Bechorot Daf 27 (בכורות דף כ״ז)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (27a)

Segment 1

TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)

The baraita concludes: even improperly given teruma and tithe leave the owners their benefit of discretion

Hebrew/Aramaic:

טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים.

English Translation:

the benefit of discretion for the owners of the produce, i.e., benefit accrued from the option of giving teruma and tithes to any priest or Levite of their choosing.

קלאוד על הדף:

This short line completes the sentence that broke off at the end of 26b. The baraita there ruled that teruma and tithe may not be given to priests, Levites or poor people as wages for helping at the threshing floor, and that the Sages refrained from fining offenders lest they come to separate from exempt produce for obligated produce. It now adds that in all of these cases the owner retains טובת הנאה: the gifts belong to the priesthood or the Levites as a class, but the owner keeps the right to choose which individual receives them, and that right has a small monetary value of its own.

Key Terms:

• טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה = the benefit of discretion — the owner’s right to choose which priest or Levite receives his gifts
• בְּעָלִים = the owners — here, the owners of the produce

Segment 2

TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)

How the benefit of discretion works: an Israelite may pay for it, a priest may not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

כֵּיצַד? יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה מִכִּרְיוֹ, וּמְצָאוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״הֵא לְךָ סֶלַע זֶה, וּתְנֵהוּ לְבֶן בִּתִּי כֹּהֵן״ — מוּתָּר. אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן — אָסוּר.

English Translation:

The baraita continues: How so? With regard to an Israelite who separated teruma from his pile of grain, and another Israelite found him and said to him: Take this sela coin for yourself and give the teruma and tithes to my daughter’s son who is a priest, it is permitted. But if it was a priest who gave the sela coin for the right to give the teruma and tithes to another priest, it is prohibited. Priests may not pay for the gifts that they receive.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita illustrates the principle. A second Israelite may pay the owner a sela so that the teruma goes to his daughter’s son, a priest; the owner is simply selling his right of choice, which is permitted. But a priest may not pay for the right to receive the gifts himself or to steer them to another priest, since that would make the priestly gifts something a priest buys. This links back to 26b: giving teruma as wages to a helping priest is forbidden for the same reason, since the priest is in effect earning his gift.

Key Terms:

• כְּרִי = a pile of threshed grain, from which teruma is separated
• סֶלַע = a sela, a silver coin worth four zuz
• בֶּן בִּתִּי = my daughter’s son — here, a grandson who is a priest

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why does the baraita speak of teruma and not of the priestly gifts? Teruma’s inherent sanctity prevents error

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְתַנָּא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא קָאָמַר מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה? אָמַר לָךְ: תְּרוּמָה, דִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף הִיא, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא מִתַּחֲלָא — לָא אָתֵי לְמִיטְעֵי בַּהּ.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And according to the tanna of this baraita, what is the reason that he does not state that the owners also have the benefit of discretion with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, jaw, and maw, which must be given to the priest from every non-sacred animal that one slaughters? Why does he mention teruma alone? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: In the case of teruma, which has inherent sanctity, and which therefore cannot be redeemed, the priest will not come to err with it and treat it as though it has no sanctity, even if the owner receives payment for it.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks why the baraita mentions teruma alone and not the gifts of the priesthood from non-sacred animals (foreleg, jaws and maw). It answers that teruma has קדושת הגוף, inherent sanctity that can never be redeemed, so no priest will imagine that the sela paid for it removed its holiness. A payment connected with teruma is therefore harmless.

Key Terms:

• מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה = the gifts of the priesthood — the foreleg, jaws and maw of every slaughtered non-sacred animal (Deuteronomy 18:3)
• קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף = inherent sanctity — holiness in the object itself, which cannot be redeemed
• לָא מִתַּחֲלָא = it cannot be redeemed (deconsecrated)
• לְמִיטְעֵי = to err

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ (המשך)

The priestly gifts have only monetary sanctity, so a payment might be mistaken for a redemption

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הָנֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים נִינְהוּ, אָתֵי לְמִיטְעֵי בְּהוֹן, דְּבַר מִיתַּחַל קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ אַאַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי, וְאָתֵא לְמִינְהַג בְּהֹן מִנְהָג דְּחוּלִּין.

English Translation:

By contrast, with regard to these gifts of the priesthood, since they have sanctity that inheres in their value, which means that once the priest has received them he may sell them, the priest might come to err with them by saying that the sanctity that they have can be redeemed with four zuz, i.e., the one sela, and he might come to treat them in the manner that one treats non-sacred food. This would be a mistake, as a priest must eat his priestly gifts in a dignified manner, i.e., roasted and with seasoning (see Ḥullin 132b).

קלאוד על הדף:

The priestly gifts, by contrast, have only קדושת דמים, a sanctity attached to their value; a priest who has received them may sell them. If an owner were to take a sela for them, people might think the gifts had been redeemed for four zuz and were now ordinary food, and come to treat them as non-sacred. The tanna therefore limited his example to teruma, where no such mistake can arise.

Key Terms:

• קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים = monetary sanctity — holiness attached to an item’s value, which can be transferred by redemption or sale
• אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי = four zuz, the value of one sela
• מִנְהָג דְּחוּלִּין = the manner of non-sacred food

Segment 5

TYPE: מימרא ומעשה

Rava: teruma from outside Eretz Yisrael is exempt from the prohibition of the helping priest; Rav Hama’s practice

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רָבָא: תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ — אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם כֹּהֵן הַמְסַיֵּיעַ בְּבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת. רַב חָמָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ.

English Translation:

§ On a related topic, Rava says: Teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael does not have any prohibition due to a priest assisting at the threshing floor. The Sages decreed that one must separate teruma from produce grown in certain places outside of Eretz Yisrael. Yet, the halakhot governing this teruma are not as stringent as those that apply to teruma from produce grown within Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, one may give such teruma to a priest for helping at the threshing floor. In support of this claim, the Gemara relates that Rav Ḥama gave teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael to his servant, who was a priest, as his wages.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns to a broader theme that fills the rest of the amud: the lighter status of תרומת חוצה לארץ, teruma that exists only by rabbinic decree. Rava rules that the prohibition of 26b, against giving teruma to a priest who helps at the threshing floor, does not apply to it. The ruling is confirmed by practice: Rav Hama gave such teruma to his priestly attendant as wages.

Key Terms:

• תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ = teruma from produce grown outside Eretz Yisrael, a rabbinic obligation
• כֹּהֵן הַמְסַיֵּיעַ בְּבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת = a priest who helps at the threshing floor
• שַׁמָּעֵיהּ = his attendant

Segment 6

TYPE: מימרא ומעשה

Shmuel: such teruma is nullified in a simple majority; Rabba nullified it ab initio and ate it while impure

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ — בְּטֵילָה בְּרוֹב. רַבָּה מְבַטְּלָהּ בְּרוֹב, וְאוֹכֵל לָהּ בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ.

English Translation:

With regard to teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael, Shmuel says: Teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael that became mixed with non-sacred produce is nullified in a majority, unlike ordinary teruma, which requires one hundred parts of non-sacred produce to nullify it. The Gemara relates that Rabba, who was a priest, would nullify his teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael in a majority ab initio and eat it during his days of impurity. Both of these acts are prohibited in the case of teruma from produce grown in Eretz Yisrael.

קלאוד על הדף:

Shmuel adds a second leniency. Teruma from Eretz Yisrael mixed into non-sacred produce is nullified only in one hundred and one parts, but teruma from outside the Land is nullified by a simple majority. Rabba, himself a priest, went further in practice: he deliberately nullified it, although one normally may not nullify a prohibited item ab initio, and he ate it during his days of impurity. Shmuel’s ruling in segment 9 below defines which impurity this leniency covers.

Key Terms:

• בְּטֵילָה בְּרוֹב = nullified in a majority — loses its identity when mixed with a greater quantity of permitted food
• מְבַטְּלָהּ = he nullifies it — deliberately mixes it to bring about nullification
• יְמֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ = his days of impurity

Segment 7

TYPE: מעשה

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua’s method: nullify once, then keep adding one jug and drawing one

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כִּי מִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ חַמְרָא דִּתְרוּמָה, הֲוָה רָמֵי תְּרֵי נַטְלֵי דְּחוּלִּין וַחֲדָא נַטְלָא דִּתְרוּמָה, וְשָׁקֵיל חַד. מִיכָּן וְאֵילָךְ, רָמֵי חֲדָא וְשָׁקֵיל חֲדָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, when he would happen to have wine of teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael, would pour two jugs of non-sacred wine and one jug of teruma wine into a vat in order to nullify the teruma wine, and then take out one jug’s worth of wine to drink. Having done so, from here onward every time he received more teruma wine grown outside of Eretz Yisrael, he would pour one jug of teruma wine into the same vat, which still contained two jugs’ worth of wine, and take out one jug’s worth of wine.

קלאוד על הדף:

A practical illustration of nullification in a majority. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua would pour two jugs of non-sacred wine and one of teruma wine into a vat and draw one jug to drink. From then on, whenever he received more teruma wine, he added one jug and drew one jug. The method assumes that once the first jug was nullified, all the wine left in the vat counts as non-sacred, so the two jugs remaining always outnumber the new jug of teruma, even though in strict proportion the teruma content keeps rising.

Key Terms:

• חַמְרָא דִּתְרוּמָה = wine of teruma
• נַטְלָא = a jug or ladle-measure
• רָמֵי = pours in
• שָׁקֵיל = takes out

Segment 8

TYPE: מימרא

Shmuel: one may eat produce from outside the Land first and separate its teruma afterward

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, אוֹכֵל וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַפְרִישׁ.

English Translation:

And Shmuel further says: Teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael does not need to be separated before one eats the produce. Rather, one may proceed to eat and afterward separate the teruma from the remainder.

קלאוד על הדף:

Shmuel’s next leniency concerns טבל. Produce from Eretz Yisrael may not be eaten until its teruma and tithes are removed. With produce from outside the Land, where the obligation is rabbinic, one may eat as one goes and separate teruma afterward from what remains, provided enough is left to separate the required portion.

Key Terms:

• אוֹכֵל וְהוֹלֵךְ = he goes on eating
• מַפְרִישׁ = he separates (teruma)
• טֶבֶל = produce from which teruma and tithes have not yet been separated

Segment 9

TYPE: מימרא

Shmuel: it is forbidden only to one whose impurity comes from his own body, and only for eating

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁהַטּוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בַּאֲכִילָה, אֲבָל בִּנְגִיעָה — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

English Translation:

And Shmuel also says: Teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited only to a member of a priestly household whose impurity comes from his body, e.g., a man who experiences a seminal emission or a menstruating woman. It is not prohibited to a priest who came into contact with a corpse, an animal carcass, or the carcass of a creeping animal. And this statement, that such teruma is forbidden to one whose impurity comes from his body, applies only with regard to eating it. But with regard to touching teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael, we have no problem with it.

קלאוד על הדף:

Shmuel’s most far-reaching statement defines which impurity matters. Teruma from outside the Land is forbidden only to a priest whose impurity comes out of his own body, such as a zav, a man who experienced a seminal emission, or a woman who is a nidda; impurity from a corpse, a carcass or a creeping animal does not forbid it at all. Even then the restriction applies only to eating; touching it is permitted. This ruling explains Rabba’s practice in segment 6 and sets up Ravina’s application and the ferry episode that follow.

Key Terms:

• הַטּוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ = impurity that issues from his own body — e.g. zav, zava, nidda, yoledet, or one who experienced a seminal emission
• בַּאֲכִילָה = with regard to eating
• בִּנְגִיעָה = with regard to touching
• לֵית לַן בַּהּ = we have no problem with it

Segment 10

TYPE: מימרא

Ravina applies Shmuel to ḥalla: who separates it, who eats it, and the second ḥalla kept for remembrance

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הִילְכָּךְ, נִדָּה קוֹצָה חַלָּה, וְאוֹכֵל לָהּ כֹּהֵן קָטָן, וְאִי לֵיכָּא כֹּהֵן קָטָן — שָׁקְלָה לַהּ בְּרֵישׁ מַסָּא, וְשָׁדְיָא בְּתַנּוּרָא, וַהֲדַר מַפְרְשָׁא חַלָּה אַחֲרִיתִי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֹא תִּשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרַת חַלָּה, וְאוֹכֵל לָהּ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.

English Translation:

Ravina says: Therefore, a menstruating woman, whose impurity comes from her body, may separate ḥalla from dough outside of Eretz Yisrael, and a minor priest, who has never experienced a seminal emission and is therefore ritually pure, may eat it. And if there is no minor priest available, she takes the ḥalla with the top of a skewer [massa] and throws it in the oven, and then separates another piece from the dough as ḥalla, not because it is necessary but so that the halakhic category of ḥalla should not be forgotten. And an adult priest may eat it, even if he is ritually impure.

קלאוד על הדף:

Ravina draws the practical conclusion for ḥalla outside the Land. Since only eating is forbidden to one with bodily impurity, a woman who is a nidda may separate ḥalla, and a minor priest, who has not yet experienced bodily impurity, may eat it. If no minor priest is available, she lifts the ḥalla on a skewer and burns it, and then separates a second piece so that the law of ḥalla is not forgotten; this second piece has no real sanctity, so even an adult priest may eat it. The ruling balances the leniency of a rabbinic gift against the need to keep the practice alive outside the Land.

Key Terms:

• חַלָּה = ḥalla — the portion of dough given to a priest
• קוֹצָה = separates (literally, cuts off)
• כֹּהֵן קָטָן = a minor priest, who has not yet experienced bodily impurity
• מַסָּא = a skewer
• כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֹא תִּשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרַת חַלָּה = so that the law of ḥalla is not forgotten

Segment 11

TYPE: מעשה

On a ferry, a woman asks whether one impure from a corpse may immerse and eat teruma from outside the Land

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַב נַחְמָן וְרַב עַמְרָם וְרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא הֲווֹ קָאָזְלִי בְּאַרְבָּא, סְלֵיק רַב עַמְרָם לְאִפְּנוֹיֵי, אֲתַאי הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא עַלַּת קַמַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַרָה לְהוּ: טְמֵא מֵת מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל וְאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא:

English Translation:

The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman, Rav Amram, and Rami bar Ḥama were traveling in a ferry. Rav Amram went to relieve himself. A certain woman came before Rav Naḥman and Rami bar Ḥama and said to them: In the case of one who is impure through contact with a corpse, what is the halakha with regard to whether he may immerse himself in a ritual bath and partake of teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rav Naḥman said to Rami bar Ḥama:

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara relates an episode on a ferry. While Rav Amram was away, a woman asked Rav Nahman and Rami bar Hama whether a person impure through contact with a corpse may immerse and then eat teruma from outside the Land. The question is pointed, since full purification from corpse impurity requires sprinkling with the ashes of the red heifer, which was unavailable in Babylonia. The sentence breaks off as Rav Nahman turns to Rami bar Hama; his reply opens 27b.

Key Terms:

• אַרְבָּא = a ferry or boat
• לְאִפְּנוֹיֵי = to relieve himself
• טְמֵא מֵת = one who is impure through contact with a corpse
• שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל = that he immerse in a mikveh

Amud Bet (27b)

Segment 1

TYPE: מעשה (המשך)

Rav Nahman: what use is immersion without sprinkling? Rav Amram returns and quotes Rav: he immerses and eats

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְכִי הַזָּאָה יֵשׁ לָנוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לָא לֵיחוּשׁ לֵיהּ לְסָבָא. אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא רַב עַמְרָם, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב: טְמֵא מֵת טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

English Translation:

But do we have sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer? Since without such sprinkling one remains impure after contact with a corpse, how does it help to immerse in a ritual bath? Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Shouldn’t Rav Naḥman be concerned for the opinion of the old man, i.e., Rav Amram? Wouldn’t it be better to wait until he returns before answering? Meanwhile, Rav Amram came back. He said to them that this is what Rav says: One who became impure with impurity imparted by a corpse may immerse and partake of teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael.

קלאוד על הדף:

This completes the sentence begun at the end of 27a. Rav Nahman’s reaction is that immersion alone cannot help one who is impure from a corpse, since there is no sprinkling of the red heifer ashes. Rami bar Hama urges him to wait for the elder Rav Amram, who on his return cites Rav: one impure from a corpse immerses and may eat teruma from outside the Land. Rav thus treats immersion as a sufficient rabbinic measure for a rabbinic gift, even though it does not remove the impurity by Torah law.

Key Terms:

• הַזָּאָה = sprinkling of water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, required to purify from corpse impurity
• סָבָא = the elder — here, Rav Amram
• טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל = he immerses and eats

Segment 2

TYPE: הלכה

The halakha follows neither Rav nor the parallel ruling of Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Sheshet

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.

English Translation:

The Gemara comments: But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Sheshet: One who became impure through contact with the carcass of a creeping animal may immerse in a ritual bath and partake of teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael. But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara rules that the halakha does not follow Rav, and likewise rejects a parallel ruling of Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Sheshet that one impure from a creeping animal may immerse and eat. Read alongside Shmuel’s ruling on 27a, that only impurity coming from the body forbids this teruma, the most natural understanding is that both statements are rejected because no immersion is needed at all for corpse or creeping-animal impurity. The amud thus confirms Shmuel’s view as the governing rule for teruma outside the Land.

Key Terms:

• לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ = the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion
• טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ = one impure through contact with the carcass of a creeping animal
• מִשְּׁמֵיהּ = in the name of

Segment 3

TYPE: גמרא (דיוק במשנה)

Back to the mishna: ‘within its year’ shows that the firstborn’s year runs from its birth. What is the source?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה כּוּ׳. מִדְּקָאָמַר ״נוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ״, לְמֵימְרָא דִּלְשָׁנָה דִּידֵיהּ מָנֵינַן. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches: The firstborn animal is eaten year by year, i.e., within its first year, whether it is blemished or unblemished. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the mishna says: If a blemish developed within its first year, rather than within the first year, that is to say that we count according to its year, not by the calendar year. In other words, the year is calculated from the day of the animal’s birth. From where is this matter derived?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara returns to the mishna of Perek 4 (from 26b): the firstborn is eaten year by year, and if a blemish develops within its year it may be kept for twelve months. It infers from the wording ‘its year’ rather than ‘the year’ that the year is counted from the animal’s birth, not by the calendar. It then asks for the scriptural source of this rule.

Key Terms:

• שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה = year by year (Deuteronomy 15:20)
• בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ = within its year
• לְשָׁנָה דִּידֵיהּ מָנֵינַן = we count by its own year

Segment 4

TYPE: מימרא (דרשה)

Rav: ‘a year in a year’ is a year that runs into the next one, namely the firstborn’s own year

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹאכְלֶנּוּ שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה״, אֵיזוֹהִי שָׁנָה שֶׁנִּכְנֶסֶת בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: שָׁנָה שֶׁל בְּכוֹר.

English Translation:

It is derived from a verse, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that the verse states: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God, year by year [shana beshana] in the place that the Lord shall choose, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 15:20). The phrase “shana beshana,” which can also be translated as: A year in a year, indicates that the verse is referring to one year that enters another year. Which type of year enters another year? You must say that this is speaking of the year of the firstborn animal, which enters the following calendar year, since if the animal is born in the middle of the year, its first year includes part of the subsequent calendar year.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav reads shana beshana literally as ‘a year in a year’, a year that overlaps into another. The only year that does this is one counted from the animal’s birth, which usually begins partway through one calendar year and ends in the next. The verse thus establishes that the firstborn’s time limit is twelve months from its birth.

Key Terms:

• שָׁנָה שֶׁנִּכְנֶסֶת בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ = a year that enters into its fellow year
• הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר = you must say
• שָׁנָה שֶׁל בְּכוֹר = the year of the firstborn, counted from its birth

Segment 5

TYPE: ברייתא (דבי רב)

The school of Rav: one day in this year and one in the next, so the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּבֵי רַב תָּנָא: ״שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה״ — יוֹם אֶחָד בְּשָׁנָה זוֹ, וְיוֹם אֶחָד בְּשָׁנָה זוֹ, לִימֵּד עַל הַבְּכוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.

English Translation:

The school of Rav taught that there is a different halakha derived from the phrase “year by year.” This phrase indicates that it may be eaten on one day of this year and one day of that next year. The verse thereby taught with regard to an unblemished firstborn animal, which is sacrificed in the Temple, that it is eaten for two days and one night, like a peace offering.

קלאוד על הדף:

The school of Rav reads the same phrase for a different law. ‘Year by year’ hints that the firstborn may be eaten on one day that is the end of one year and a second day at the start of the next; in effect, the unblemished firstborn offered in the Temple is eaten for two days and the night between them, the same limit as a peace offering. This sets up a question about how each side derives the law the other learns from the verse.

Key Terms:

• דְּבֵי רַב = the school of Rav
• שְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד = two days and one night — the time limit for eating a peace offering
• תָּם = unblemished

Segment 6

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Where does the school of Rav learn the firstborn’s own year? From other offerings, which follow ‘a lamb in its year’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּבֵי רַב, מְנָא לְהוּ? יָלְפִי מִקֳּדָשִׁים, וְקָדָשִׁים גּוּפַיְיהוּ מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא ״כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ״ — שְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא שָׁנָה שֶׁל מִנְיַן עוֹלָם.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: From where does the school of Rav derive the halakha that a firstborn must be eaten within its own year and that its year is not calculated according to the calendar year? They derive it from the halakha of other sacrificial animals, whose age is counted from their birth rather than by the calendar year. And with regard to the other sacrificial animals themselves, from where do we derive that their age is counted from their birth? Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov says that the verse states: “And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest” (Leviticus 12:6). This description of the lamb is referring to its own year, and not a year of the counting of the world.

קלאוד על הדף:

Since the school of Rav used the verse for the eating period, the Gemara asks how they know that the firstborn’s year is its own. They learn it from other offerings, whose age is counted from birth. The source for that is given by Rav Aha bar Yaakov: the woman after childbirth brings ‘a lamb in its year’ (Leviticus 12:6), meaning its own year, not the calendar year of the world.

Key Terms:

• יָלְפִי מִקֳּדָשִׁים = they learn it from other offerings
• כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ = a lamb in its year (Leviticus 12:6)
• שָׁנָה שֶׁל מִנְיַן עוֹלָם = a year of the world’s count — a calendar year

Segment 7

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (היקש)

Rav learns two days and one night from the comparison of the firstborn to the breast and thigh of a peace offering

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַב, נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ כַּחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וּכְשׁוֹק הַיָּמִין״ — הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים: מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And Rav, from where does he derive that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night? The Gemara answers: He derives it from a verse in which Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons with regard to eating the firstborn: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18). The verse thereby juxtaposed the halakha of the firstborn with the breast and thigh of a peace offering. Just as there, it may be eaten for two days and one night, as stated explicitly in a verse (see Leviticus 7:16), so too here, a firstborn may be eaten for two days and one night.

קלאוד על הדף:

The question is reversed: Rav used the verse for the firstborn’s own year, so where does he learn that it is eaten for two days and one night? From Numbers 18:18, which says the firstborn’s flesh is the priest’s ‘as the breast of waving and as the right thigh’. This היקש equates the firstborn with the breast and thigh of the peace offering, which may be eaten for two days and one night (Leviticus 7:16). Each side therefore reads shana beshana for one law and derives the other law from a different verse.

Key Terms:

• הֶקֵּשׁ = a comparison of two laws placed side by side in a verse, so that one takes on the rules of the other
• חֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וְשׁוֹק הַיָּמִין = the breast of waving and the right thigh — the parts of a peace offering given to the priests
• שְׁלָמִים = peace offerings
• מָה לְהַלָּן … אַף כָּאן = just as there … so too here

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 27 continues the discussion of teruma that began as a side topic on 26b, and then returns to the mishna of Perek 4 (עד כמה) and its rule that a firstborn is eaten “year by year.” The daf opens by completing the baraita from 26b, which forbade giving teruma and tithes as wages to a priest or Levite who helps at the threshing floor. The baraita now adds that the owners keep the benefit of discretion (טובת הנאה), the right to choose which priest or Levite receives the gifts. The Gemara asks why the tanna gives this example only for teruma and not for the priestly gifts of the foreleg, jaws and maw. The answer turns on the difference between inherent sanctity (קדושת הגוף) and monetary sanctity (קדושת דמים). Most of amud aleph then sets out the leniencies of teruma from outside Eretz Yisrael (תרומת חוצה לארץ), which is only a rabbinic obligation. Rava permits it as wages for a helping priest. Shmuel rules that it is nullified in a simple majority, that one may eat the produce first and separate afterward, and that it is forbidden only to one whose impurity comes from his own body, and only for eating. Ravina applies this to ḥalla. A story on a ferry raises the question of a person impure from a corpse, which runs across the amud break. Rav Amram quotes Rav that such a person immerses and eats. The Gemara rules against Rav and against a parallel ruling by Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Sheshet. The second half of amud bet returns to the mishna. It shows that the firstborn’s year is counted from its birth, and that an unblemished firstborn is eaten for two days and one night. Rav and the school of Rav each read shana beshana (Deuteronomy 15:20) for one of these laws and learn the other from a different verse.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• The benefit of discretion: the baraita from 26b ends by ruling that in all its cases the owners keep טובת הנאה. The gifts belong to the priesthood or the Levites as a class, but the owner chooses who receives them, and that choice has a small value of its own.
• Who may pay for it: another Israelite may give the owner a sela so that the teruma goes to his grandson, who is a priest. That is permitted, because the owner is only selling his right of choice. A priest may not pay for the right to steer the gifts to another priest, since priests may not pay for the gifts they receive. This is the same reasoning as 26b’s ban on teruma given as wages.
• Why teruma and not the priestly gifts: teruma has קדושת הגוף and can never be redeemed, so no priest will think the sela took away its sanctity. The foreleg, jaws and maw (מתנות כהונה, Deuteronomy 18:3) have only קדושת דמים, and a priest may sell them. If a payment were linked to them, a priest might think they had been redeemed “for four zuz” and treat them like ordinary food. In fact they must be eaten in a dignified manner. The tanna therefore keeps his example to teruma.
• Rava on the helping priest: the ban on teruma given as wages to a helper at the threshing floor does not apply to teruma from outside the Land. Rav Hama acted on this and gave such teruma to his priestly attendant as wages.
• Shmuel on nullification: teruma from Eretz Yisrael is nullified only in one hundred and one parts, but teruma from outside the Land is nullified in a simple majority (בטילה ברוב). Rabba, himself a priest, nullified it deliberately, which is normally forbidden, and ate it during his days of impurity.
• Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua’s vat: he poured two jugs of non-sacred wine and one of teruma wine into a vat and drew off one jug. After that, whenever more teruma wine arrived, he added one jug and drew one. The method treats the wine already in the vat as non-sacred, so the two jugs left always outnumber the new one.
• Shmuel on eating first: with produce from outside the Land one may eat as one goes (אוכל והולך) and separate the teruma afterward from what is left. With produce from Eretz Yisrael, untithed produce (טבל) is forbidden until the separation is made.
• Shmuel on impurity: teruma from outside the Land is forbidden only to one whose impurity comes from his own body, such as a man who had a seminal emission or a woman who is a nidda. Impurity from a corpse, a carcass or a creeping animal does not forbid it at all. Even bodily impurity forbids only eating it, not touching it.
• Ravina on ḥalla: therefore a nidda may separate ḥalla outside the Land, and a minor priest may eat it. If there is no minor priest, she lifts the ḥalla on a skewer and burns it. She then separates a second piece “so that the law of ḥalla is not forgotten,” and even an adult priest who is impure may eat that piece.
• The ferry: while Rav Amram was away, a woman asked Rav Nahman and Rami bar Hama whether a person impure from a corpse may immerse and eat teruma from outside the Land. The amud breaks off as Rav Nahman starts to answer.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Rav Nahman’s reply: “do we have sprinkling?” Without the ashes of the red heifer (הזאה), immersion does not remove corpse impurity, so what would it achieve? Rami bar Hama tells him to wait for the elder Rav Amram. On his return Rav Amram quotes Rav: one impure from a corpse immerses and eats (טובל ואוכל).
• The ruling: the halakha does not follow Rav. Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Sheshet rules that one impure from a creeping animal may immerse and eat, and the halakha does not follow that ruling either. Read with Shmuel’s statement on 27a, the likely reason is that for corpse or creeping-animal impurity no immersion is needed at all. Shmuel’s view thus stands as the governing rule.
• Back to the mishna: the mishna says a blemish appearing “within its year” (בתוך שנתו), not “within the year.” This shows that the firstborn’s year is counted from its birth (לשנה דידיה מנינן), not by the calendar.
• Rav’s source: Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav reads shana beshana as “a year in a year,” a year that runs into the next one. Only a year counted from the animal’s birth does this, since it usually starts in one calendar year and ends in the next.
• The school of Rav (דבי רב): they use the same phrase for another law. The firstborn is eaten on one day of this year and one day of the next, so an unblemished firstborn is eaten for two days and one night, like a peace offering.
• How the school of Rav knows the firstborn’s own year: they learn it from other offerings, whose age is counted from birth. Rav Aha bar Yaakov gives the source: the woman after childbirth brings “a lamb in its year” (Leviticus 12:6), meaning its own year and not “a year of the world’s count.”
• How Rav knows two days and one night: from the היקש in Numbers 18:18, where the firstborn’s flesh is the priest’s “as the breast of waving and as the right thigh.” Just as the breast and thigh of the peace offering are eaten for two days and one night (see Leviticus 7:16), so is the firstborn.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

The owner of teruma keeps the benefit of discretion. He may sell it to another Israelite, but not to a priest. The baraita limits its example to teruma because the priestly gifts, which have only monetary sanctity, could be mistaken for redeemed. Teruma from outside Eretz Yisrael is treated leniently in every respect discussed. It may be given as wages to a helping priest (Rava, Rav Hama’s practice). It is nullified in a simple majority and may even be nullified deliberately (Shmuel, Rabba, Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua). One may eat the produce first and separate afterward. It is forbidden only to one with bodily impurity and only for eating (Shmuel). Ravina draws the practical rule for ḥalla, including the second piece separated so the law is not forgotten. The rulings of Rav and of Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Sheshet, which require immersion after corpse or creeping-animal impurity, are both rejected. On the mishna, the firstborn’s year runs from its birth, and an unblemished firstborn is eaten for two days and one night. Rav and the school of Rav agree on both laws and differ only in which verse teaches which.

Key Figures

Tannaim: the tanna of the baraita on the benefit of discretion, the tanna of the mishna (Perek 4)

Amoraim: Rava, Rav Hama, Shmuel, Rabba, Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, Ravina, Rav Nahman, Rav Amram, Rami bar Hama, Rav, Mar Zutra, Rav Sheshet, Rav Yehuda, the school of Rav, Rav Aha bar Yaakov

One-Line Takeaway

How strict a law is depends on where its sanctity comes from. Teruma’s inherent holiness cannot be bought away, while teruma that exists only by rabbinic decree outside the Land is kept with real leniency, though never so loosely that its practice is forgotten.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf has two parts. First, we finish a conversation about gifts for the kohanim (the priests): can you get paid for choosing who receives your gift? Then we discover that teruma from outside Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) has much “softer” rules than teruma from inside the Land, and we hear some fun stories, including a question asked on a boat! Finally, we go back to the new perek and ask: when the Torah says a firstborn animal is eaten “year by year,” whose year is it, the calendar’s or the animal’s?

Quick Recap: The Helper at the Threshing Floor 🌾

Remember the end of daf 26? A farmer has to give teruma (a small part of his grain, wine or oil) to a kohen, and tithes (a tenth) to a Levi. These are holy gifts.

The baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna that didn’t make it into the Mishna) said: you may not give these gifts to a kohen as pay for helping you on the threshing floor (the place where grain is separated from its husks). Why? Because then the kohen is earning his gift, like a salary. But the gift belongs to him because he’s a kohen, not because he worked for it!

The Sages thought about fining farmers who did this, but they held back. They were worried that people would get mixed up and start doing other things wrong.

And the sentence was cut off right in the middle…

The Simple Idea 💡: Holy gifts for the kohen are not wages; you can’t pay a worker with them.

Your Choice Is Worth Something! 🎁

Here’s how the sentence ends: in all these cases, the farmer still keeps טובת הנאה (tovat hana’ah, “the benefit of choosing”).

What does that mean? The teruma belongs to the kohanim as a group. The farmer can’t keep it. But which kohen gets it? That’s the farmer’s choice! And that choice is worth a little bit of money.

Think of it like… a teacher who has one gold star sticker that must go to a student in the class. The sticker isn’t the teacher’s to keep. But the teacher chooses which student gets it. That choice is the teacher’s.

The baraita gives an example:

Why the difference? A grandpa paying for his grandson is just “buying the choice.” But a kohen paying for teruma would be buying his priestly gift, and kohanim aren’t supposed to buy their gifts. It’s the same idea as the helper at the threshing floor: a kohen shouldn’t “earn” or “purchase” what the Torah gives him.

The Simple Idea 💡: The teruma belongs to the kohanim, but the farmer owns the choice of which kohen gets it, and an Israelite may pay him for that choice.

Why Only Teruma? 🤔

The Gemara asks a sharp question. There are other gifts for the kohen too! When you slaughter a regular cow or sheep, you give the kohen three pieces: the foreleg, the jaws, and the stomach (these are called מתנות כהונה, matnot kehunah, “gifts of the priesthood”). Why didn’t the baraita say the farmer gets “the benefit of choosing” for those?

The answer is about two kinds of holiness:

Now imagine someone pays a sela in connection with teruma. Will anyone think, “Oh, the sela took away the teruma’s holiness”? No! Everyone knows teruma can never become ordinary. So no mistake.

But with the foreleg, jaws and stomach? If money changed hands, a kohen might think: “Ah, these were redeemed (swapped for money) for four zuz. Now they’re just regular meat!” And he might eat them in a careless way. But a kohen is supposed to eat his gifts in a respectful way.

Think of it like… a gold medal versus a gift card. Nobody thinks you can “pay off” an Olympic gold medal so it stops being a gold medal. It’s a medal, period. But a gift card? People trade it for cash all the time, and then they treat the cash like any other money.

The Simple Idea 💡: Teruma’s holiness can never be traded away, so paying for the “choice” can’t confuse anyone; with other priestly gifts, it might.

Teruma From Far Away: The “Softer” Rules 🌍

Now the Gemara turns to a big new topic. In Eretz Yisrael, giving teruma is a mitzva from the Torah. But the Sages also asked Jews living outside the Land (like in Babylonia, where many of our Amoraim lived) to give teruma. That teruma is called תרומת חוצה לארץ (terumat chutzah la’aretz, “teruma from outside the Land”).

Since it’s a rule from the Sages and not from the Torah, its rules are much softer. The Gemara lists a whole bunch of them!

Think of it like… the difference between a law of the country and a house rule. “Don’t steal” is a real law. “Shoes off at the door” is a house rule. Both matter, but you’d be a lot stricter about the first one.

The Simple Idea 💡: Teruma from outside Eretz Yisrael exists only because the Sages asked for it, so its rules are gentler.

Softer Rule #1: The Helper CAN Get Paid 💰

Rava says: teruma from outside the Land does not have the “helper at the threshing floor” problem. You may give it to a kohen who helped you, as his pay!

And this wasn’t just theory. Rav Hama had a servant who was a kohen, and Rav Hama paid him with teruma from outside the Land.

The Simple Idea 💡: Outside the Land, you may pay a kohen helper with teruma.

Softer Rule #2: It Disappears in a Crowd 🫗

Here’s a rule about mixtures. What happens if a little teruma falls into a big pile of regular food?

• Teruma from Eretz Yisrael: it only “disappears” (becomes בטל, batel, “cancelled out”) if there’s about 100 times as much regular food.
• Teruma from outside the Land: Shmuel says it disappears in a simple majority (ברוב, berov, “in a majority”). Just more than half!

Rabba (who was a kohen himself) went even further. He would mix it in on purpose to cancel it out. Normally you’re not allowed to do that with forbidden things! And he would even eat it when he was tamei (ritually impure).

Think of it like… one drop of food coloring. Put it in a giant swimming pool and you’d never see it. That’s like the 100-times rule. But with teruma from outside the Land, a glass of water is “big enough” to make it disappear!

The Simple Idea 💡: Teruma from outside the Land gets cancelled out when it’s mixed into a bigger amount of regular food.

The Clever Wine Trick 🍷🍷🍷

Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, had a smart way to use this rule with wine.

1. He poured two jugs of regular wine and one jug of teruma wine into a big barrel. Two is more than one, so the teruma wine is cancelled out!
2. He took one jug out to drink.
3. Now there are two jugs left in the barrel, and they all count as regular wine.
4. Next time he got a jug of teruma wine, he poured it in: two regular plus one teruma. Cancelled again! He took one jug out.
5. And again, and again, and again…

Think of it like… a team with a “two against one” rule. As long as there are always two regular players on the team, one new teruma player gets “outvoted” every time.

But wait! If you did the real math, more and more of that barrel would come from teruma. Rav Huna’s trick works because once something is cancelled, it counts as regular from then on.

The Simple Idea 💡: Once the teruma wine was cancelled out, the leftover wine counted as regular, so Rav Huna could keep adding one jug and taking one jug.

Softer Rule #3: Eat First, Separate Later 🍎

In Eretz Yisrael, food that still needs teruma taken out is called טבל (tevel, “untithed food”). You may not eat it until the teruma and tithes are separated.

But Shmuel says that with food from outside the Land, you may eat as you go, and separate the teruma afterward from what’s left.

Think of it like… sharing a pizza. Normally you’d set aside a slice for your little sister before anyone starts eating. With this softer rule, it’s like being allowed to start eating, as long as you remember to save her slice from the rest of the pizza.

The Simple Idea 💡: Outside the Land, you can eat the food first and take off the teruma later.

Softer Rule #4: Which Kind of “Tamei” Matters? 🚿

This is Shmuel’s biggest rule. Normally a kohen who is tamei (ritually impure) may not eat teruma. But there are different kinds of being tamei:

• From your own body (הטומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו, “the impurity comes out from his body”): for example, a woman who is a nidda (impure from her monthly cycle), or a man who had a certain kind of bodily discharge.
• From something outside you: for example, touching a dead person (טמא מת, tamei met), a dead animal, or a dead sheretz (a small creeping creature, like a lizard or a mouse).

Shmuel says: teruma from outside the Land is forbidden only to someone who is tamei from their own body. Touching a dead person or a dead lizard? No problem at all!

And even for someone tamei from their own body, it’s only forbidden to eat it. Touching it is fine!

Think of it like… a “no-entry” sign that only applies to one kind of visitor, and even for them, it only means “don’t come inside.” They can still wave at the door.

The Simple Idea 💡: Teruma from outside the Land is forbidden only to someone impure from their own body, and only for eating, not touching.

What About Challa? 🍞

Ravina uses Shmuel’s rule for challa (חלה). When you bake bread, you take a small piece of the dough and give it to a kohen. That’s challa! Outside the Land, it’s also a rule of the Sages.

So here’s what Ravina says:

• Who may separate it? Even a woman who is a nidda may take off the challa. Remember: she’s only forbidden to eat it, not to touch it! ✅
• Who may eat it? A young kohen (a little boy, a כהן קטן, kohen katan) who is too young to have any impurity from his own body. ✅
• What if there’s no young kohen around? She lifts the challa on a skewer (a long stick or spit) and throws it into the oven to burn it up.
• Then she takes off a second piece of challa. Why? So that people don’t forget the mitzva of challa! This second piece isn’t really holy, so even a grown-up kohen, even one who is tamei, may eat it.

Think of it like… a school that keeps doing fire drills even when there’s no fire. The drill keeps everyone remembering what to do, so when it really matters, nobody has forgotten.

The Simple Idea 💡: Outside the Land, challa can be separated even by a woman who is a nidda, and the Sages kept a “reminder piece” so the mitzva would never be forgotten.

A Question on a Boat ⛵

Now a story! Three great teachers, Rav Nachman, Rav Amram and Rami bar Hama, were traveling together on a ferry (a boat that carries people across a river).

Rav Amram stepped away for a moment to use the bathroom. Just then, a woman came up to the other two and asked:

“If someone is tamei met (impure from touching a dead person), can he dip in a mikveh (a special pool for becoming pure) and then eat teruma from outside the Land?”

Here’s why this is a tricky question. To become pure from tamei met, the Torah requires two things: dipping in a mikveh and being sprinkled (הזאה, haza’ah) with special water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer (a special red cow, called the parah adumah). But by the time of these Sages, there were no more red heifer ashes!

So Rav Nachman said: “Do we even have sprinkling?” In other words: what good is dipping, if you can’t do the sprinkling part?

But Rami bar Hama said: “Wait! Shouldn’t we be careful to respect the old man?” He meant Rav Amram, the oldest of the three. “Let’s wait for him before we answer.”

Just then, Rav Amram came back. He said: “This is what Rav taught: someone who is tamei met dips and eats teruma from outside the Land.”

So according to Rav, dipping in the mikveh is enough for this softer kind of teruma, even without the sprinkling.

Think of it like… a group of kids who get asked a hard question, and one says, “Let’s wait for our big brother, he’ll know!” And when the big brother comes back, he knows exactly what their teacher said.

The Simple Idea 💡: On the ferry, Rav Amram reported Rav’s ruling that a person impure from a dead body may dip in a mikveh and then eat teruma from outside the Land.

But the Halakha Isn’t Like That! ⚖️

The Gemara surprises us: the halakha does not follow Rav!

And there’s a similar ruling: Mar Zutra, quoting Rav Sheshet, said that someone who touched a dead sheretz (creeping creature) may dip and eat teruma from outside the Land. And the Gemara says: the halakha doesn’t follow that either!

Why not? Remember Shmuel’s rule from before? Impurity from touching a dead person or a sheretz doesn’t forbid this teruma at all. So it seems the problem with Rav and Rav Sheshet isn’t that they were too easy. It’s that they asked for too much! According to Shmuel, you don’t even need to dip.

Think of it like… a sign that says “Wipe your feet before entering.” Someone says, “If your shoes are muddy, wipe them first.” But the house rule is: “This room doesn’t care about muddy shoes at all!” No wiping needed.

The Simple Idea 💡: The halakha doesn’t follow Rav or Rav Sheshet here, which fits Shmuel’s rule that this kind of impurity doesn’t matter for teruma from outside the Land.

Back to the Firstborn: Whose Year? 📅🐑

Now the Gemara goes back to the new perek (chapter) that began on daf 26.

A בכור (bechor, “firstborn”) is the first boy an animal ever gives birth to. It belongs to the kohen. The mishna says the firstborn is eaten “שנה בשנה” (shana beshana, “year by year”). That means it should be eaten within its first year. And if it gets a blemish (a permanent injury) “within its year,” the kohen may keep it for a full twelve months.

The Gemara notices one small word: the mishna says “its year,” not “the year.” So which year counts?

The word “its” tells us: it’s the animal’s own year, counted from its birthday!

Think of it like… your age. You don’t turn one year older on New Year’s Day. You turn older on your birthday! A firstborn’s year works the same way.

The Simple Idea 💡: The firstborn’s year is counted from its own birthday, not by the calendar.

”A Year in a Year” 🔄

But where does the Torah teach this? Rav Yehuda, quoting Rav, looks at the verse (Devarim 15:20): “Before Hashem your God you shall eat it shana beshana.”

Rav reads the words very literally: “a year in a year.” What kind of year goes into another year?

Think about it. If a lamb is born in the middle of the calendar year, its first year starts in one calendar year and ends in the next one. Its year “goes into” the next year! So the verse must be talking about the animal’s own year.

Think of it like… a school year. It starts in September of one year and ends in June of the next year. It’s a “year inside two years”!

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav learns from “a year in a year” that the firstborn’s year crosses into the next calendar year, so it’s counted from its birth.

The School of Rav: Two Days and One Night 🌅🌙🌅

But the school of Rav (his students and their teachings) reads the same words differently!

They say “shana beshana” means: one day at the end of this year, and one day at the start of the next year. So the verse teaches that a firstborn (an unblemished one, brought as an offering in the Beit HaMikdash, the Holy Temple) may be eaten for two days and the one night in between.

That’s the same time limit as a שלמים (shelamim, “peace offering”), a happy offering shared by the people who bring it.

Think of it like… a sleepover. You arrive on the first day, stay the night, and go home on the second day. Two days, one night!

The Simple Idea 💡: The school of Rav uses “year by year” to teach that a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.

Each Side Needs a “Backup Verse” 📜📜

Now the Gemara has a fun puzzle. Each side used the same words for a different law. So how does each side learn the other law?

Question 1: How does the school of Rav know the firstborn’s year is counted from its birthday?

They learn it from other offerings. And how do we know that other offerings count from birth? Rav Acha bar Yaakov points to a verse about a woman who just had a baby (Vayikra 12:6). She brings “a lamb in its year” (כבש בן שנתו, keves ben shenato). “Its year” means the lamb’s own year, not the year of the world’s calendar!

Question 2: How does Rav know the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night?

From a different verse (Bamidbar 18:18). It says the firstborn’s meat belongs to the kohen “like the breast of waving and like the right thigh.” Those are pieces of a peace offering given to the kohanim! The Torah puts them side by side. This is called a היקש (hekesh, “a comparison”): when the Torah places two things together, they share the same rules. A peace offering is eaten for two days and one night, so the firstborn is too!

Think of it like… two kids who each have one key. Both doors get opened in the end; they just used their keys on different doors, and each found a spare key for the other one.

The Simple Idea 💡: Both sides agree on both laws; they just disagree about which verse teaches which one.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• The farmer’s choice: teruma belongs to the kohanim, but the farmer chooses which kohen gets it. Another Israelite may pay him for that choice; a kohen may not buy his own gift.
• Why only teruma? Teruma’s holiness can never be traded away, so money can’t confuse anyone. The foreleg, jaws and stomach have a holiness tied to value, and paying might make people treat them as ordinary.
• Teruma from outside the Land is “softer”: a helper can be paid with it (Rava; Rav Hama’s servant), it disappears in a simple majority (Shmuel; Rabba; Rav Huna’s wine trick), and you may eat first and separate later.
• Shmuel: only someone impure from his own body may not eat it, and even then touching is fine. So Ravina rules that a nidda may separate challa, a young kohen eats it, and a “reminder piece” keeps the mitzva alive.
• The boat story: Rav Amram quoted Rav: someone impure from a dead body may dip and eat. But the halakha doesn’t follow Rav (or Rav Sheshet’s similar rule), which fits Shmuel’s view that this impurity doesn’t matter at all.
• “Year by year”: the firstborn’s year is counted from its birthday, like your age.
• Rav learns that from “a year in a year”; the school of Rav learns “two days and one night” from the same words. Each side finds a backup verse for the other law!

⚖️ Halacha

The Owner’s Benefit of Discretion: Who May Pay for the Right to Choose

Source in Daf: 27a, Segments 1-2 (the baraita that began on 26b: the owners retain טובת הנאה; an Israelite may pay a sela so that the teruma goes to “my daughter’s son who is a priest,” but a priest may not pay)

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 12:20

Hebrew:

לֹא יִתֵּן אָדָם תְּרוּמָה לְשׁוֹמֵר גִּתּוֹ. וְלֹא בְּכוֹר לְשׁוֹמֵר עֶדְרוֹ. וְלֹא מַתָּנוֹת לְרוֹעֵה בְּהֶמְתּוֹ. וְאִם נָתַן חִלֵּל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָתַן לָהֶם שְׂכַר שְׁמִירָתָן תְּחִלָּה. וְרַשַּׁאי יִשְׂרָאֵל לוֹמַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר הָא לְךָ סֶלַע זוֹ וְתֵן תְּרוּמָה אוֹ בְּכוֹר אוֹ שְׁאָר מַתָּנוֹת לִפְלוֹנִי הַכֹּהֵן בֶּן בִּתִּי אוֹ בֶּן אֲחוֹתִי. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

English:

A person should not give terumah to the watchman of his vat, nor a firstborn animal to the watchman of his flock, nor the presents [given when an animal is slaughtered] to the shepherd of his animals. If he gave them [to these individuals], he desecrated [their honor] unless he gave them their wages for watching first. One Israelite may tell another Israelite: “Here is a sela. Give terumah…”, “…a firstborn…”, or other presents [given to the priests] “…to so-and-so, the priest, who is my daughter’s son, or “…my sister’s son,” or the like.

Connection: The second half of this halacha is the baraita of Segment 2 almost word for word (“הא לך סלע זו ותן… לפלוני הכהן בן בתי”), extended from teruma to the firstborn and “other presents.” The first half is the ruling of 26b that this baraita completes: teruma may not be handed to a watchman or helper as payment for his work, unless his wages were paid first. Notice that the Rambam’s list includes “שאר מתנות,” so he does not limit the permitted arrangement to teruma, even though the tanna of the baraita mentioned only teruma (Segments 3-4).

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 12:21

Hebrew:

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ הַבְּעָלִים רוֹצִים לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לְאֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים אֵלּוּ אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי לְוִיִּים אֵלּוּ בְּחִנָּם וְאָמַר לוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ הֵא לְךָ וְתֵן לָזֶה. אֲבָל הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ לַכֹּהֵן אוֹ לַלֵּוִי הֵא לְךָ חֵלֶק זֶה בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. וְכֵן אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת סְחוֹרָה בִּתְרוּמוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ מִכֹּהֵן וּמוֹכֵר לְכֹהֵן:

English:

When does the above apply? When the owner desired to give [the presents] to one of two priests or [tithes] to one of two Levites gratis and his colleague told him: “Here is this and give to that one.” If, however, an owner told a priest or a Levite: “Here is this portion. [Give me something in exchange] for my privilege to give it to whom I want,” this is forbidden. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell terumah as merchandise even though he purchases it from a priest and sells it to a priest.

Connection: This is the baraita’s closing clause, “אם היה כהן לכהן — אסור,” explained. What is permitted is a third party, an Israelite, paying the owner to direct a gift he would anyway give freely to one of two priests. What is forbidden is the owner charging the priest himself for his discretion, which turns the gift into a sale. The Rambam then adds the general rule that one may not trade in teruma at all, even buying from one priest and selling to another.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 61:28 (with Rema)

Hebrew:

השוחט בהמת ישראל חבירו חובה על השוחט ליתן מתנותיה לכהן ואם שחט בהמת כהן או עובד כוכבים פטור: הגה מיהו טובת הנאה לבעלים והוא יכול ליתנם לכל כהן שירצה (ב”י בשם הר”ן) ואסו’ לבעלי’ ליקח דינר מכהן ליתן לו המתנו’ וכן מישראל ליתן המתנות לבן בתו הכהן (ב”י בשם ר”י ובפרק עד כמה):

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

One who slaughters the animal of his fellow Israelite, the slaughterer is obliged to give its gifts to the priest; and if he slaughtered the animal of a priest or of an idolater, he is exempt. Rema: However, the benefit of discretion belongs to the owner, and he may give them to any priest he wishes (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ran). And it is forbidden for the owner to take a dinar from a priest to give him the gifts, and likewise from an Israelite to give the gifts to his daughter’s son the priest (Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham, and in Perek Ad Kamah).

Connection: The Rema names our perek (“ובפרק עד כמה”) as his source. He accepts the baraita’s ban on a priest paying, and then applies the Gemara’s analysis in Segments 3-4 to the gifts of the foreleg, jaws and maw: because these gifts have only monetary sanctity, even an Israelite may not pay a dinar to direct them to his grandson, since onlookers might think the sanctity had been redeemed. In effect, the leniency of Segment 2 is confined to teruma, exactly as the tanna confined it.

Inherent Sanctity and Monetary Sanctity: The Gifts of the Priesthood

Source in Daf: 27a, Segments 3-4 (teruma has קדושת הגוף and cannot be redeemed, so no one will err; the priestly gifts have קדושת דמים, so a priest might think a payment redeemed them “treat them in the manner that one treats non-sacred food”; the translation adds that they must be eaten roasted and with seasoning)

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 9:20

Hebrew:

הַכֹּהֶנֶת אוֹכֶלֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא נְשׂוּאָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן קְדֻשָּׁה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא הַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל מַתָּנוֹת בִּגְלַל אִשְׁתּוֹ. אֲבָל חֲלָלָה אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. שֶׁאֵין חֲלָלִים בִּכְלַל כֹּהֲנִים. וְאִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְכֹּר הַמַּתָּנוֹת אוֹ לִתְּנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אֲפִלּוּ לְעַכּוּ”ם אוֹ לְהַאֲכִילָם לִכְלָבִים מַאֲכִילָם שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן קְדֻשָּׁה כְּלָל:

English:

A women of the priestly family may partake of the presents even if she is married to an Israelite, because they are not consecrated. Moreover, her husband may partake of the presents for her sake. A challalah, by contrast, may not partake of the presents, because challalim are not in the category of priests. If a priest desires to sell the presents, to give them as gifts, even to a gentile, or to feed them to the dogs, he may, for they are not consecrated at all.

Connection: The Rambam states the practical consequence of the gifts’ lesser status in the strongest terms: “אין בהן קדושה כלל.” A priest may sell them, give them away, even feed them to dogs. This is exactly why the Gemara in Segment 4 feared a mistake. Since the priest is free to sell the gifts, an owner’s taking a sela for them could easily be read as a sale that turned them into ordinary food. Teruma, which a priest may never treat this way, raises no such risk. Yet the Rambam rules a few halachot later (9:22) that the priests eat the gifts only “צלי בחרדל,” roasted with mustard “in a manner befitting a king”; this is the dignified manner, mentioned in the translation of Segment 4, that a priest might abandon if he thought the gifts had been redeemed.

Teruma from Outside the Land: No Ban on the Helping Priest, Nullified in a Majority, Eaten Before Separation

Source in Daf: 27a, Segments 5-8 (Rava: no prohibition of “a priest assisting at the threshing floor,” and Rav Hama gave it to his servant; Shmuel: nullified in a majority, and Rabba nullified it ab initio and ate it in his days of impurity; Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua’s vat; Shmuel: “one may proceed to eat and afterward separate”)

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 13:11

Hebrew:

תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מֻתָּר לְבַטְּלָהּ בְּרֹב וְאוֹכְלָהּ בִּימֵי טֻמְאָתוֹ וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה לוֹ יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ לוֹג אֶחָד וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין חֻלִּין וְנִמְצָא הַכֹּל שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטֵל מִיַּיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לוֹג וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה וּמַגְבִּיהַּ מֵאַרְבַּעְתָּן לוֹג וְשׁוֹתֶה. וְחוֹזֵר וּמַשְׁלִיךְ לְתוֹכָן לוֹג אַחֵר וְחוֹזֵר וְנוֹטֵל לוֹג וְשׁוֹתֶה. וְכֵן נוֹתֵן לוֹג תְּרוּמָה וְנוֹטֵל לוֹג מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁנָּטַל כַּמָּה לוֹגִין בִּשְׁנֵי לוֹגִין שֶׁל חֻלִּין:

English:

It is, however, permitted to nullify terumah from the Diaspora [by mixing it] with a majority of permitted substances and eat it during the time when one is ritually impure. Not only that, if a person possesses wine that is terumah from the Diaspora, he should take one log of this wine and mix it with two lugim of ordinary [wine]. Thus there are three lugim. Afterwards, he can add another log of the terumah wine into the three lugim and then take one log from the four and drink it. He may then add another log [of terumah wine] and take out a log and drink it. Similarly, he may continue adding a log of terumah and removing a log until all the wine that is terumah is completed. Thus he can nullify several lugim [of terumah] in two lugim of ordinary produce.

Connection: The Rambam codifies Shmuel together with both practices recorded in Segments 6-7. “מותר לבטלה ברוב ואוכלה בימי טומאתו” is Rabba’s conduct, now stated as law, including the permission to nullify ab initio. The second half is Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua’s method, worked out step by step: one log of teruma in two of non-sacred wine, then add a log and draw a log “until all the wine that is terumah is completed.” The Rambam’s conclusion, “Thus he can nullify several lugim [of terumah] in two lugim of ordinary produce,” spells out the point noted in the Breakdown: once the first nullification has taken effect, the whole vat counts as non-sacred, so the original two lugim keep outweighing every new log.

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 5:12

Hebrew:

הַנִּדָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מְבָרֶכֶת וּמַפְרֶשֶׁת חַלַּת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מֻזְהֶרֶת עַל מַגָּעָהּ אֶלָּא עַל אֲכִילָתָהּ. וְאִם הָיָה שָׁם כֹּהֵן קָטָן אוֹ כֹּהֵן שֶׁטָּבַל שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ לַאֲכִילָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָהּ עִם הַזָּר עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִתְעָרְבָה שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה. וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָהּ לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה בַּאֲוִיר אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים [וְאֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם כֹּהֵן הַמְּסַיֵּעַ בְּמַתְּנוֹתָיו שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. וְאִם רָצָה לֶאֱכל תְּחִלָּה] וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַפְרִישׁ הַחַלָּה בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין עִקָּרָהּ אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם:

English:

A niddah and the like may recite a blessing and separate challah in the Diaspora. For she is not cautioned against touching the challah, only against partaking of it. If there is a priest who was a minor or [an adult] priest who immersed himself who is permitted to partake of it as we explained, he may partake of it, [eating] together with a non-priest at the same table. [The rationale is that] it does not create a forbidden mixture, even if there are equal quantities of it and ordinary food. It may be given to an unlearned priest because [the woman] is impure because of the air of the Diaspora, and the prohibition against a priest actively seeking to receive his presents does not apply in this instance. If a person desires to eat first and then separate the challah in the Diaspora, he is permitted, for the fundamental obligation is Rabbinic in origin.

Connection: This halacha gathers three rulings of our amud for ḥalla from outside the Land. First, the niddah may separate it, because she is cautioned only against eating it (Ravina, Segment 10). The Rambam repeats this in Terumot 12:1, using Ravina’s own verb, “נדה קוצה לה חלה.” Second, it may be given even to an unlearned priest, “the prohibition against a priest actively seeking to receive his presents does not apply in this instance,” which is Rava’s ruling in Segment 5. Third, one may eat first and separate ḥalla afterward, which is Shmuel’s ruling in Segment 8. The Rambam’s reason for all three, “for the fundamental obligation is Rabbinic in origin,” is the theme of the entire amud. The statement that it “does not create a forbidden mixture” (אינה מדמעת) goes even further than nullification in a majority.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 323:1 (excerpt)

Hebrew:

ומותר לבטלה ברוב ואוכלה בימי טומאתו ויכולין ליתנה לכהן עם הארץ ואין בה משום כהן המסייע במתנותיו שהוא אסור ואם רצה לאכול תחילה ואחר כך יפריש החלה בח”ל מותר מפני שאין עיקרה אלא מדבריהם: הגה וצריך לשייר מעט יותר משיעור חלה שמפריש כדי שיהא שיריים בשעה שמפריש (ב”י בשם הרא”ש וסמ”ג ובהר”ן דביצה)

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this siman):

And it is permitted to nullify it in a majority and to eat it in his days of impurity; and one may give it to an unlearned priest, and the prohibition of a priest who helps for his gifts does not apply to it; and if he wishes to eat first and afterward separate the ḥalla outside the Land, it is permitted, because its essence is only from their words. Rema: And he must leave a little more than the amount of ḥalla he separates, so that there will be a remainder at the time he separates (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rosh, the Semag and the Ran on Beitzah).

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch adopts the Rambam’s ḥalla rulings in full and adds Shmuel’s nullification in a majority and Rabba’s eating “in his days of impurity” to the same se’if, so that the whole cluster of leniencies from Segments 5-8 is codified together. The Rema’s note answers a practical question left open by “proceed to eat”: something must remain from which the ḥalla can be separated. (Earlier in the same se’if, the Rema records an opinion that ḥalla from outside the Land does create a mixture that requires a hundred and one; the excerpt quoted here is the main text’s ruling.)

Which Impurity Forbids Teruma from Outside the Land: Shmuel, Rav, and the Ferry

Source in Daf: 27a, Segments 9 and 11, and 27b, Segments 1-2 (Shmuel: forbidden only to one “whose impurity comes from his body,” and only for eating, not touching; the woman on the ferry; Rav: one impure from a corpse טובל ואוכל, “may immerse and partake”; Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Sheshet: one impure from a creeping animal immerses and eats; “the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion”)

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 7:8

Hebrew:

תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הוֹאִיל וְעִקָּרָהּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה אֶלָּא לְכֹהֵן שֶׁטֻּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ. וְהֵן בַּעֲלֵי קְרָיִין וְזָבִין וְזָבוֹת וְנִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁטָּבְלוּ מֻתָּרִין לַאֲכִילָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱרִיב שִׁמְשָׁן. אֲבָל טְמֵאֵי מַגַּע טֻמְאוֹת בֵּין שֶׁנָּגַע בְּמֵת שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָנוּ הַיּוֹם לִטַּהֵר מִמֶּנּוּ בֵּין שֶׁנָּגַע בְּשֶׁרֶץ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִטְבּל לִתְרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ:

English:

Since the primary obligation of terumah [separated] in the Diaspora is Rabbinic in origin, it is forbidden only to a priest who becomes ritually impure because of a discharge from his body: i.e., men who had a seminal emission, zavim, zavot, niddot, and women who give birth. All of these individuals may partake [of terumah] after they immersed even if they did not [wait] until nightfall. Those who, by contrast, became impure because of contact with a source of ritual impurity - whether contact with a human corpse, a form of impurity which is impossible to purge in the present age or contact with [the corpse of] a crawling animal - need not immerse themselves [to partake of] terumah separated in the Diaspora.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Shmuel. Bodily impurities forbid this teruma, but only until immersion; there is no need to wait for nightfall. Corpse impurity and creeping-animal impurity do not forbid it at all, and such a person “need not immerse.” This last phrase settles how to read the Gemara’s twice-repeated “ולית הלכתא כוותיה” in 27b, Segment 2. Rav (one impure from a corpse טובל ואוכל) and Rav Sheshet (one impure from a creeping animal טובל ואוכל) are rejected because they required too much, not too little: no immersion is needed. The Rambam’s note that corpse impurity “is impossible to purge in the present age” echoes Rav Nahman’s question on the ferry, “do we have sprinkling” (27b, Segment 1). The Rambam’s ḥalla ruling (Bikkurim 5:10) is even more explicit: “אפילו טמאי מת מותרים לאכלה.” In the next halacha (Terumot 7:9) he draws the conclusion that a minor priest or a girl of priestly family who has never menstruated may always eat this teruma without inspection.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 322:5 (Rema)

Hebrew:

הגה וי”א כיון שאין חלה נאכלת בזמן הזה בארץ ישראל גם בשאר מקומות אין צריכין להפריש רק חלה אחת ולשרפה (טור בשם י”א ושאר פוסקים) וכן המנהג פשוט בכל מדינות אלו שאין מפרישין רק חלה אחת בלא שיעור ושורפין אותה כמו שהיו עושין כשמפרישין שתי חלות שחלת האור לא היה לה שיעור ומ”מ נוהגין ליטול כזית (מהרי”ל) . והאוכל חלה אפילו בחוצה לארץ מברך תחלה על המין שרוצה לאכול ואח”כ מברך אשר קדשנו בקדושתו של אהרן וצונו לאכול תרומה (כל בו והוא מל’ הרמב”ם סוף הלכות תרומה) וי”א כששורפין החלה עושין לה היסק בפני עצמה דישראל אסור ליהנות ממנה (מהרי”ק וכן הוא בתוספות פ’ כל שעה) ונוהגין להשליכה לתנור קודם שאופין הפת:

English:

Rema: And there are some who say that since there is no challah eaten in this time in the land of Israel, also [it should be so] in the rest of the places. There is no need to separate [other than] only one challah and to burn it (Tur in the name of “there are those who say” and other decisors). And such is the basic practice in all these lands, that they do not separate [other than] only one challah that has no [specified] amount, and they burn it like they used to do when they separated two challot, in that the challah of the fire did not have a [specified] amount. And in any case, the practice to take an olive-size (Maharil). And the one [i.e. priest] who eats challah, even in the Diaspora, blesses first according to the type [of food] that one wants to eat, and after than blesses “who makes us holy with the holiness of Aaron and commands us to eat terumah [a contribution]”. And there are those who say that when they burn challah, they make an inference because of it that an Israelite [i.e. non-priest] is forbidden to derive benefit from it (Maharik, and so also in Tosafot “Kol Sha-ah”), and they practice to throw it into the oven before they bake the bread.

Connection: The main text of this se’if (not quoted here) copies the Rambam’s ḥalla ruling (Bikkurim 5:10-11), which applies Shmuel’s distinction. The Rema records the Ashkenazi practice, which differs from Ravina’s. Since no ḥalla is eaten anywhere today, one ḥalla is separated and burned, and “they practice to throw it into the oven before they bake the bread.” That is the very act Ravina prescribed when no minor priest is available: “she takes the ḥalla with the top of a skewer [massa] and throws it in the oven.” Ravina’s second ḥalla, kept “so that the halakhic category of ḥalla should not be forgotten,” has fallen away in this practice; the first, burned ḥalla is what remains of the mitzva today.

Ravina’s Ḥalla: Separated by a Niddah, Eaten by a Minor Priest, and the Second Ḥalla

Source in Daf: 27a, Segment 10 (a niddah separates ḥalla and a minor priest eats it; if there is none, she burns it on a skewer and separates another “so that the halakhic category of ḥalla should not be forgotten,” and an adult priest eats it)

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 5:11 (excerpt)

Hebrew:

וְכֵן אִם הָיָה שָׁם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁטָּבַל מִשִּׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ אוֹ מִזִּיבָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱרִיב שִׁמְשׁוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא טְמֵא מֵת הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל הַחַלָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ שְׁנִיָּה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

English:

Similarly, if a priest who was an adult immersed himself [in a mikveh and thus purified himself from the impurity resulting from] the emission of semen or zivut, he may partake of this first challah. Then [the one who separated it] need not separate a second challah in the Diaspora. [This applies] even though the sun has not set [after he immersed himself] and although he remains ritually impure due to the impurity imparted by a corpse.

Connection: Ravina says that the second ḥalla may be eaten by “an adult priest” (כהן גדול). The Rambam reads the phrase more narrowly: an adult priest who has immersed from an emission or a flow, even before nightfall and even while impure from a corpse, may eat even the first ḥalla. In that case no second ḥalla is needed at all. Ravina’s fallback procedure, burning one piece and separating another, is therefore needed only when no priest fit to eat is present. The excerpt stops before the halacha turns to the blessing over ḥalla, which our sugya does not discuss.

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 5:8 (excerpt)

Hebrew:

וְכָל הָאָרֶץ מֵאֲמָנָה וְלַחוּץ בֵּין בְּסוּרְיָא בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר הָאֲרָצוֹת מַפְרִישִׁין שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת. אַחַת לִשְׂרֵפָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ רָאִינוּ תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה נֶאֱכֶלֶת. וְאַחַת לַאֲכִילָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרַת חַלָּה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. וְהוֹאִיל וְזוֹ וְזוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מוּטָב לְרַבּוֹת בַּנֶּאֱכֶלֶת לְפִיכָךְ שֶׁל שְׂרֵפָה אֵין לָהּ שִׁעוּר אֶלָּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְשֶׁל אֲכִילָה אֶחָד מִמ”ח. וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְזָבִים וּלְזָבוֹת וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לִשְׁאָר טְמֵאִים:

English:

In all of the lands from Amanah and beyond, whether in Syria or other lands, two challot should be separated: One is burnt so that people should not say we saw impure terumah being eaten and one is eaten so that the laws of challah will not be forgotten by the Jewish people. [Since] both of these are Rabbinic institutions, it is preferable to make the one that is eaten larger. Accordingly, there is no minimum measure for the one that is burnt. Even the slightest amount [is acceptable]. The one which is eaten should be one forty-eighth [of the dough]. It is permitted to be eaten by zavim and zavot- and needless to say, other people who are ritually impure.

Connection: The excerpt is the final clause of a long halacha on the three regions of ḥalla, and it gives the rule for Ravina’s case when no fit priest is present. (In 5:7 the Rambam gives Ravina’s reason as the reason for separating ḥalla outside the Land at all.) Outside Amana, two ḥallot are separated: one for burning, so that people “should not say we saw impure terumah being eaten,” and one for eating, “so that the laws of challah will not be forgotten.” The Rambam’s statement that the eaten ḥalla “is permitted to be eaten by zavim and zavot- and needless to say, other people who are ritually impure” explains Ravina’s last words, “and an adult priest may eat it”: the second ḥalla has no real sanctity, so even a priest with bodily impurity may eat it.

The Firstborn Is Eaten “Year by Year”: Counted from Its Own Birth

Source in Daf: 27b, Segments 3-4 and 6 (the mishna: “if a blemish developed within its first year”; “we count according to its year”; Rav: “Which type of year enters another year?… the year of the firstborn animal”; the school of Rav learns it from other offerings, and Rav Aha bar Yaakov: “a lamb in its first year” (כבש בן שנתו), its own year and not the year of the world)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 1:8

Hebrew:

הַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ בֵּין תָמִים בֵּין בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו כ) “לִפְנֵי ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹּאכֲלֶנּוּ שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה” (דברים טו כא) “וְכִי יִהְיֶה בּוֹ מוּם” (דברים טו כב) “בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תֹּאכֲלֶנּוּ”. וּמֵאֵימָתַי מוֹנֶה לוֹ. אִם תָּם הוּא מוֹנֶה לוֹ מִיּוֹם שְׁמִינִי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַקְרָבָה וְאִם נוֹלַד בַּעַל מוּם מוֹנֶה לוֹ מִיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד. וְהוּא שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו שֶׁהֲרֵי נִרְאֶה לַאֲכִילָה בְּיוֹם לֵידָתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא יָדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו מוֹנֶה לוֹ מִיּוֹם שְׁמִינִי:

English:

A firstborn animal should be eaten within the first year of its life, whether it is unblemished or blemished, as ibid.:20-22 states: “Eat it before God your Lord, year after year… If it has a blemish,… eat it in your gates.” From when is the year calculated? If it is unblemished, it should be calculated from the eighth day of its life, for then it is fit to be offered as a sacrifice. If it was born blemished, the year should be calculated from the day of its birth, because it could be eaten on that day, provided it was born after a full-term pregnancy. If, however, it is not known whether it was born after a full-term pregnancy, the year should be calculated from the eighth day.

Connection: The Rambam opens with the mishna’s rule and Rav’s verse, “שנה בשנה.” His question, “ומאימתי מונה לו,” presupposes the Gemara’s inference in Segment 3 that the firstborn’s year is counted for each animal individually and not by the calendar. His answer adds a refinement not stated in our sugya: an unblemished firstborn counts from its eighth day, when it becomes fit for the altar, and one born blemished counts from its birth. The next halacha (1:9) codifies the mishna’s clause that the Gemara examines: a firstborn that develops a blemish within its year may be kept twelve months.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 1:12

Hebrew:

שָׁנָה שֶׁל בְּכוֹר הִיא שְׁנַת לְבָנָה תְּמִימָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. וְאִם הָיְתָה שָׁנָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת נִתְעַבְּרָה לוֹ וּמוֹנֶה לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. נוֹלְדוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי טְלָאִים אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁל אֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֶחָד בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר שֵׁנִי. זֶה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר שֵׁנִי כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן בַּאֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה וְזֶה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בַּחֲצִי אֲדָר רִאשׁוֹן לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה עַד חֲצִי אֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה הוֹאִיל וְנוֹלַד בְּחֹדֶשׁ הָעִבּוּר מוֹנִין אוֹתוֹ לוֹ:

English:

The year of a firstborn animal is a full lunar year, twelve months from day to day. If it was a leap year, it benefits from the addition and it is granted thirteen months. If two lambs were born to a person, one on the fifteenth of the first Adar and one on the first day of the second Adar, when the first day of Adar in the following year arrives, the second lamb is considered to have its year completed. The one born in the middle of the first Adar, by contrast, is not considered to have its year completed until the middle of the Adar in the following year. Since it was born in the extra month, it is counted for it.

Connection: “מיום ליום” is Rav’s “year that enters another year” in its plainest form: the firstborn’s year runs from its own date to the same date a year later, crossing whatever calendar boundary falls between. The Rambam then works out a question our sugya does not raise: a leap month in the middle of the animal’s year is counted with it.

Rambam — Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:11

Hebrew:

הַשְּׁלָמִים בָּאִים מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן הָעִזִּים וּמִן הַבָּקָר מִזְּכָרִים וּמִנְּקֵבוֹת מִן הַגְּדוֹלִים וּמִן הַקְּטַנִּים. וְאֵין הָעוֹף בָּא שְׁלָמִים. הַקְּטַנִּים הֵם מִבֶּן שְׁמוֹנַת יָמִים עַד שָׁנָה תְּמִימָה מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. אִם נִתְעַבְּרָה שָׁנָה נִתְעַבְּרָה לוֹ. וְהַגְּדוֹלִים בַּבָּקָר עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. וּבַצֹּאן עַד שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. יוֹתֵר עַל זֶה הֲרֵי הוּא זָקֵן וְאֵין מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתוֹ:

English:

Peace offerings may be brought from sheep, goats, or cattle, from males and females, whether large or small. A fowl may not be brought as a peace offering. [When describing an animal as] small, [the intent] is one between the eighth day and a full year, from day to day. If the year was declared a leap year, [the extra month is included]. “Large” implies until three full years from day to day for cattle, for flocks, until two full years from day to day. From this age onward, [the animal] is considered as “old” and it should not be brought as an offering.

Connection: This is the source the school of Rav relies on (Segment 6): the age of every offering is counted “from day to day,” the animal’s own year and “not a year of the counting of the world,” as Rav Aha bar Yaakov derived from “a lamb in its first year.” The leap-year rule matches the Rambam’s ruling for the firstborn, which shows that he treats the two as a single system, as the school of Rav did.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 306:7-8

Hebrew:

הבכור אפילו בעל מום נאכל תוך שנתו ומאימתי מונה לו אם נולד בעל מום מונה לו מיום שנולד והוא שיודע שכלו לו חדשיו שהרי נראה לאכילה ביום לידתו אבל אם לא ידע בודאי שכלו לו חדשיו מונה לו מיום שמיני:

נולד לו מום תוך שנתו רשאי לקיימו כל י”ב חדש נולד לו מום בסוף שנתו מותר לקיימו ל’ יום מיום שנפל בו המום ואע”פ שהוא מתאחר לאחר שנתו כיצד כגון שנפל בו מום בט”ו יום לפני גמר שנתו משלימים לו ט”ו יום אחר שנתו נולד לו מום אחר שנתו אינו רשאי לקיימו אלא עד ל’ יום ויאכל:

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this siman):

The firstborn, even a blemished one, is eaten within its year. And from when does one count for it? If it was born blemished, one counts from the day it was born, provided one knows that its months were complete, since it was then fit to be eaten on the day of its birth; but if one does not know for certain that its months were complete, one counts from the eighth day.

If a blemish developed within its year, one may keep it the entire twelve months. If a blemish developed at the end of its year, one may keep it thirty days from the day the blemish appeared, even though it is thereby delayed beyond its year. How so? For example, if the blemish appeared fifteen days before the end of its year, one completes for it fifteen days after its year. If a blemish developed after its year, one may keep it only until thirty days, and it must be eaten.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch omits the unblemished firstborn, which cannot be offered today, and codifies the rest of the Rambam word for word. The firstborn of a kosher animal is still given to a priest today and eaten once it is blemished, so the counting from birth that our Gemara derives from “שנה בשנה” remains practical law.

Two Days and One Night: The Firstborn Like the Breast and Thigh

Source in Daf: 27b, Segments 5 and 7 (the school of Rav: “one day of this year and one day of that next year,” teaching that the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night; Rav learns it from “their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh”)

Rambam — Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:6

Hebrew:

הַשְּׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִים בְּיוֹם הַזְּבִיחָה וְכָל הַלַּיְלָה וְכָל יוֹם הַמָּחֳרָת עַד שֶׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז טז) “בְּיוֹם הַקְרִיבוֹ אֶת זִבְחוֹ יֵאָכֵל וּמִמָּחֳרָת” (ויקרא ז יח) “וְאִם הֵאָכל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי” וְגוֹ’. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁהֵן נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד בֵּין חֵלֶק הַכֹּהֲנִים בֵּין חֵלֶק הַבְּעָלִים וְהוּא הַדִּין לִבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים כִּשְׁלָמִים:

English:

The peace-offerings may be eaten on the day they were slaughtered, throughout the [following] night, and throughout the following day until sunset, as [Leviticus 7:16-18] states: “On the day when his sacrifice was offered, it shall be eaten and on its morrow… If one would partake of the peace-offering on the third day…” Thus one can derive that they may be eaten for two days and one night. [This applies both] to the portion of the priests and the portions of the owners. This also applies to the firstborn and tithe offerings, for they are also sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, like the peace-offerings.

Connection: “שני ימים ולילה אחד” is the conclusion both the school of Rav and Rav reach in Segments 5 and 7, and the Rambam derives it for the peace offering from Leviticus 7:16-18, the verse the Gemara points to. For the firstborn he gives his own reason, “for they are also sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, like the peace-offerings,” rather than either derivation in our sugya, though in 10:5 he cites Rav’s verse, “ובשרם יהיה לך כחזה התנופה וכשוק הימין,” to give the firstborn the breast and thigh’s rules of who may eat it and where. The result is the same as the Gemara’s, and the unblemished firstborn is eaten for two days and the night between. These Temple-era laws are preserved in Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt; the Shulchan Aruch, which deals only with the blemished firstborn of today, has no parallel.

Summary of Rulings