “jump” onto money.

It can’t go up, and it can’t go out. So it’s left to die.

Think of it like… a copy of a copy of a photo. The first copy was already blurry. The copy made from it is so faint you can’t use it for anything, but you’re also not allowed to throw it away and pretend it’s blank paper.

The Simple Idea 💡: A substitute made after redemption can’t be offered and can’t be redeemed, so it must die.

Rav Amram’s Challenge and Abaye’s Name Tag 📛

Rav Amram objects: why not just let the owners eat it once it has a blemish?

He points to another case. There’s a mishna (in Masechet Temura) that says the substitute of a בכור (bechor, a firstborn animal that belongs to the kohen) or of מעשר (ma’aser, the animal tithe, where every tenth animal is holy) is treated exactly like the bechor or ma’aser. So are its babies, and their babies, forever! And a blemished bechor or ma’aser is eaten by its owners. So why can’t our substitute be eaten too?

Abaye answers with a lovely idea: every substitute carries its mother’s name.

• A substitute of a bechor or ma’aser is called “the substitute of a bechor or ma’aser.” A blemished bechor or ma’aser is eaten without being redeemed. So its substitute is eaten too.
• Our substitute is called “the substitute of a holy offering.” Holy offerings can only be eaten after redemption. So its substitute also needs redemption to be eaten. But its holiness is too weak to be redeemed! So it can never be eaten.

Think of it like… a kid wearing his big brother’s team jersey. Whatever rules apply to that team apply to him too. If his brother’s team gets free pizza, so does he. If his brother’s team needs a ticket to get in, he needs a ticket too. And if the ticket booth won’t sell him one… he’s stuck outside.

The Simple Idea 💡: A substitute follows the rules of the animal it replaced, and since our substitute needs a redemption it can never get, it can’t be eaten.

The Word “Tamei” 🐪🐷

A baraita supports Rav Nachman: where do we learn that this substitute must die?

From the famous verse about which animals are kosher (Vayikra 11:4): “Of those that chew the cud, or of those that have a split hoof… it is tamei (impure) to you.”

Kosher animals need both signs: chewing the cud and split hooves. The Torah lists animals like the camel (chews cud, no split hoof) and the pig (split hoof, doesn’t chew cud). But the Sages noticed the extra words “it is tamei to you,” and they read them as a hint: there are animals that have both kosher signs and are still forbidden!

• From “chews the cud… tamei” we learn: the substitute of a disqualified holy animal is forbidden.
• From “split hoof… tamei” we learn: the five sin offerings that are left to die are forbidden.

What are the five sin offerings left to die? A חטאת (chatat, a sin offering) in these five situations: its baby, its substitute, one whose owner died, one whose owner already got atonement with a different animal, and one that grew older than a year. They can’t be offered, so they’re left to die.

The Simple Idea 💡: Two “extra” phrases in the kosher-animal verse teach that some animals with both kosher signs are still forbidden: our stuck substitute and the five sin offerings.

Verse or Tradition? Why Not Both! 📜

But wait! The Gemara objects: we already know about the five sin offerings from a הלכה (halacha, here meaning a law passed down by tradition from Moshe, not written in a verse). Why do we need a verse?

Maybe, the Gemara suggests, the verse is really about the substitute of an אשם (asham, a guilt offering). That one isn’t left to die. It’s left to graze in the field until it gets a blemish, and then it’s sold.

No, that’s also a tradition! There’s a rule: “whenever a sin offering is left to die, a guilt offering is left to graze.”

So the Gemara goes back: the verse is about the five sin offerings, and we need both the verse and the tradition. Here’s why:

Or, another answer: the tradition really does teach the five sin offerings, and the verse is there to link the two “tamei” phrases together. Just as the “split hoof” animals (the five sin offerings) must die, so too the “chews the cud” animals (our substitute) must die.

Think of it like… a recipe that says “bake it” and a grandma who says “at 180 degrees.” You need both! One tells you what to do, and the other tells you exactly how.

The Simple Idea 💡: The verse and the tradition each teach something the other one doesn’t, or the verse links our substitute to the five sin offerings so both must die.

New Mishna: The “Iron Sheep” Deal 🐑⛓️

Now a brand-new topic! First, a reminder: a bechor (firstborn male) of a cow, sheep or goat belongs to the kohen. But this only applies if the mother belongs to a Jew. If a gentile owns the animal, or even owns a part of it, there’s no bechor.

The mishna talks about צאן ברזל (tzon barzel, “iron sheep”). Here’s the deal:

1. A gentile gives a Jew a flock of sheep to take care of.
2. The Jew promises to pay back a fixed price later, no matter what. Even if the sheep die or become worth less, he still owes the full amount.
3. Meanwhile, the babies born along the way are split between them.

It’s called “iron” because the gentile’s money is as solid as iron. It can never be lost.

The mishna rules:

• The babies of these sheep are exempt from bechor.
• The grandbabies are obligated.
• If the Jew set the babies up “in place of their mothers” (meaning: “if a mother dies, you can collect from her babies instead”), then the grandbabies are exempt too, and only the great-grandbabies are obligated.
• Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: even up to ten generations are exempt, because they all serve as the gentile’s guarantee.

Think of it like… borrowing your neighbor’s bike with a promise: “If it breaks, I’ll pay you back.” Until you pay, your neighbor still has a claim on it. You can’t really say it’s all yours.

The Simple Idea 💡: When a gentile’s money is “tied up” in the animals, their babies don’t count as fully Jewish-owned, so they’re exempt from bechor.

The Surprise Lamb 🐐🐑

The mishna has one more quick case. A ewe (female sheep) gives birth to something that looks like a goat, or a goat gives birth to something that looks like a sheep.

That baby is exempt from bechor. The Torah speaks of a firstborn of a sheep or a goat, and it seems the baby should be the same kind as its mother. But if the baby has some of its mother’s signs, it is obligated.

Think of it like… a puppy who looks like a kitten. If it still has a little bit of the family look, you know it’s hers.

The Simple Idea 💡: A baby that looks like a totally different species than its mother isn’t a bechor, unless it shares some of her features.

The Big Puzzle: Whose Sheep Are They? 🤔

Now the Gemara spots a problem.

Our mishna seems to say: since the gentile hasn’t gotten his money back yet, the sheep are still his. That’s why their babies are exempt.

But in Bava Metzia, a mishna says: you may not make an “iron sheep” deal with a Jew, because it’s רבית (ribbit, interest on a loan, which the Torah forbids between Jews). Why is it interest? Because the owner always gets his full money back plus a share of the babies. It’s as if he lent money and got extra. And that only makes sense if the sheep belong to the Jew taking care of them, like a borrower!

So which is it? Do the sheep belong to the owner or to the caretaker?

The Simple Idea 💡: One mishna treats “iron sheep” as the owner’s, and another treats them as the caretaker’s. The Gemara wants to know how both can be true.

Abaye’s Answer and Rava’s Three Objections ⚔️

Abaye says: they’re two different deals.

• In our mishna, the owner agreed to take the risk of accidents and price drops. So the sheep are still really his.
• In Bava Metzia, the owner took no risk. So the sheep are really the caretaker’s, and it’s a loan with interest.

Rava isn’t convinced. He has three objections:

1. That’s not “iron” anymore! If the owner can lose money from accidents or price drops, his money isn’t guaranteed. Why call it “iron sheep”? It’s just a regular partnership.
2. Why didn’t the mishnayot say so? If “iron sheep” can mean two different deals, both mishnayot should have told us which one they meant. They just say “iron sheep” plainly.
3. Bava Metzia should have said it! That mishna ends: “but you may make an iron sheep deal with a gentile.” If Abaye were right, it should have made the difference within the Jewish case: “This is forbidden only when the owner takes no risk. If he takes the risk, it’s fine.”

The Simple Idea 💡: Abaye splits the two mishnayot into two different deals, but Rava shows three reasons that doesn’t fit.

Rava’s Answer: A Gentile’s Hand in the Middle ✋

So Rava gives his own answer. Both mishnayot are about the same deal, where the owner takes no risk. The sheep really do belong to the Jewish caretaker. That’s why, between Jews, it’s interest.

So why are the babies exempt from bechor? Because of what might happen:

• If the gentile comes for his money and the Jew doesn’t pay, the gentile will grab the sheep.
• If he can’t find the sheep, he’ll grab their babies.

So the gentile has a kind of “grip” on those animals. Rava calls this יד גוי באמצע (yad goy ba’emtza, “the gentile’s hand is in the middle”). And there’s a rule: any animal with a gentile’s hand in the middle is exempt from bechor.

Think of it like… a trampoline in your backyard that you bought with your uncle’s loan. It’s yours. You jump on it every day. But if you don’t pay him back, he can come and take it. His hand is still “on” it a little, so you can’t say it’s 100% free and clear.

The Simple Idea 💡: The sheep belong to the Jew, but because the gentile can seize them or their babies, his “hand is in the middle,” and that’s enough to exempt them from bechor.

The Sheep Family Tree 🌳

Now the Gemara looks at the generations. Two Amoraim argue about the case where the Jew did not set the babies up “in place of their mothers”:

• Rav Huna: the babies are exempt, the grandbabies are obligated.
• Rav Yehuda: the grandbabies are exempt too. Only the great-grandbabies are obligated.

Here’s a family-tree chart. “Exempt” means no bechor; “obligated” means a firstborn male goes to the kohen.

Challenge to Rav Yehuda: the mishna says grandbabies are exempt because the Jew set them up “in place of their mothers.” That suggests that if he didn’t, they wouldn’t be exempt. Isn’t Rav Yehuda refuted?

Rav Yehuda answers: no. Grandbabies are exempt either way. The mishna is teaching something else: even if he set them up “in place of their mothers,” it stops at the grandbabies. You might have thought that a gentile usually grabs any young animal of the flock, great-great-grandbabies included, so every generation would be exempt. The mishna tells us no: it’s just like the case where he didn’t set them up. Grandbabies exempt, great-grandbabies obligated.

Think of it like… a family photo with a “reserved” sticker. You might think the sticker covers every cousin forever. But the rule says it only reaches down two rows of the family.

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav Huna says the gentile’s grip reaches one generation, Rav Yehuda says two, and Rav Yehuda explains why the mishna’s wording doesn’t disprove him.

To Be Continued… ⏸️

Now it’s Rav Huna’s turn to be challenged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said “even up to ten generations.” That word “even” suggests he’s arguing with the first Tanna only about how many generations, and that the first Tanna also went down more than one level.

The Gemara starts: “That works nicely for Rav Yehuda, who says the first Tanna went down generations (more than one)…”

…and the page ends right there! How the Gemara finishes this challenge against Rav Huna waits for us on daf 17.

Think of it like… a TV show that ends with “Previously on…” and then “To be continued.” You’ll have to tune in tomorrow!

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s word “even” seems to fit Rav Yehuda better, and we’ll see how the Gemara handles Rav Huna next time.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• Cliffhanger solved: “Like holy animals in all matters” adds that the milk of a redeemed disqualified holy animal stays forbidden.
• Rav Huna’s defense: the baraita’s “may not be redeemed while perfect” and “not as any offering you like” were just worded to match the first half, so you can’t learn that blemished babies may be redeemed.
• Rav Huna reads “liable” for slaughtering outside, about an animal with a tiny eye blemish, following Rabbi Akiva: “if they went up, they don’t come down.”
• Rav Nachman (quoting Rabba bar Avuh): a temura made after redemption can’t be offered or redeemed, so it must die.
• Rav Amram asks: why not eat it, like a bechor’s or ma’aser’s substitute? Abaye: every substitute carries its mother’s name, and ours needs a redemption it can never get.
• “It is tamei to you”: “chews the cud” teaches our substitute is forbidden; “split hoof” teaches the five sin offerings left to die. The verse and the tradition are both needed (die, not graze; a full lav, not just a prohibition), or the verse links the two cases.
• New mishna, “iron sheep”: babies of a gentile’s guaranteed-investment flock are exempt from bechor, grandbabies obligated; if set up “in place of their mothers,” grandbabies exempt too; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: up to ten generations.
• Surprise lamb: a ewe that births a goat-like baby (or vice versa) is exempt, unless the baby shares some of its mother’s signs.
• The puzzle with Bava Metzia: with a Jew, iron sheep is ribbit. Abaye splits the two deals; Rava raises three objections and says instead: the gentile’s hand is in the middle, and that exempts from bechor.
• Family tree: Rav Huna says only the babies are exempt; Rav Yehuda says the grandbabies too. Rav Yehuda defends himself, and the challenge to Rav Huna from “even ten generations” continues on daf 17!

⚖️ Halacha

The Opening Rulings: Milk and Offspring of Redeemed Disqualified Animals

Source in Daf: 16a, Segment 1 (לאתויי חלבו) and Segments 2-4 (the inference “תמימים הוא דלא מיפרקי, הא בעלי מומין מיפרקי” and Rav Huna’s reply)

These two threads close the discussion that began on the previous dapim, and the relevant codifications have already been quoted there. The prohibition on the milk of altar-consecrated animals appears in Hilchot Me’ilah 3:12 (cited on daf 15), and the rule that a redeemed disqualified animal “remains in its prohibition until it is slaughtered” (הרי היא באיסורה עד שתשחט) appears in Hilchot Me’ilah 1:9 (cited on daf 14). The Rambam does not state separately that the milk of a redeemed disqualified animal is forbidden. That prohibition fits his rule that nothing is permitted before slaughter, since the Torah’s permission is “תזבח ואכלת בשר,” meat after slaughter, and not milk. On the offspring, the Rambam in Hilchot Isurei Mizbeach 1:11 (cited on daf 15) rules that an offspring conceived before redemption and born after it “אסור ואינו נפדה.” That is Rav Huna’s position, and it matches his answer in Segment 4, that the baraita’s “unblemished” was written only to parallel its first clause. The Rambam’s only remedy is the one R’ Chanina proposed: dedicate the fetus, just before the mother’s redemption, as the same offering.

Slaughtering Outside: Only What Is Fit for the Altar

Source in Daf: 16a, Segment 5 (והשוחטן בחוץ פטור; Rav Huna teaches “חייב” and explains it as דוקין שבעין, following R’ Akiva’s “אם עלו לא ירדו”)

Rambam — Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 18:6

Hebrew:

אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים הָרְאוּיִין לִקָּרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ אֶחָד מֵאִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹ מֵחַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ד) “לִפְנֵי מִשְׁכַּן ה’” וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבוֹא אֶל מִשְׁכַּן ה’ אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו:

English:

He is not liable unless he slaughtered sacrificial animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. If, however, he slaughtered an animal that was forbidden [to be offered on] the altar or one of the sin-offerings that was consigned to death outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt. [The rationale is that Leviticus 17:4] mentions “before the Sanctuary of God.” Whenever [an animal] is not fit to come to the Sanctuary of God, one is not liable [for its slaughter].

Connection: This is the principle behind the baraita’s “השוחטן בחוץ פטור.” Karet for slaughtering outside (שחוטי חוץ) applies only to an animal “fit to come before the Sanctuary of God.” The offspring of a disqualified sacrificial animal can never be offered, since it “comes from the power of deferred sanctity” (Isurei Mizbeach 1:11). So one who slaughters it outside is exempt, and the Rambam states the rule plainly, as the baraita does. The halacha also names the חטאות המתות, the five sin offerings discussed later on this daf, as exempt for the same reason.

Rambam — Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 3:5

Hebrew:

וְכֵן קֹמֶץ הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. וְכָל אִסּוּרֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁעָלוּ יֵרְדוּ לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין מִתְּחִלָּתָן:

English:

Similarly, a handful of meal from a meal-offering that was not consecrated in a sacred vessel and all entities that are forbidden to be offered on the altar should be taken down from the altar even if they were brought up, because from the outset, they were not fit [to be offered on the pyre].

Connection: Rav Huna’s alternative reading (“חייב”) depends on R’ Akiva’s view that an animal with a minor eye blemish (דוקין שבעין) “if it ascended, shall not descend.” Only on that view is such an animal “fit for the altar” after the fact, so that slaughtering it outside carries karet. The Rambam states no such exception. He rules categorically that all issurei mizbeach that went up must come down, “since they were not fit from the outset.” He does not quote R’ Akiva’s leniency for דוקין, so Rav Huna’s scenario has no place in his code, and the baraita’s plain “פטור” stands. (The Sefaria translator, Rabbi Eliyahu Touger, notes that the commentaries ask why blemished animals are not listed here explicitly, and suggests they fall under the general category of issurei mizbeach.)

Rambam — Hilchot Isurei Mizbeach 2:8

Hebrew:

יֵשׁ שָׁם אַרְבָּעָה חֳלָיִים אֲחֵרִים אִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם בִּבְהֵמָה אֵין מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הַמֻּבְחָר וְהַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (דברים יב-יא) “מִבְחַר נְדָרֶיךָ”. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁבְּלֹבֶן עֵינוֹ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׂעָר. אִם נִגְמְמוּ קַרְנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִזִּכְרוּתָן מְעַט סָמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר. אִם נִפְגְּמוּ חִטָּיו הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ בְּקָדָשִׁים לֹא קְרֵבִין וְלֹא נִפְדִּין. אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם. וְאִם הִקְרִיבָן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהֻרְצוּ:

English:

There are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the “choice,” and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] “from the chosen of your vows.” They are: a) an animal with an eruption in the white of its eye, but it does not have hair growing from it; b) the substance of the horns of an animal was reduced, but their inner fibrous tissue remained; c) the substance of its inner tonsils were reduced; or d) its inner tonsils shriveled. If a consecrated animal had one of these blemishes, it is neither sacrificed nor redeemed. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a [disqualifying] blemish. If it was sacrificed, it appears to me that it is acceptable.

Connection: This is the Rambam’s closest analogue to the “minor blemish” Rav Huna has in mind. It is a flaw in the eye that does not reach the level of a true mum, so the animal is not offered at the outset but is acceptable after the fact (“ואם הקריבן יראה לי שהורצו”). The Rambam does not identify these flaws with the Gemara’s דוקין שבעין. He also does not address whether slaughtering such an animal outside carries karet. But the structure is the one Rav Huna needs: an animal that may not be offered at the outset yet is not fully disqualified. For such an animal, liability for shechutei chutz would follow the reasoning of 18:6 (“fit to come before the Sanctuary”). Note too the practical outcome, “neither offered nor redeemed, but grazes until it becomes blemished.” This is the same “in-between” status the daf keeps returning to.

”It Bears Its Mother’s Name”: Substitutes of Firstborn, Tithe and Disqualified Animals

Source in Daf: 16a, Segments 6-9 (Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuh: the substitute made after redemption dies; Rav Amram’s challenge from Temura 21a; Abaye: זה שם אמו עליו)

The ruling of Rav Nachman itself, that the substitute made after redemption “is neither offered nor redeemed, but left until it dies, since it comes from deferred sanctity and its sanctity is too weak to be transferred to its redemption money,” is codified almost word for word in Hilchot Temurah 3:4 (cited on daf 15). What is new here is Abaye’s distinction, which the Rambam codifies just before it, in 3:1-2.

Rambam — Hilchot Temurah 3:2

Hebrew:

תְּמוּרַת הַבְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֲנִים וּתְמוּרַת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר לַבְּעָלִים. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶן מוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ כָּךְ אֵין פּוֹדִים תְּמוּרָתָן:

English:

An animal to which the holiness of a firstborn is transferred should be given to the priests and an animal to which the holiness of a tithe offering was transferred is given to its owners. Just as a firstborn animal or a tithe offering that contracts a disqualifying physical blemish is not redeemed, as explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, so too, an animal to which their holiness is transferred is not redeemed.

Connection: This is Abaye’s “זה שם אמו עליו” in codified form. The substitute takes on the halachic identity of the animal it replaced (“כשם… כך”). A blemished firstborn or tithe animal is never redeemed; it is simply eaten in its blemish. So its substitute is not redeemed either and is eaten the same way, with the substitute of a firstborn going to the kohen and that of a tithe animal to the owner. The substitute of an ordinary disqualified sacrifice also “bears its mother’s name.” But its mother became permitted only through redemption, and a substitute made after redemption is too weak to hold redemption money (Temurah 3:4), so it has no way to become permitted and must die. Rav Amram’s challenge is answered by the contrast between the two halachot, 3:2 and 3:4.

Rambam — Hilchot Temurah 4:6

Hebrew:

וְלַד הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. [וּוְלַד] תְּמוּרַת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וְלַד תְּמוּרַת הַבְּכוֹר וּוַלְדֵי וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר וּכְמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶן מוּם. וַלְדוֹת תְּמוּרַת הַבְּכוֹר לְכֹהֵן. וַלְדוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר וּתְמוּרָתוֹ לִבְעָלָיו:

English:

The offspring born to an animal selected as a tithe offering, the offspring of an animal to which the holiness of a tithe offering was transferred, and the offspring of an animal to which the holiness of a firstborn animal was transferred, and the offspring of their offspring until the end of time should not be offered. Instead, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish and then they should be eaten according to the laws applying to a blemished firstborn animal and tithe offering. The offspring of an animal to which the holiness of a firstborn animal was transferred belongs to the priest. The offspring of an animal selected as a tithe offering and the offspring of an animal to which the holiness of a animal designated as a tithe offering was transferred belong to the owner.

Connection: This is the mishna from Temura 21a that Rav Amram quotes in Segment 7: “תמורת בכור ומעשר, הן וולדן וולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם, הרי הן כבכור ומעשר, ויאכלו במומן לבעלים.” The Rambam preserves even the phrase “עד סוף העולם.” Each generation carries the identity of the original firstborn or tithe animal. It is never offered, waits for a blemish, and is then eaten “like a blemished firstborn and tithe.”

The Five Sin Offerings That Die, and the Substitute of a Guilt Offering

Source in Daf: 16a, Segments 10-14 (the baraita from “ממעלי הגרה… טמא”; חמש חטאות מתות as הלכתא גמירי לה; כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה; the verse adds a lav)

Rambam — Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:1

Hebrew:

וְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ וְחַטָּאת שֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת אַחַר שֶׁכִּפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יָמוּתוּ… וְכֵיצַד הֵן מֵתוֹת. לֹא שֶׁיַּהַרְגֵם בִּכְלִי אוֹ בְּיָדוֹ אֶלָּא יַכְנִיסֵם לְבַיִת וְנוֹעֵל עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ. וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ כֻּלָּם מִפִּי משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ נִשְׁמְעוּ…

English:

[All of the following:] a) the offspring of [an animal designated as] a sin-offering, b) an animal exchanged for [an animal designated as] a sin-offering, c) [an animal designated as] a sin-offering whose owner dies, and d) such animal that was lost and then found only after the owner secured atonement, should be consigned to die… What is meant by being consigned to death? Not that one should kill them with a utensil or by hand. Instead, they should be brought into a room, locked inside, [and left] until they die. All of these matters were conveyed by Moses our teacher…

Connection: The Gemara in Segment 12 objects: “חמש חטאות מתות הילכתא גמירי לה,” the five sin offerings that die are a tradition, not a derivation from a verse. The Rambam agrees: “all of these matters were conveyed by Moses our teacher.” He attributes the rule to the Oral Tradition and cites no verse. (His list here gives four cases; the fifth, a sin offering whose year has passed, is treated in the halachot that follow in the chapter.) The Gemara’s conclusion, that the verse “ממפריסי הפרסה… טמא” is still needed to add a lav for one who eats them (Segment 14), is not stated explicitly in the Rambam’s codification of these animals. His definition of “consigned to death,” locked in a room rather than killed, explains why they are “left to die” and not slaughtered. The substitute of a sin offering appears in this list (תמורת חטאת), which is the reference point for Rav Nachman’s baraita: the substitute of a disqualified sacrifice is compared to it (“מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה,” Segment 15).

Rambam — Hilchot Temurah 3:1 (excerpt)

Hebrew:

…תְּמוּרַת הַחַטָּאת תָּמוּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין. תְּמוּרַת הָאָשָׁם תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה… תְּמוּרַת הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֵינָם קְרֵבִין לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּבְכוֹר (ויקרא כז כו) (ויקרא כז ל) “לַה’ הוּא”. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ הוּא קָרֵב וְאֵין תְמוּרָתוֹ קְרֵבָה. וְדִין הַמַּעֲשֵׂר בִּבְכוֹר תְּמוּרָתָן תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתֵאָכֵל:

English:

…An animal to which the holiness of a sin-offering was transferred should be consigned to death, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim. An animal to which the holiness of a guilt-offering was transferred should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Then it should be sold and freewill offerings brought with the proceeds of the sale… An animal to which the holiness of a firstborn offering or a tithe offering was transferred should never be sacrificed. This is derived from Leviticus 27:26 which states with regard to a firstborn: “It is God’s.” According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: “It” is sacrificed, but an animal to which its holiness is transferred is not sacrificed. The laws pertaining to the tithe offering are the same as those pertaining to the firstborn offering. An animal to which the holiness of these offerings was transferred should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Afterwards, it may be eaten.

Connection: Two of the daf’s rules appear here side by side. The substitute of a sin offering dies, and the substitute of a guilt offering grazes until blemished. This is the tradition “כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה,” which the Gemara uses in Segment 13 to show that no verse is needed for תמורת אשם. The closing clause, on firstborn and tithe substitutes being “eaten” after a blemish, is the premise of Rav Amram’s challenge in Segment 7.

Tzon Barzel from a Gentile: “The Hand of a Gentile Is in the Middle”

Source in Daf: 16a, Segment 15 and 16b, Segment 1 (the mishna); 16b, Segments 3-8 (Abaye and Rava; “יד גוי באמצע פטורה מן הבכורה”); 16b, Segments 9-13 (Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda on the generations)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:4

Hebrew:

הַמְקַבֵּל צֹאן מִן הַנָּכְרִי בְּמָמוֹן קָצוּב וּפָסַק עִמּוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַשָּׂכָר בֵּינֵיהֶם וְאִם פִּחֲתוּ פִּחֲתוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם וַהֲרֵי הֵם כְּקִנְיָנוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאִם לֹא יִמְצָא הַנָּכְרִי אֶצְלוֹ מָמוֹן אַחֵר לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ יִגְבֶּה מִן הַבְּהֵמוֹת הָאֵלּוּ וּמִוַּלְדוֹתֵיהֶן נַעֲשָׂה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחֲרָיוּת עֲלֵיהֶן וְעַל וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן וַהֲרֵי יַד הַנָּכְרִי בְּאֶמְצַע וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה הֵם וּוַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן. אֲבָל וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת חַיָּבִין שֶׁהֲרֵי שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם וְאֵין לַנָּכְרִי רְשׁוּת עֲלֵיהֶן:

English:

The following laws apply when a Jew receives sheep from a gentile at a fixed price and agreed that the profit will be split between them, but if the worth of the animal is reduced, the loss is borne by the Jew alone. Even though the sheep are in the domain of the Jew and are his property, since if the gentile will not find any other resources to collect his debt for the lost sheep from him, he will take these sheep and their offspring, it is considered as if he has a lien on them and their offspring. Thus the gentile is considered as having a share of them and they and their offspring are exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. The offspring of their offspring, however, are liable for they belong to the Jew and the gentile has no authority over them.

Connection: The Rambam adopts Rava’s explanation (Segment 7) in every detail, and not Abaye’s. Abaye had distinguished this mishna from Bava Metzia by having the gentile accept the risk of loss. The Rambam instead defines the case as the classic tzon barzel (“ואם פיחתו פיחתו לישראל,” the Jew bears the loss). He concedes that the animals are the Jew’s property (“בִּרְשׁוּת ישראל הם והרי הם כקנינו”), which answers the Gemara’s initial difficulty in Segment 3. Their exemption rests entirely on the gentile’s power to seize the animals and their young for his debt: “והרי יד הנכרי באמצע,” Rava’s own phrase. The grandchildren are obligated because the gentile’s lien does not reach them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s “even ten generations” is not adopted.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 320:7

Hebrew:

המקבל צאן מן העובד כוכבים [בממון קצוב] ופסק עמו שיהיה השכר ביניהם ואם פחתו פחתו לישראל אע”פ שברשות ישראל הם והרי הם כקנינו הואיל ואם לא ימצא העובד כוכבים אצלו ממון לגבות ממנו יגבה מהבהמות האלו ומולדותיהם נעשה כמי שיש לו אחריות עליהן ועל תולדותיהן והרי יד העובד כוכבים באמצע ופטורים מהבכורה הם וולדותיהן אבל ולדי ולדות חייבים שהרי של ישראל הם ואין לעובד כוכבים רשות עליהם ואם העמיד ולדות תחת אמותיהן ולדי ולדות פטורים ולדי ולדי ולדות חייבים:

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

One who receives sheep from a gentile [at a fixed value], and stipulated with him that the profit be shared between them and that if they decrease in value the loss falls on the Jew: even though they are in the Jew’s domain and are like his property, since if the gentile does not find other assets with him to collect from, he will collect from these animals and from their offspring, it is as if he holds a lien on them and on their offspring. So the hand of the gentile is in the middle, and they and their offspring are exempt from the firstborn obligation. But the offspring of the offspring are obligated, for they belong to the Jew and the gentile has no claim on them. And if he set up the offspring in place of their mothers, the offspring of the offspring are exempt, and the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are obligated.

Connection: The Mechaber takes over the Rambam’s formulation and then adds the mishna’s second clause, which the Rambam omits: “העמיד ולדותיהן תחת אמותיהן” moves the exemption down one generation. This is the case analyzed in Segments 9-12. There Rav Yehuda explains that the mishna stated it to teach that “even if he set them up,” the exemption does not extend to all generations. The Shulchan Aruch’s two-tier scheme follows the mishna’s first tanna and Rav Huna’s plain formulation (“ולדות פטורין, ולדי ולדות חייבין”) for the ordinary case. The Gemara’s challenge to Rav Huna from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel continues on the next daf. The Rema here adds that a gentile creditor who took a Jew’s animal to raise for a share of the offspring still exempts it, even if the Jew intended to pay him in money. But a gentile who only accepts responsibility for the animal, with no share in it, does not exempt it.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 320:5-6

Hebrew:

עדר שהמלך נוטל ממנה מעשר כיון שעישור של מלך בתוכו חשיבא יד עובד כוכבים באמצע ופטור מהבכורה: הגה ואפי’ יכול לסלק העובד כוכבים במעות חשוב יד עובד כוכבים באמצע מאחר שעיקר שעבוד העובד כוכבים על הבהמות… אבל אם התנו מתחלה שיתנו לו דמים בעד הולדות חייב בבכורה…

בזמן הזה מצוה לשתף עם העובד כוכבים קודם שיצא לאויר העולם כדי לפטרו מהבכורה אף ע”פ שמפקיע קדושתו הכי עדיף טפי כדי שלא יבא לידי מכשול ליהנות ממנו בגיזה ובעבודה…

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for these se’ifim):

A herd from which the king takes a tithe: since the king’s tenth is within it, it is considered “the hand of a gentile in the middle,” and it is exempt from the firstborn obligation. Rema: And even if he could remove the gentile [from his share] with money, it is considered the hand of a gentile in the middle, since the gentile’s lien is primarily on the animals… But if they stipulated at the outset that he would give him money in place of the offspring, it is obligated in the firstborn obligation…

Nowadays it is a mitzvah to make a partnership with a gentile before [the firstborn] emerges into the world, in order to exempt it from the firstborn obligation. Even though this removes its sanctity, this is preferable, so that one should not come to stumble by benefiting from it through shearing or work…

Connection: These se’ifim show Rava’s principle, “כל יד גוי באמצע פטורה מן הבכורה” (Segment 7), in present-day practice. What exempts the animal is a lien on the animal itself, whether a king’s tithe or a creditor’s claim, and not formal ownership. That is why the Rema holds that even a gentile who could be bought out with money still counts. Since a firstborn animal cannot be sacrificed today and remains forbidden in shearing and work for its whole life, the Shulchan Aruch calls it a mitzvah to create exactly this kind of gentile share before birth. This is the most common practical use of the halacha our mishna introduces.

Tzon Barzel Between Jews: A Form of Interest

Source in Daf: 16b, Segments 3-7 (the contradiction from Bava Metzia 70b: “אין מקבלין צאן ברזל מישראל מפני שהוא רבית”; Abaye’s and Rava’s resolutions)

Rambam — Hilchot Malveh veLoveh 8:12

Hebrew:

אֵין מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אֲבַק רִבִּית. וְכֵיצַד הֵן צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מֵאָה צֹאן וְקִבְּלָם מִמֶּנּוּ לְהִטַּפֵּל בָּהֶן וְיִהְיוּ הַגִּזּוֹת וְהַוְּלָדוֹת וְהֶחָלָב לָאֶמְצַע לִשְׁלִישׁ אוֹ לִרְבִיעַ עַד שָׁנָה אוֹ עַד שְׁנָתַיִם כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶם וְאִם מֵתוּ הַצֹּאן הֲרֵי הַמְקַבֵּל מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵיהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעַל הַצֹּאן קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הַצֹּאן שֶׁאִם הוּקְרוּ אוֹ הוּזְלוּ אוֹ אִם נִטְרְפוּ הֲרֵי הֵן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

English:

It is forbidden to accept tzon barzel from another Jew, because this is considered “the shade of interest.” What is meant by the term tzon barzel? A person owned 100 sheep. A shepherd accepted the responsibility of caring for them on the condition that the shearing, the offspring and the milk would be split, either evenly, or one getting a third or a fourth for a year or two, as they stipulated. Included in the agreement is the condition that if the sheep die, the shepherd must make restitution for them. This is forbidden, because the owner of the sheep is very likely to realize a profit, and highly unlikely to suffer a loss. Therefore, such an arrangement is permissible if the owner of the sheep accepts the condition that should the value of the sheep increase or decrease or should they be seized by predators, they are considered within his domain. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

Connection: This is the Bava Metzia mishna the Gemara raises against ours in Segment 4. The Rambam’s “לפיכך” clause is Abaye’s case (Segment 5): once the owner accepts the risks of accident and depreciation (אונסא וזולא), the arrangement is permitted. Rava’s objection in Segment 6 was that such an arrangement is no longer called “tzon barzel,” and the Rambam’s wording agrees: the permitted version is presented as a separate arrangement that avoids the prohibition, not as a type of tzon barzel. Note also the Rambam’s label, אבק רבית (the “dust” of interest, a rabbinic-level prohibition), which reflects that the “loan” here is built into an investment and not an explicit loan of money.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 177:1

Hebrew:

אין מקבלין צאן ברזל מישראל דהיינו שמקבל ממנו מאה צאן ויהיו הגזות והולדות והחלב לאמצע לשליש או לרביע עד שנה או עד שנתים כמו שהתנו ביניהם ואם מתו הצאן הרי המקבל משלם דמיהם ה”ז אסור שהרי בעל הצאן קרוב לריוח ורחוק להפסד לפיכך אם קבל עליו בעל הצאן שאם הוקרו או הוזלו או נטרפו הרי הן ברשותו ה”ז מותר וכן כל כיוצא בזה וכן הדין במקבל עליו סחורה בענין זה (טור):

English (our rendering; Sefaria’s translation of this se’if is in French):

One may not accept tzon barzel from a Jew, that is, where one receives a hundred sheep from him and the shearings, the offspring and the milk are to be shared, by a third or a quarter, for a year or two as they stipulated, and if the sheep die the recipient pays their value. This is forbidden, for the owner of the sheep is close to profit and far from loss. Therefore, if the owner of the sheep accepted that if they rise or fall in value or are torn by predators they are in his domain, it is permitted, and so too anything similar. The same law applies to one who receives merchandise on these terms (Tur).

Connection: Unlike the firstborn laws, this is fully practical law today and the opening se’if of the Shulchan Aruch’s siman on business arrangements forbidden as ribbit. The principle “קרוב לריוח ורחוק להפסד” (close to profit, far from loss) is the reason the Gemara in Segment 4 concludes that tzon barzel “stands in the possession of the recipient.” Otherwise the owner’s guaranteed return would not be interest. The Tur’s extension to merchandise, and the Rema’s gloss (that if the recipient takes no share of the profit at all there is no loan and it is permitted), develop the sugya’s definition. The mishna in Bava Metzia permits this arrangement with a gentile, and that is why our mishna can speak of a Jew receiving tzon barzel “from a gentile.”

A Ewe That Bore a Goat-Like Lamb

Source in Daf: 16b, Segment 2 (רחל שילדה מין עז ועז שילדה מין רחל פטורה מן הבכורה, ואם יש בו מקצת סימנין חייב)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 2:6

Hebrew:

רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין עֵז. אוֹ עֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין רָחֵל פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח יז) “אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר” עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר. וְאִם הָיָה בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנֵי אִמּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּכוֹר וְהוּא בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִשִּׁנּוּי בְּרִיָּתוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין חֲמוֹר וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנֵי פָּרָה הֲרֵי זֶה בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן הוֹאִיל וּמִין הַחֲמוֹר יֵשׁ בּוֹ דִּין בְּכוֹר. אֲבָל אִם יָלְדָה מִין סוּס אוֹ גָּמָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנֵי פָּרָה הֲרֵי הוּא סְפֵק בְּכוֹר לְפִיכָךְ יֵאָכֵל לַבְּעָלִים. וְאִם תְּפָסוֹ כֹּהֵן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ:

English:

When a sheep gives birth to an offspring that appears like a goat or a goat gives birth to an offspring that appears like a lamb, it is exempt from the mitzvah of a firstborn, as indicated by Numbers 18:17 which speaks of “the firstborn of an ox.” Implied is that it must be an ox and the firstborn must be an ox. If it has some of the distinguishing characteristics of its mother, it is considered as a firstborn and it is considered as having a permanent blemish, for there is no blemish greater than a deviation from the norms of creation. Even if a cow gives birth to an offspring that resembles a donkey, but it has some of the signs of a cow, it is a firstborn that must be given to a priest. The rationale is that, with regard to the species of donkeys, there is a concept of a firstborn. If, however, it gave birth to an offspring resembling a horse or a camel, even if it has some of the signs of a cow, it is merely a firstborn of doubtful status. Therefore it may be eaten by its owners. If, however, a priest takes possession of it, it is not expropriated from his possession.

Connection: The Rambam codifies the mishna’s final clause exactly: no resemblance to the mother means no bechora, and “some signs” means bechora. He supplies the source the Gemara will develop on the next daf (“אך בכור שור”: both mother and firstborn must be the same kind). He also adds a consequence the mishna does not state: a firstborn with only partial signs is automatically a בעל מום קבוע, “for there is no blemish greater than a change in its form.” Such a firstborn therefore goes to the kohen to be eaten in its blemish and is never offered. In 4:10 the Rambam uses this rule in a probability calculation: since a male lacking its mother’s signs is not sanctified, firstborn males are the minority of births.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 315:5

Hebrew:

רחל שילדה כמין עז או עז שילדה כמין רחל פטורה מהבכורה שנאמר אך בכור שור עד שיהיה הוא שור ובכורו שור ואם היו בו מקצת סימני אמו הרי זה בכור והוא בעל מום קבוע שאין לך מום גדול משינוי ברייתו. (לשון רמב”ם פ”ה מהל’ בכורות ד”ו):

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

A ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts, or a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts, is exempt from the firstborn obligation, as it says, “But the firstborn of an ox,” until it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox. And if it has some of its mother’s signs, it is a firstborn and it is a permanently blemished animal, for there is no blemish greater than a change in its form. (The language of the Rambam, Hilchot Bechorot, [ch. 2], halacha 6.)

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch codifies the mishna in the Rambam’s own words, placing it in the siman on doubtful firstborns (ספק בכור ויוצא דופן). Because the laws of bechor behema are still in force, a farmer today whose ewe gives birth to a goat-like male must look for “some signs” of the mother. If there are none, it is ordinary chullin. If there are some, it is a firstborn, blemished from birth, and given to a kohen to be eaten in its blemish. (The printed source note reads “פ”ה”; in the standard division of Hilchot Bechorot, as on Sefaria, the halacha is 2:6.)

Summary of Rulings

Most of the Temple-era laws on this daf (substitutes, the five sin offerings, slaughtering outside) are preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt, and the Shulchan Aruch does not address them. The daf’s closing mishna is different. The firstborn of a kosher animal is still sanctified today, so tzon barzel, a gentile’s share, and the ewe that bears a goat-like lamb are all live halacha in Yoreh De’ah 315 and 320. The ribbit problem the Gemara raises from Bava Metzia is practical law in Yoreh De’ah 177.