Bechorot Daf 53 (בכורות דף נ״ג)
Daf: 53 | Amudim: 53a – 53b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (53a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה (פתיחת פרק מעשר בהמה)
The opening mishna of Perek 9: where, when and to which animals the animal tithe applies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. וְנוֹהֵג בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן, וְאֵינָן מִתְעַשְּׂרִים מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. בַּכְּבָשִׂים וּבָעִזִּים וּמִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The mitzva of animal tithe is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of, i.e., in the time of, the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. It is in effect with regard to non-sacred animals but not with regard to sacrificial animals. And it is in effect with regard to the herd and the flock, but they are not tithed from one for the other; and it is in effect with regard to sheep and goats, and they are tithed from one for the other.
קלאוד על הדף:
With this mishna the Gemara opens Perek 9, מעשר בהמה (Ma’aser Behema), the last perek of Bechorot. The mitzva of Vayikra 27:32 is that every tenth animal born in a year passes under the counting rod and becomes sacred; it is brought to Jerusalem, its blood and fats go on the altar, and the owner eats its meat. The mishna sets out the boundaries. Unlike the produce tithe, which is tied to the Land, the animal tithe applies outside Eretz Yisrael too, and even when the Temple is not standing. It applies only to non-sacred animals, never to animals already consecrated. Cattle and the flock are counted separately, while sheep and goats, though different species, form one pool for tithing.
Key Terms:
- מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה = animal tithe: every tenth newborn kosher domestic animal of the year, consecrated and treated as an offering of lesser sanctity
- בָּקָר וְצֹאן = the herd (cattle) and the flock (sheep and goats)
- חוּלִּין / מוּקְדָּשִׁין = non-sacred animals versus animals already consecrated as offerings
- מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה = tithed from one for the other, i.e. counted together in one group of ten
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה (המשך): חדש וישן
New and old animals are not tithed together; a kal vachomer would separate sheep and goats, but the word ‘flock’ joins them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בֶּחָדָשׁ וּבַיָּשָׁן, וְאֵינָן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין, וּמָה אִם הֶחָדָשׁ וְהַיָּשָׁן שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה אֵינָם מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים שֶׁהֵן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְצֹאן״, מַשְׁמַע כׇּל צֹאן אֶחָד.
English Translation:
And it is in effect with regard to animals from the new flock and with regard to animals from the old flock, but they are not tithed from one for the other. As by right, it should be inferred: If in the case of animals from the new flock and the old flock, which do not carry the prohibition of mating diverse kinds when mated with each other because they are one species, are nevertheless not tithed from one for the other, then with regard to sheep and goats, which do carry the prohibition of mating diverse kinds when mated with each other, is it not right that they will not be tithed from one for the other? Therefore, the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), indicating that with regard to animal tithe, all animals that are included in the term flock are one species.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna adds a time boundary: animals born in different tithing years (the new and the old) are not counted together. It then explains why sheep and goats, by contrast, are joined. Logic would suggest the opposite: if new and old animals of one species, which are not even kilayim with each other, may not be combined, then surely sheep and goats, which are forbidden to interbreed as diverse kinds, should be kept apart. The Torah overrides this kal vachomer with the word צאן in Vayikra 27:32. ‘Flock’ is one category, so everything the Torah calls a flock is tithed as one unit. The mishna thus sets out both rules, and the Gemara on 53b will ask where the rule about new and old comes from.
Key Terms:
- חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן = animals born in the current tithing year versus those born in the previous one
- כִּלְאַיִם = diverse kinds; here, the prohibition of interbreeding two species such as sheep and goats
- שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין = ‘for logic would have dictated’, the opening of a kal vachomer the verse then overrides
- צֹאן = flock; the single term that unites sheep and goats for the animal tithe
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא (מברייתא דרבי עקיבא)
Is the mishna’s ‘outside the Land’ against Rabbi Akiva, who exempts tithe animals from abroad?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַעֲלֶה אָדָם מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְיַקְרִיבֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה עֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְזִבְחֵיכֶם וְאֵת מַעְשְׂרֹתֵיכֶם״.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the mitzva of animal tithe is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that a person must bring up his animal tithe from outside of Eretz Yisrael and sacrifice it in the Temple. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your offerings, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:6).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins with the mishna’s first clause, that the animal tithe applies outside Eretz Yisrael. A baraita reports Rabbi Akiva asking whether a person must bring his animal tithe up from abroad and sacrifice it. He answers from Devarim 12:6, which lists the offerings to be brought ‘there’, to the place God will choose, including ‘your tithes’. The question is set up here, and his reasoning follows in the next segment. If Rabbi Akiva excludes tithe animals from outside the Land, the mishna seems to contradict him. A mishna that disagrees with Rabbi Akiva is a problem, since unattributed mishnayot often follow his school.
Key Terms:
- לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּ… = ‘shall we say the mishna is not in accordance with…’, the Gemara’s standard opening for a challenge
- יַעֲלֶה = bring up, i.e. to Jerusalem and the Temple
- וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה = ‘and you shall bring there’ (Devarim 12:6), the list of what must be brought to the chosen place
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך): דרשת רבי עקיבא
‘Your tithes’ in the plural joins the animal tithe to the grain tithe: only where the grain tithe is brought up is the animal tithe brought up
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁתֵּי מַעַשְׂרוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֶחָד מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, וּמִמְּקוֹם שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה!
English Translation:
Rabbi Akiva explains: The plural form “tithes” indicates that the verse is speaking of two tithes; one is the animal tithe, and the other one is the second tithe of grain, i.e., produce. Since these two tithes are included in the same word, it is derived from here that from the place where you bring up the tithe of grain, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, as the obligation to separate tithe of grain applies only there, you also bring up the animal tithe; but from a place where you do not bring up the tithe of grain, i.e., outside of Eretz Yisrael, you do not bring up the animal tithe either. This baraita, which states the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva reads the plural מעשרותיכם as covering two tithes: the animal tithe and the tithe of grain (ma’aser sheni), which is also brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. Because one word covers both, they share one rule. The grain tithe is brought up only from Eretz Yisrael, where the produce tithes apply by Torah law. So the animal tithe too is brought up only from the Land, and an animal tithed abroad is not offered. This sounds like a direct contradiction of the mishna, which says the animal tithe ‘is in effect’ outside the Land. The way out, in the next segment, depends on separating two things that ‘in effect’ might mean.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם = ‘your tithes’ (plural), read as covering two tithes
- מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן = the tithe of grain; here, the second tithe of produce eaten in Jerusalem
- מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה = from the place from which you bring up, i.e. Eretz Yisrael
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ ודיוק
No contradiction: Rabbi Akiva speaks of offering the animal; the mishna speaks of its becoming sacred
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כָּאן לִיקְרַב, כָּאן לִיקְדַּשׁ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָא נָסֵיב לַהּ תַּלְמוּדָא ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as the baraita and the mishna are referring to different cases. The baraita there is referring to the requirement to bring the animal tithe to Jerusalem for it to be sacrificed on the altar. By contrast, the mishna here is speaking of the status of every tenth animal; these animals are to be separated and consecrated. The Gemara adds that the language of the baraita is also precise, as it adduces a derivation from the phrase “and you shall bring there.” Conclude from this citation that the baraita is referring specifically to the requirement to bring the animal tithe and sacrifice it in Jerusalem.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the mishna can follow Rabbi Akiva after all. There are two questions here: whether the tenth animal becomes sacred, and whether it is brought to the altar. Rabbi Akiva’s derivation, which the baraita draws from ‘you shall bring there’, concerns only bringing the animal to the altar. The mishna concerns only whether the tenth animal becomes sacred. Abroad, the counting still happens and the tenth still becomes sacred, but it is not brought up to be offered. The Gemara supports this from the wording of the baraita itself: it quotes a verse about bringing, so it can only be teaching about bringing.
Key Terms:
- לִיקְרַב = to be offered on the altar
- לִיקְדַּשׁ = to become sacred, i.e. to take on the sanctity of animal tithe
- דַּיְקָא נָמֵי = ‘it is also precise’, a proof from the exact wording of the source
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
What is the point of sanctity that never reaches the altar? The animal is eaten by its owner once blemished
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרֵב, אַמַּאי קָדוֹשׁ? לְנֶאֱכָל בְּמוּמוֹ לַבְּעָלִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If so, since animal tithe outside of Eretz Yisrael is not sacrificed on the altar, why is it consecrated? What is the significance of its sanctity? The Gemara answers that it is consecrated to the extent that it may be eaten by its owner only when it develops a blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the tithe animal from abroad will never be offered, what does its sanctity achieve? The Gemara answers that it has real consequences: the animal is forbidden for ordinary use while unblemished, and the owner may eat it only after it develops a blemish. Until then it may not be shorn or worked, and like any tithe animal it may not be redeemed or sold. The same pattern holds for a firstborn animal today: it is sacred, it waits for a blemish, and then it is eaten. The answer sets up the next question. If the animal tithe still applies when the Temple is not standing, why does no one separate it?
Key Terms:
- לְנֶאֱכָל בְּמוּמוֹ = to be eaten once it has a blemish
- מוּם = a physical blemish that disqualifies an animal from the altar
- לַבְּעָלִים = to the owners; unlike the firstborn, which goes to a kohen, the tithe animal stays with its owner
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (רב הונא)
If the tithe applies without the Temple, why not today? Rav Huna: a decree because of the ‘orphan’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הָאִידָּנָא נָמֵי! כִּדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם יָתוֹם.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the animal tithe is in effect both in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. The Gemara challenges: If so, then even nowadays the halakha of the animal tithe should be in effect. Why then do people not remove every tenth animal from their flock or herd? The Gemara answers: The reason is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: This is a rabbinic decree due to an orphan, i.e., a baby animal whose mother died before it was born, lest it be included with the other animals to be tithed; the obligation of animal tithe does not apply to it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna said the animal tithe applies even when the Temple is not standing, so the Gemara asks why it is not separated today. Rav Huna answers that the Sages decreed against it because of the yatom, the ‘orphan’ animal whose mother died before it was born. Such an animal is exempt from the tithe, as the perek will teach, and including it in the count spoils the procedure. If a farmer counted an orphan among his ten, he might consecrate the wrong animal or leave the obligation unmet. Rather than risk that, the Sages stopped the practice altogether. The next segment tests whether this explanation holds.
Key Terms:
- הָאִידָּנָא = nowadays, in the present time
- גְּזֵירָה = a rabbinic decree made as a safeguard
- יָתוֹם = an ‘orphan’ animal, born after its mother died (or whose mother was slaughtered), exempt from the animal tithe
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ודחייה
The orphan was a risk in Temple times too, and an announcement solved it then; it can solve it now
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, מֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי לָא! אֶלָּא, אֶפְשָׁר בְּהַכְרָזָה. הָכָא נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר בְּהַכְרָזָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: If so, then even originally, when the Temple stood, the practice should have also been not to separate animal tithe in case an orphaned animal was included in the counting. Rather, the Gemara explains that there was no concern for an orphaned animal when the Temple stood, as it was possible to remove this concern by issuing an announcement to everyone that an orphaned animal is exempt from animal tithe. The Gemara suggests: Here too, it is possible to remove the concern by means of an announcement that an orphaned animal is exempt from animal tithe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects Rav Huna’s answer. The risk of an orphan slipping into the count existed when the Temple stood, yet the tithe was separated then. The reply that a public announcement dealt with it then only makes things worse, because the same announcement would work today. Nothing about the orphan problem changed when the Temple was destroyed. So it cannot explain why the practice stopped. A good explanation must point to something that depends on the Temple being gone, and Rabba supplies one in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- מֵעִיקָּרָא = originally, i.e. in Temple times
- הַכְרָזָה = a public announcement, here that an orphan animal is exempt
- הָכָא נָמֵי = ‘here too’, applying the same answer to the present case
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא (רבה) וראיה מברייתא
Rabba: the tithe is not separated today for fear of a takala, a mishap with consecrated property; proof from the rule against consecrating today
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּלָה, וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לְתַקָּלָה? דִּתְנַן: אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין, וְאֵין מַעֲרִיכִין, וְאֵין מַחְרִימִין בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה.
English Translation:
Rather, Rabba says: The reason animal tithe is no longer separated is due to concern that a mishap might occur. And from where do you say that we are concerned for a mishap after the destruction of the Temple? As we learned in a baraita: One may neither consecrate items, nor valuate an item’s worth based on its appraisal, nor dedicate items for sacred use (see Leviticus, chapter 27) and dedicate its monetary worth to the Temple treasury, in the present time, when the Temple is no longer standing.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba offers a reason that does depend on the Temple’s absence: takala, the risk of a mishap with consecrated property. A tithe animal today cannot be offered, so it sits in the owner’s flock for a long time waiting for a blemish. During that time he might shear it, work it or eat it too early, and so misuse a sacred animal. That the Sages worried about this is shown by a teaching that today one should not consecrate property, valuate (make an erech pledge) or dedicate as cherem. With no Temple to receive these things, sacred property only invites misuse.
Key Terms:
- תַּקָּלָה = a mishap; here, an accidental misuse of consecrated property
- מַקְדִּישִׁין = consecrating property to the Temple
- מַעֲרִיכִין = pledging a person’s fixed ‘valuation’ (erech) to the Temple, per Vayikra 27
- מַחְרִימִין = dedicating property as cherem, for the Temple or the kohanim
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
If one did consecrate today: the animal is left to die, perishable goods rot, money and metal go to the Dead Sea
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם הִקְדִּישׁ וְהֶעֱרִיךְ וְהֶחְרִים, בְּהֵמָה — תֵּיעָקֵר, פֵּירוֹת כְּסוּת וְכֵלִים — יֵרָקְבוּ, מָעוֹת וּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת — יוֹלִיךְ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְאֵיזֶהוּ עִיקּוּר? נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בְּפָנֶיהָ וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: And if one did consecrate, or valuate, or dedicate items for sacred use, the presence of these items might lead to the mishap of the violation of the prohibition against using consecrated property. Therefore, if one dedicated an animal it should be destroyed. If he dedicated produce, garments, or vessels made from materials that decompose, he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. The Gemara adds: And in the case of an animal, what constitutes uprooting? He locks the door before it, and it dies on its own from hunger. This baraita indicates that animals that cannot be sacrificed nowadays must be left to die so that they are not used improperly.
קלאוד על הדף:
The teaching continues with what to do if someone consecrated anyway. Each kind of property is put beyond use in the way that suits it. An animal is ‘uprooted’, perishable produce, clothing and vessels are left to rot, and coins and metal vessels, which never decay, are thrown into the Dead Sea. The Gemara explains that ‘uprooting’ an animal does not mean killing it directly. He shuts it in behind a locked door and it dies by itself, so he does not harm a sacred animal with his own hands. The harshness of these steps shows how seriously the Sages took the risk of takala, and that is Rabba’s point.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיעָקֵר = ‘shall be uprooted’, i.e. destroyed
- יֵרָקְבוּ = they shall be left to rot
- יָם הַמֶּלַח = the Dead Sea, where items are thrown so no one can benefit from them
- נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בְּפָנֶיהָ = he locks the door before it, leaving it to die on its own
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ וחידוד הקושיא
Then why let the firstborn become sacred? It is sacred from the womb; rather, sell its ears to a gentile in advance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, בְּכוֹר נָמֵי לָא לִיקְדֹּשׁ! בְּכוֹר בְּדִידַן תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא? בְּרֶחֶם קָדוֹשׁ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לִיקְנִינְהוּ לְאוּדְנַיְיהוּ לְגוֹיִם, דְּלָא לִיקְדֹּשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: If so, then a firstborn should also not be consecrated, as this too could lead to a mishap. The Gemara responds: Does the matter of the consecration of a firstborn depend on us? The animal is automatically consecrated upon its exit from the womb. The Gemara answers that this is what the questioner is saying: Let us sell the ears of all firstborn animals to gentiles before their births, so that they are not consecrated from the outset. A firstborn animal that is jointly owned by a Jew and a gentile does not become consecrated as a firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
If fear of takala ended the animal tithe, the same fear should apply to the firstborn, which also sits in the flock today waiting for a blemish. The Gemara first answers that the firstborn is different, since its sanctity does not depend on us: it is sacred from the womb. The questioner sharpens his challenge. We can still stop it from becoming sacred, by selling a share in the unborn animal, such as its ears, to a gentile. A firstborn partly owned by a gentile does not become sacred. If the Sages feared takala, why did they not require this? The answer comes on 53b.
Key Terms:
- בְּרֶחֶם קָדוֹשׁ = sacred from the womb, automatically, with no act of consecration
- לִיקְנִינְהוּ לְאוּדְנַיְיהוּ לְגוֹיִם = ‘let us transfer their ears to gentiles’, selling a share so the animal is exempt
- שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי = a gentile’s partnership in an animal, which exempts it from the sanctity of the firstborn
Amud Bet (53b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ (רב יהודה) וקושיא
There is a better way for the firstborn: blemish it before birth; then the same should work for the tithe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶפְשָׁר כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מוּתָּר לוֹ לָאָדָם לְהַטִּיל מוּם בִּבְכוֹר קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם. הָכָא נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּשָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא מֵעִיקָּרָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara explains that it is possible to act in a different manner, so that the priest does not lose out on his rights to the firstborn animal. One can act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda says: It is permitted for a person to inflict a blemish upon a firstborn animal fetus before it emerges into the air of the world. The Gemara challenges: If so, here too, it is possible for one to inflict a blemish from the outset, before the animal becomes consecrated as the tithed animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that selling to a gentile is unnecessary, because Rav Yehuda gives a better solution: a person may make a blemish on a firstborn while it is still in the womb. The animal is then born sacred but already blemished. It goes to the kohen and may be eaten at once, so there is no long wait and no risk of takala, and the kohen keeps his gift. The Gemara turns this back on the animal tithe. Here too, the owner could blemish the animal before it becomes sacred, and the tithe could then be separated without any risk of takala.
Key Terms:
- לְהַטִּיל מוּם = to make a blemish in an animal
- קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם = before it emerges into the air of the world, i.e. before birth, when it is not yet sacred
- שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא = ‘he casts a blemish on it’, inflicts a blemish
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
One cannot know which animal will be tenth, and arranging it violates ‘he shall not inquire whether it be good or bad’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִי יָדַע הֵי נָפֵיק? וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ בְּרֵישׁ עַשְׂרָה — ״לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: How can one know which animal will emerge as the tenth? Since it is impossible to know this, one cannot inflict a blemish on the animal before it becomes consecrated. And if you would say that one should bring out the animal upon which he has inflicted the blemish at the head of the ten animals to ensure that it will be the tithed animal, this is not a valid option, as the Merciful One states: “He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:33). This means one may not plan in advance which animal will be the tenth.
קלאוד על הדף:
The firstborn is easy to target because nature marks it as the first to open the womb. The tenth animal is decided only at the counting, when the animals pass under the rod one by one. So the owner cannot know in advance which one to blemish. Could he put the blemished animal in the right place in the line so that it comes out tenth? The Torah forbids this: ‘he shall not inquire whether it be good or bad’ (Vayikra 27:33). The tenth must be whatever comes out tenth, with no choosing or arranging. Blemishing one chosen animal does not work.
Key Terms:
- מִי יָדַע הֵי נָפֵיק = who knows which one will come out (as the tenth)?
- בְּרֵישׁ עַשְׂרָה = at the head of the ten, i.e. placed in the line so that it comes out tenth
- לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע = ‘he shall not inquire whether it be good or bad’ (Vayikra 27:33), the ban on choosing which animal becomes the tithe
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ודחייה
Blemish the whole herd? No: the Temple will soon be rebuilt and unblemished animals will be needed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי תֵּימָא: אֶפְשָׁר דְּשָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ עֶדְרֵיהּ — מְהֵרָה יִבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּבָעֵינַן בְּהֵמָה לְהַקְרָבָה וְלֵיכָּא.
English Translation:
And if you would say it is possible to inflict a blemish on the entire herd of animals and thereby ensure the tenth one will be blemished, that is also undesirable. The reason is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt and we will require animals for offerings, and there will be none remaining without a blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
If no single animal can be targeted, the owner might blemish every animal in the herd, so that whichever comes out tenth is already blemished. The Gemara rejects this with a statement of hope: ‘soon the Temple will be rebuilt’. Then unblemished animals will be needed for offerings, and there will be none if everyone has blemished his flock. The Sages would not adopt a practice that left the people unprepared for the rebuilding. It is notable that a halachic argument rests on the expectation that the Temple could be rebuilt at any time.
Key Terms:
- כּוּלֵּיהּ עֶדְרֵיהּ = his entire herd
- מְהֵרָה יִבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ = ‘soon the Temple will be rebuilt’
- בְּהֵמָה לְהַקְרָבָה = an animal fit to be offered, i.e. unblemished
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The same worry applies to blemishing firstborns; but offerings can come from ordinary non-firstborn animals
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי נָמֵי בִּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה, מְהֵרָה יִבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּבָעֵינַן בְּהֵמָה לְהַקְרָבָה וְלֵיכָּא! אֶפְשָׁר בִּפְשׁוּטִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But here too, with regard to a firstborn animal, why not also say that soon the Temple will be rebuilt and we will require animals for offerings and there will be none remaining without a blemish? The Gemara answers: It is possible to bring the offerings from ordinary animals that are not firstborns.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why Rav Yehuda’s blemishing of firstborns does not raise the same worry about a shortage of animals for the rebuilt Temple. The answer is that only firstborns are blemished, and a firstborn is a small share of the flock. Offerings can come from ordinary animals (peshutin) that were never firstborns. Blemishing every firstborn leaves most of the flock unblemished. Blemishing the whole herd to avoid the tithe leaves nothing.
Key Terms:
- פְּשׁוּטִין = ordinary animals, i.e. those that are not firstborns
- בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה = the firstborn male of a kosher domestic animal, sacred from birth
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Buy unblemished animals, which are exempt from the tithe? Not if everyone blemishes his herd, and disqualifying blemishes are tiny and common
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר בִּלְקוּחִין! כֵּיוָן דְּאִיהוּ שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ עֶדְרֵיהּ, וּשְׁכִיחִי מוּמֵי דְּפָסְילִי בְּקָדָשִׁים, דַּאֲפִילּוּ דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן נָמֵי פָּסְלִי — לָא שְׁכִיחִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: Here too, with regard to the animal tithe, it is possible to bring the offerings from animals purchased from another person, which are exempt from animal tithe, as taught in the mishna on 55b. The Gemara answers: Since anyone who has animals inflicts a blemish on all of the animals in his herd to avoid consecrating the tithe, there will be very few unblemished animals available for purchase. And furthermore, blemishes that disqualify sacrificial animals are common, as even if the blemish is small, e.g., on the animal’s eyelid, it disqualifies the animal from being used for sacrifice. Therefore, it will not be common to find animals fit to be used as offerings. For this reason the Sages decreed that one should not tithe his animals in the present time.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tries once more. Purchased animals are exempt from the animal tithe (as the mishna on 55b will teach), so offerings in the rebuilt Temple could come from animals bought from others. The answer is that there would be nothing to buy. If blemishing were the accepted way to avoid the tithe, every owner would blemish his whole herd. And this would be easy to do, because even a tiny mark, such as one on the eyelid (dukin), makes an animal unfit for the altar. Unblemished animals would become rare everywhere. So the Sages preferred to stop separating the tithe altogether, and Rabba’s explanation stands.
Key Terms:
- לְקוּחִין = purchased animals, which are exempt from the animal tithe
- דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן = a small blemish of the eye (on the eyelid), enough to disqualify a sacrifice
- לָא שְׁכִיחִי = they are not common, i.e. unblemished animals would be scarce
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Why say sacrificial animals are exempt? They no longer belong to the owner
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. מוּקְדָּשִׁין — פְּשִׁיטָא, לָאו דִּידֵיהּ נִינְהוּ!
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the mitzva of animal tithe is in effect with regard to non-sacred animals but not with regard to sacrificial animals. The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that the mitzva to tithe is not in effect with regard to sacrificial animals, as they are not his. Since sacrificial animals have been dedicated to the Temple, of course the owner cannot subsequently consecrate them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s next clause: the tithe applies to non-sacred animals but not to consecrated ones. This seems too obvious to need saying. An animal already consecrated as an offering no longer belongs to its owner in the ordinary sense, so how could he make it sacred a second time as his tithe? The Torah says ‘your herd’ and ‘your flock’, so only one’s own animals are counted. The Gemara must find a case where it was not obvious, and it does so in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- פְּשִׁיטָא = ‘it is obvious’, a challenge that a ruling is unnecessary
- לָאו דִּידֵיהּ נִינְהוּ = they are not his, i.e. they belong to the Most High, not to the owner
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ (שיטת רבי יוסי הגלילי)
The mishna means offerings of lesser sanctity, which Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds are the owner’s property
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הֵם. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֵן מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא לִיעַשְּׂרוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., peace offerings, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: Offerings of lesser sanctity are the monetary property of their owners, and therefore the owner can consecrate them. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the guilt offering of a robber who takes a false oath, that the verse: “And he commits a trespass against the Lord” (Leviticus 5:21), serves to include one who takes a false oath with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity belonging to another, which are the property of their owners. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Accordingly, it might enter your mind to say that such animals should be tithed. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the mitzva of animal tithe is not in effect with regard to sacrificial animals at all.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna is needed for kodashim kalim, offerings of lesser sanctity such as a peace offering, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. He holds that such offerings remain the owner’s property, mamon ba’alim. He proves it from the robber’s guilt offering. The words ‘and he commits a trespass against the Lord’ (Vayikra 5:21) include one who falsely denies holding another person’s offering of lesser sanctity. That can only be a loss to the owner if the offering is still his property. If a peace offering is still the owner’s, one might think it counts as ‘his’ animal and enters the tithe count. The mishna rules that it does not.
Key Terms:
- קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים = offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g. peace offerings, the firstborn and the animal tithe itself
- מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים = the monetary property of the owners
- וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה׳ = ‘and he commits a trespass against the Lord’ (Vayikra 5:21), the verse of the guilt offering for false denial
- סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא = ‘it would enter your mind to say’, the reason a ruling was needed
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Perhaps they should be tithed? ‘Shall be sacred’ excludes an animal that is already sacred
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! ״יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא שֶׁכְּבָר קָדוֹשׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: But one can say it is indeed so, i.e., perhaps offerings of lesser sanctity can indeed be tithed. The Gemara responds that the Merciful One states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This teaches that this mitzva applies only to an animal that can become sacred in the future but not to an animal that is already sanctified, e.g., that has been set aside as an offering of lesser sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: perhaps they are indeed tithed? The answer is in the verse. The tenth ‘shall be sacred’ (yihyeh kodesh, Vayikra 27:32), in the future tense. The tithe applies to an animal that becomes sacred through the counting, not to one that is sacred already. So a peace offering is excluded even if it is the owner’s property. This clears the mishna, but it raises a new question. Why was a verse needed at all, if there is a general rule that one sanctity cannot take effect on top of another?
Key Terms:
- יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ = ‘shall be sacred’ (Vayikra 27:32), read as excluding what is already sacred
- שֶׁכְּבָר קָדוֹשׁ = that which is already sacred
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Why need the verse? If stringent sanctity cannot take effect on lesser sanctity, then lesser sanctity certainly cannot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא חָיְילָא קְדוּשַּׁת מַעֲשֵׂר עִילָּוַיְהוּ? הַשְׁתָּא קְדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה אַקְּדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה לָא חָיְילָא, קְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה אַקְּדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה מִיבַּעְיָא?!
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: The reason that offerings of lesser sanctity cannot be tithed is that the Merciful One writes: “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord,” from which it can be inferred that were that not the case, I would say that the sanctity of the animal tithe does take effect on the animal. This claim is difficult, as now that consecration of stringent sanctity does not take effect with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, as will be explained, is it necessary to teach that a consecration of lesser sanctity does not take effect with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now asks why the verse was needed. Reading ‘shall be sacred’ as an exclusion implies that without it, the tithe’s sanctity would have taken effect on a peace offering. But there is a general rule that even a more stringent sanctity cannot take effect on an animal that already has a lesser one. If so, then a lesser sanctity, the tithe, certainly cannot take effect on another lesser sanctity, the peace offering. The verse seems unnecessary, and the Gemara first identifies the source of the rule.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה = stringent sanctity, e.g. that of a burnt offering
- קְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה = lesser sanctity, e.g. that of a peace offering or the animal tithe
- חָיְילָא = takes effect (on an object)
- מִיבַּעְיָא = ‘is it necessary (to say)?’, a kal vachomer showing a ruling is self-evident
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה (תמורה) כמקור
The source: a consecrated item cannot be moved from one sanctity to another, though its value can be consecrated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אֵין מְשַׁנִּין אוֹתָם מִקְּדוּשָּׁה לִקְדוּשָּׁה, אֲבָל מַקְדִּישִׁין אוֹתָן הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי, וּמַחְרִימִין אוֹתָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: What is this halakha that consecration of stringent sanctity does not take effect with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity? As we learned in a mishna (Temura 32a): Both concerning animals consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance, one cannot alter their designation from one form of sanctity to another form of sanctity. But one can consecrate an animal already consecrated for the altar by consecration of its value, and that value is donated to the Temple treasury for maintenance, in addition to the sacrificing of the animal. And one can dedicate that value for the purpose of giving it to the priests. This mishna teaches that one may not consecrate an animal that has already been consecrated for Temple maintenance as an offering for the altar, despite the fact that an offering has more stringent sanctity, and if so, then the sanctity of the animal tithe certainly does not take effect with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites the mishna (Temura 32a) as the source of the rule. Whether an item is consecrated for the altar or for Temple maintenance (bedek habayit), its owner cannot shift it from one kind of sanctity to another. He can, however, layer a separate consecration on top of it. He can pledge its value (hekdesh ilui) to the Temple treasury, or dedicate it as cherem, while the animal itself keeps its first sanctity. Since a new sanctity cannot replace an existing one, even a higher one, the Gemara’s question stands: why did the Torah need ‘shall be sacred’ to keep the tithe off a peace offering?
Key Terms:
- קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ = animals consecrated for the altar
- קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת = property consecrated for Temple maintenance, to be sold for its value
- מִקְּדוּשָּׁה לִקְדוּשָּׁה = from one sanctity to another
- הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי = consecration of the value of an item already consecrated, paid to the Temple treasury
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
The verse is still needed: every animal is a potential tithe from birth, so one might think the tithe status is not removed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם, דְּכׇל בְּהֵמָה לָאו לְעוֹלָה קָיְימָא, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּכׇל בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר קָיְימָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאַקְדְּשַׁהּ — לָא פָּקַע אִיסּוּרָא דְּמַעֲשֵׂר מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Even so, it is necessary for the mishna to teach that tithes do not take effect on offerings of lesser sanctity, lest you say that there, in the mishna in Temura, the reason is that not every animal stands to potentially become a burnt offering, i.e., an offering of more stringent sanctity, from the time it is born. For this reason the greater sanctity cannot take effect once the animal has been consecrated as an offering of lesser sanctity. But in the mishna here, where every animal stands to potentially become an animal tithe offering, one might have thought that even though it is consecrated as an offering of lesser sanctity, nevertheless the initial potential prohibition, i.e., status, of animal tithe is not abrogated from it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the verse is still needed, because the tithe differs from the case in Temura. There, an animal has no special connection to the burnt offering until someone consecrates it. So a peace offering simply cannot be made into a burnt offering. But every animal born in a herd is a candidate for the animal tithe from the day it is born. One might think this potential status stays with it even after it is consecrated as a peace offering, so that when it passes under the rod the tithe’s sanctity would also apply. ‘Shall be sacred’ teaches that consecration removes the animal from the tithe.
Key Terms:
- מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא = ‘lest you say’, introducing the reasoning a verse comes to reject
- לְעוֹלָה קָיְימָא = ‘stands for a burnt offering’, i.e. is destined for one by nature
- לָא פָּקַע = is not removed
- אִיסּוּרָא דְּמַעֲשֵׂר = the ‘prohibition’ of the tithe, i.e. the tithe status that would attach to it
Segment 12
TYPE: שאלה ותירוץ
What difference would it make? Tithe status would add ‘it shall not be redeemed’ and ‘it shall not be sold’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? בְּ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ וּבְ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: What difference is there if an animal that has been consecrated as a peace offering is also sanctified as an animal tithe offering? The Gemara explains that if it is sanctified as an animal tithe offering, the prohibition of: “It shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33), and the prohibition of: It shall not be sold (see 32b), take effect. A peace offering can be redeemed, whereas it is prohibited to redeem or sell animal tithe even after its slaughter. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the sanctity of animal tithe does not take effect on animals that have been consecrated as offerings of lesser sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since the animal is sacred anyway as a peace offering, what difference would an added tithe status make? The Gemara answers that the tithe carries prohibitions of its own. A tithe animal may never be redeemed, even after it becomes blemished, since ‘it shall not be redeemed’ (Vayikra 27:33). It also may not be sold, as the Gemara learned on 32b. A blemished peace offering, by contrast, can be redeemed and becomes ordinary. Without the verse, a peace offering that passed under the rod would have been locked into these stricter rules. The mishna and the verse teach that it is not.
Key Terms:
- לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ = ‘what is the practical difference?’
- לֹא יִגָּאֵל = ‘it shall not be redeemed’ (Vayikra 27:33), said of the animal tithe
- לֹא יִמָּכֵר = ‘it shall not be sold’, the ban on selling a tithe animal (see 32b)
- פִּדְיוֹן = redemption: transferring the sanctity of a blemished offering to money so the animal becomes ordinary
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא (קל וחומר)
A kal vachomer: if sheep and goats, which are kilayim, combine, surely new and old animals of one species should
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנוֹהֵג בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן, וְאֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, בַּכְּבָשִׂים וּבָעִזִּים וְכוּ׳. וְיִהְיוּ חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים שֶׁהֵם כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה?
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: And the animal tithe is in effect with regard to the herd and the flock, but they are not tithed from one for the other; and it is in effect with regard to sheep and goats, and they are tithed from one for the other. In this regard the Gemara cites a baraita: Let it be proven that the animals from the new flock and the animals from the old flock can be tithed from one for the other, by an a fortiori inference: And if sheep and goats, which are prohibited for interbreeding with each other due to the prohibition of diverse kinds, are nevertheless tithed from one for the other, with regard to animals from the new flock and the old flock, which are not prohibited for interbreeding with each other as diverse kinds, is it not logical that they should be tithed from one for the other?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s last clauses with a baraita that runs the mishna’s reasoning in reverse. The mishna used new-and-old to argue against combining sheep and goats. The baraita uses sheep-and-goats, which the Torah allows to combine, to argue that new-and-old should combine too. If even two species that are kilayim with each other are tithed together, then animals of the same species born in different years should certainly be. The baraita raises the argument in order to refute it, and the refutation will show where the rule about new and old comes from.
Key Terms:
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר = an a fortiori argument: if the lenient case has a rule, the stringent case certainly does
- אֵינוֹ דִּין = ‘is it not logical?’, the closing formula of a kal vachomer
- כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה = diverse kinds with one another, forbidden to interbreed
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך): היקש
‘You shall tithe a tithe’ covers two tithes and compares the animal tithe to the grain tithe: no tithing from new for old
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר״ בִּשְׁתֵּי מַעַשְׂרוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֶחָד מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן, וּמַקִּישׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן: מָה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן לֹא, אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן לֹא.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: “You shall tithe a tithe from all the increase of your seed that the field brings forth year by year. And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place that He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herds and of your flocks; that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always” (Deuteronomy 14:22–23). Here, the verse is speaking of two tithes; one is the animal tithe and the other one is the grain tithe. And the verse juxtaposes the animal tithe to the grain tithe, teaching that just as the grain tithe is not taken from the new grain for the old grain, so too, the animal tithe is not taken from the new flock for the old flock.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita answers from Devarim 14:22-23. The doubled ‘aser te’aser’, ‘you shall tithe a tithe’, is read as two tithes: of produce and of animals. The following verse also lists ‘the tithe of your grain’ together with ‘the firstborn of your herds and of your flocks’. The Torah compares (hekesh) the animal tithe to the grain tithe. For grain, it is an established rule that one may not tithe this year’s crop for last year’s. So too for animals, the new and the old are counted separately. A hekesh in the verse outweighs a kal vachomer drawn from logic.
Key Terms:
- עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר = ‘you shall tithe a tithe’ (Devarim 14:22), read as covering two tithes
- הֶיקֵּשׁ / מַקִּישׁ = a comparison the Torah makes by placing two subjects together, so one takes the other’s rules
- מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן = from the new for the old, i.e. separating one year’s tithe for another year’s crop
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Then the hekesh should forbid combining sheep and goats too, as grain is not tithed across species; ‘flock’ includes them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים נָמֵי לֵימָא: מַקִּישׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן — מָה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לֹא, אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לֹא? רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״צֹאן״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If so, let us say with regard to sheep and goats that they too are not tithed for each other, by the same reasoning, i.e., that the verse juxtaposes the animal tithe to the grain tithe: Just as grain tithe is not separated from one type of grain for another grain that is not its type, so too, animal tithe is not separated from one type of animal for another species of animal that is not its type. The Gemara answers that with regard to animal tithe the Merciful One has amplified the halakha by stating “flock” (Leviticus 27:32). This teaches that all species referred to with the term flock, i.e., sheep and goats, are tithed together.
קלאוד על הדף:
The comparison seems to prove too much. The grain tithe also may not be taken from one species for another (wheat for barley, for example). So the same hekesh should keep sheep and goats apart for the animal tithe. The Gemara answers with the word from the mishna: the Torah wrote צאן, ‘flock’, and a flock includes both sheep and goats. That specific word overrides the general comparison on this point. For species the Torah ruled directly. For years the comparison to grain applies.
Key Terms:
- מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ = from one species for a species that is not its own
- רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא = ‘the Merciful One included’, the Torah widened the rule by a specific word
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (רבא)
Why apply the hekesh to years and ‘flock’ to species, and not the reverse? Rava: ‘year by year’ limits the comparison to years
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן נָמֵי! הָא כְּתִיב ״עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר״. וּמָה רָאִיתָ? אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״שָׁנָה שָׁנָה״ — לְשָׁנָה הִקַּשְׁתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: If so, let us also say that new flocks are tithed together with old flocks, based on that amplification of the verse. The Gemara answers that it is written: “You shall tithe a tithe” (Deuteronomy 14:22), to teach that old and new flocks are not tithed together. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to use the juxtaposition to prohibit tithing old and new flocks together but not to prohibit tithing sheep and goats together? Rava said the verse states: “Year by year” (Deuteronomy 14:22), which teaches that I have juxtaposed the flocks with regard to the year in which they were born, i.e., to prohibit tithing old and new flocks together, but not with regard to another matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why the inclusion from ‘flock’ should not cover new and old animals as well. The answer is that ‘aser te’aser’ is written for that purpose. But then, ‘what did you see?’: why does each verse get the area it does, and not the other way round? Rava answers from the end of the same verse, ‘shana shana’, ‘year by year’ (Devarim 14:22). The Torah itself says the comparison to grain concerns the year, and nothing else. So the hekesh keeps years apart, ‘flock’ joins species, and the mishna’s two rules are both explained.
Key Terms:
- וּמָה רָאִיתָ = ‘and what did you see?’, asking why a source was applied one way and not the other
- שָׁנָה שָׁנָה = ‘year by year’ (Devarim 14:22), limiting the comparison to the year
- לְשָׁנָה הִקַּשְׁתִּיו = ‘I compared them for the year’, only for the matter of the year
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה (תרומות ב:ד) ומקור (רבי אמי)
Teruma may not be separated from one species for another; the source is ‘all the best of the oil and all the best of the wine’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, וְאִם תָּרַם — אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב יִצְהָר וְכׇל חֵלֶב תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן״ — אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: תֵּן חֵלֶב לָזֶה וְחֵלֶב לָזֶה.
English Translation:
§ We learned in a mishna there (Terumot 2:4): One may not separate the portion of the produce designated for the priest [teruma] from one type of produce to exempt another type of produce that is not its type, and if one did separate teruma in that manner, his teruma is not teruma. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yannai says, and some say that Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, that the verse states with regard to teruma: “All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the grain, the first part of them, which they give to the Lord, to you have I given them” (Numbers 18:12). The Torah says: Give the best, i.e., teruma and tithes, of this, the oil, and the best of that, the wine, separately, i.e., one may not give teruma or tithes from one for the other. This mitzva also applies to tithes, as it too is called: “The best” (Numbers 18:30).
קלאוד על הדף:
The mention of tithing across species brings the Gemara to a related rule. A mishna in Terumot (2:4) rules that teruma may not be separated from one kind of produce for another, and if it was, the separation is void. Rabbi Ami gives the source, citing either Rabbi Yannai or Reish Lakish. The verse (Bamidbar 18:12) repeats the word cheilev, ‘best’, for the oil and again for the wine and grain. This tells us: give ‘the best’ of this and ‘the best’ of that, each from itself. Because the tithes are also called cheilev (18:30), the rule covers them too. The discussion continues on 54a.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמָה = teruma: the portion of produce given to a kohen
- אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה = his teruma is not teruma, i.e. the separation is void
- חֵלֶב = ‘the best’ (literally fat), the Torah’s word for the choice portion given as teruma
- תֵּן חֵלֶב לָזֶה וְחֵלֶב לָזֶה = give ‘the best’ for this and ‘the best’ for that, each species separately